Loading...
Minutes 01/07/14 PUBLIC HEARING January 07, 2014 Present: Sara Fisher Chairman Jill Ryan Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Bryan Treu County Attorney Teak Simonton Clerk to the Board Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing,the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: EAGLE COUNTY PAYMENT REPORT Published under the direction of the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners DECEMBER 2013 Vendor Type Amount 1001 General Fund ACTION PUBLISHING INC Supplies 181.91 ADP Services 1,776.01 ADP Services 4,683.07 ADP SCREENING&SELECTION SERVICES Services 600.00 ALPINE ARMS Supplies 174.52 ALPINE BANK Services 25,200.00 ALPINE BANK Supplies 150.00 ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY Supplies 93.75 AMY OSBORNE Services Expense Reimbursement 49.72 ANA MENDOZA Services Expense Reimbursement 27.12 ANA MENDOZA Services Expense Reimbursement 50.00 ANRAY INTL CORPORATION Supplies 306.85 APPLIED TRUST INC. Services 87.50 APR,LLC Services 284.85 ARAMARK COMPANY Supplies 771.85 AT&T Services 2,688.45 AUDIO VISUAL SERVICES GROUP,INC. Services 288.75 BALCOMB AND GREEN Services 332.00 BART LAEMMEL Services 200.00 BASELINE ASSOCIATES,INC Services 280.00 BEN GALLOWAY MD, Services 1,215.00 BOB BARKER COMPANY Supplies 8,087.00 BORDEN DAIRY COMPANY Supplies 1,259.40 BROWNELLS INC Supplies 34.12 BRYAN TREU Services Expense Reimbursement 222.18 BURBACH&ASSOCIATES INC Services 70.00 BURST COMMUNICATIONS,INC. Supplies 86.54 CANYON WATER RESOURCES LLC Services 1,610.00 CAPITAL ONE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Services 909.94 CAPITAL ONE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Supplies 246.36 CAPITAL ONE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Supplies 241.44 1 01/07/2014 CAPITAL ONE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Supplies 99.99 CAPITAL ONE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Supplies 201.29 CAPITAL ONE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Supplies 223.01 CARDIFF CORP. Services 1,504.00 CDW GOVERNMENT Supplies 1,434.27 CDW GOVERNMENT Supplies 4,846.62 CED CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTORS Supplies 16232 CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING Supplies 465.20 CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING Supplies 376.60 CENTURYLINK Services 16,627.25 CHARACTER FIRST Services 1,577.00 CHARLES D JONES CO,INC. Supplies 3.63 CHARM-TEX INC. Supplies 968.80 CHEMA TOX LABORATORY,INC Services 455.00 CITADEL SECURITY&INVESTIGATIONS Services 7,676.00 CLEAN DESIGNS Services 240.16 CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY FOR THE REGION Services 20.00 CMS COMMUNICATIONS INC Supplies 840.00 CNIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS Payroll 4,405.86 CNIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS Payroll 6,653.02 COLLEEN WIRTH Services Expense Reimbursement 15.00 COLLEEN WIRTH Supplies Expense Reimbursement 12.00 COLLETTS ENTERPRISES,INC. Services 126.04 COLORADO DEPARTMENT AGRICULTURE Services 50.00 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIROMEN Services 6,235.00 COLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGE Services 2,620.00 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA Services 349.27 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA Services 1,632.76 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA Services 13.52 COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Services 16,000.00 COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY Services 333.50 COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY Services 21,174.14 COLORADO WEST MENTAL HEALTH INC Services 350.00 COLORADO WEST MENTAL HEALTH INC Services 1,612.50 COMPLETE TESTING SOLUTIONS Supplies 899.91 CONSERVE A WATT LIGHTING INC Supplies 106.80 CONSERVICE LLC Services 29.62 CONSERVICE LLC Services 62.11 CONSERVICE LLC Services 40.66 CONSERVICE LLC Services 42.20 CONSERVICE LLC Services 6.04 CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE COMPANIES,INC Services 251.13 CUMMINS ROCKY MOUNTAIN Services 2,003.97 CUSTOMER CONNECTIONS&INNOVATIONS,INC. Services 971.25 D&D MANZANARES,INC. Services 9,705.91 DOCTORS ON CALL Services 50.00 DUFFORD WALDECK MILBURN&KROHN LLP Services 313.50 EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT-ATTN FINANCE Interfund Payables 576,041.03 EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT-ATTN FINANCE Interfund Payables 514,916.50 2 01/07/2014 EAGLE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT Supplies 5,232.28 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER Services 13.00 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER Payroll 1,091,326.76 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER Payroll 1,393.68 EAGLE PROCESS SERVERS Services 150.00 EAGLE VALLEY EVENTS INC Services 3,200.00 EARLY CHILDHOOD PARTNERS Services 750.00 EASTER OWENS ELECTRIC COMPANY Services 1,105.00 ECOLAB Supplies 70.21 EDWARDS COMMUNITY AUTHORITY Services 1,400.00 ELAM CONSTRUCTION INC Services 15,958.50 EPS DESIGN AND PRINT Services 1,669.04 EVANGELINA MUNOZ-RUIZ Services 50.85 EVANGELINA MUNOZ-RUIZ Services 215.00 EVERETT FAMILY FUNERAL HOME AND CREMATORY Services 810.00 EXECUCOM Services 161.10 Experts Exchange,LLC Services 449.00 EXTRA PACKAGING CORP Supplies 54.70 FEDERAL EXPRESS Services 33.76 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED Supplies 89.77 FERRELL GAS Services 1,523.23 FIRKINS GARAGE DOORS INCORPORATED Services 212.50 FIRKINS GARAGE DOORS INCORPORATED Supplies 127.50 GEOFF HEIL Services Expense Reimbursement 207.40 GEORGE DOW Services Expense Reimbursement 205.10 GRAINGER INC Supplies 197.70 GRASMICK INC. Supplies 563.48 GREAT AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION Services 653.25 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 85,776.91 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 15,869.97 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 7,756.12 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 27,992.97 H&B SNOW REMOVAL SERVICES,INC Services 3,425.78 HALL&EVANS,LLC Services 173.40 HIGH COUNTRY COPIERS Supplies 898.00 HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INCORPORATED Supplies 549.21 HOLY CROSS ENERGY Services 1,783.81 HVAC SUPPLY Supplies 53.57 IACREOT Services 2,500.00 INTERMOUNTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES,INC. Services 189.00 IRENE FIGUEROA Services Expense Reimbursement 27.12 JBT'S CUSTOM SILK Services 145.00 JEANNETTE GAYLORD LORCH Supplies 112.50 JEFF PIEPER Services 359.34 JEFFERSON COUNTY Services 200.00 JENNIFER DOWNS Services 273.00 JESSIE MOSHER Services Expense Reimbursement 34.08 JESSIE MOSHER Supplies Expense Reimbursement 59.81 JOAN HANLON Supplies Expense Reimbursement 42.99 3 01/07/2014 JOEL DAVID FISCHER Services 195.00 JOHN DEGHETTO Supplies 100.00 JOHN LEWIS Services Expense Reimbursement 893.05 JOHN LEWIS Services Expense Reimbursement 22.60 JOHN LEWIS Supplies Expense Reimbursement 39.60 KARA BETTIS CORONER Services Expense Reimbursement 69.24 KARA BETTIS CORONER Services Expense Reimbursement 122.61 KEEP,REX,DBA REX KEEP PHOTOGRAPHY Services 350.00 KENDRA D.COWLES Services 58.20 KENDRA D.COWLES Supplies 39.04 KEVIN CASSIDY Services Expense Reimbursement 386.43 LAMINATION SERVICE INC Supplies 105.00 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Payroll 3,219.83 LOOMIS ARMORED US,LLC Services 35438 LUCAS TOWING AND AUTOMOTIVE Services 1,070.00 M 7 BUSINESS SYSTEMS Services 1,285.28 MAGGIE SWONGER Services Expense Reimbursement 347.48 MARIA RIOS Services Expense Reimbursement 334.10 MARIA RIOS Services Expense Reimbursement 13.45 MARIA RIOS Services Expense Reimbursement 530.53 MARK CHAPIN Services Expense Reimbursement 39939 MARKS PLUMBING PARTS Supplies 18.78 MATRIX SYSTEMS,INC Supplies 286.57 MATRIX SYSTEMS,INC Supplies 416.57 MERCEDES GARCIA Services 393.08 MGT OF AMERICA,INC Services 1,494.00 MICHELLE DIBOS Services 116.96 MICHELLE DIBOS Services 196.62 MICRO PLASTICS INC Supplies 13.57 MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Services 37230 MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Services 48.93 MOUNTAIN PEST CONTROL,INC. Services 285.50 MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL INCORPORATED Services 127.00 MTN MESA SPORT INC Supplies 395.73 MWI VETERNIARY SUPPLY COMPANY Supplies 307.46 NANCY WRIGHT Services Expense Reimbursement 222.18 NARDA REIGEL Services 4,290.00 NEOGOV Services 650.00 NICOLETTI-FLATER ASSOCIATES,PLLP Services 775.00 NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT Services 1,000.00 NORTHWEST COLORADO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Services 100.00 NRC BROADCASTING MOUNTAIN GROUP,LLC Services 8,740.00 OCCUSCREEN,LLC Services 25.00 OFFICE DEPOT Supplies 1,55430 OFFICE DEPOT Supplies 1,845.02 OSM DELIVERY LLC Services 268.13 PAINT BUCKET Supplies 21.79 PAPER WISE Services 637.00 PEAK PERFORMANCE COPIER&SUPPLY,INC Supplies 8,500.00 4 01/07/2014 PERKINS COIE LLP Services 547.82 PITNEY BOWES Services 3,150.00 PITNEY BOWES Services 25,810.00 PRECINCT POLICE PRODUCTS Supplies 10.99 PRO FORCE MARKETING Supplies 708.95 PROFORMA H2R MARKETING GROUP Services 155.75 QUALYS,INC Services 4,078.00 REGINA O'BRIEN Services Expense Reimbursement 126.56 REGINA O'BRIEN Supplies Expense Reimbursement 20.81 REYNA MEDRANO Services Expense Reimbursement 101.70 RHIANNON ROWE Services Expense Reimbursement 672.00 ROARING FORK SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-1 Services 6,240.00 ROBERT A.KURTZMAN Services 3,882.00 ROBERT L HUNSICKER Services 565.20 ROY HOWELL Services 655.40 RUGGS BENEDICK,INC. Services 65.00 RUGGS BENEDICK,INC. Supplies 65.00 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC Capital 7,605.53 Sentry Security Fasteners,Inc. Supplies 16.74 SHAMROCK FOODS CORPORATION Supplies 5,288.63 SHANNON BUNNELL Services Expense Reimbursement 197.19 SHEAFFER KAREN Supplies Expense Reimbursement 23.94 SIGNATURE SIGNS Supplies 220.50 SOURCE GAS Services 10,670.00 SOUTHLAND MEDICAL CORPORATION Supplies 718.28 SPRONK WATER ENGINEERS Services 2,457.00 STANLEY M SLOWIK INC Services 325.53 STAPLES ADVANTAGE Supplies 14.95 STATE OF COLORADO Services 1,124.97 STATE OF COLORADO Services 472.56 STEPHEN M.CARVER SR. Services 175.00 TEAK SIMONTON Services Expense Reimbursement 142.83 TEAK SIMONTON Supplies Expense Reimbursement 74.20 TESLA TECH LLC Refund 135.70 THE BANCORP BANK HSA Payroll 3,152.58 THE FOUNDATION OF TRUSTEES FOR FAMILY LEARNING CEN Services 16,375.97 THE YOUTH FOUNDATION Services 9,701.13 THOMPSON WEST GROUP Services 6,477.54 TOWN OF AVON Services 912.00 TOWN OF EAGLE Services 4,120.00 TOWN OF EAGLE Services 1,047.50 TOWN OF GYPSUM Services 127.89 TOWN OF GYPSUM Services 189.77 TRACI SCHALOW Services 1,500.00 TRACI SCHALOW Services 149.86 TRI COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION Services 50.00 TYLER B.SWEENEY Services Expense Reimbursement 930.00 ULTRAMAX Supplies 2,235.00 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE Services 49.03 5 01/07/2014 UNITED REPROGRAPHIC Services 95.00 US FOOD SERVICE INCORPORATED Supplies 49.85 US FOOD SERVICE INCORPORATED Supplies 11,410.54 UTAH LIVE BANDS,LLC Deposit Future Services 5,000.00 VAIL BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE Services 1,350.00 VAIL HONEYWAGON LTD Services 11.43 VAIL MOUNTAIN RESCUE GROUP Services, 1,775.53 VAIL MULTI-LIST SERVICES INC Services 507.00 VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER Supplies 1,500.00 VAIL VALLEY PARTNERSHIP Grant Contribution 9,583.33 VALLEY LUMBER Supplies 32.07 VALUE WEST,INC Services 14,600.00 VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED Services 6,719.82 VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED Supplies 274.99 Videolink,Inc Supplies 12,204.72 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 14,473.33 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 232.41 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 458.91 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 4,382.91 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 521.45 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 1,145.00 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 249.00 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 851.17 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 4,480.84 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 63.45 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 2,653.21 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 68.76 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 6,196.20 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 563.48 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 2,539.42 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 1,193.91 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 416.88 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 3,484.99 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 759.75 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 3,208.79 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 1,271.29 VISION SECURITY LLC Services 285.00 VISION SECURITY LLC Services 9,141.94 WALKING MOUNTAINS Supplies 563.89 WALKING MOUNTAINS Reimbursement for Services 4,440.00 WASTE MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED Services 3,119.45 WELLS FARGO BANK Services 500.00 WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A. Services 78.00 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LEASING Capital 733.96 WENTWORTH,GLENDA Services Expense Reimbursement 429.00 WESTERN EAGLE COUNTY METROPOLITIAN RECREATION DIST Services 3,918.80 WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES Supplies 111.40 WILLITS GENERAL STORE Services 16.00 WOODS,RITA Services Expense Reimbursement 57.63 6 01/07/2014 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY Supplies 37.98 XCEL ENERGY Services 169.16 XEROX CORPORATION,INC Services 382.76 XEROX CORPORATION,INC Services 5,123.82 ZEP SALES&SERVICE Supplies 452.97 1001 General Fund Total 2,843,462.99 1100 Road and Bridge Fund BLUE TARP FINANCIAL,INC. Supplies 617.51 CARDIFF CORP. Services 450.00 CNIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS Payroll 192.30 CNIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS Payroll 315.38 D&D MANZANARES,INC. Services 339.58 EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT-ATTN FINANCE Interfund Payables 605,741.66 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER Payroll 95,317.14 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 10,716.86 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 144.80 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 100.00 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 3,241.06 HOLY CROSS ENERGY Services 1,207.25 INTERMOUNTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES,INC. Services 63.00 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Payroll 341.20 MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Services 141.53 NICOLE TRUJILLO Services Expense Reimbursement 91.53 PAPER WISE Services 19.00 RICK ETTLES Supplies Expense Reimbursement 100.00 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC Capital 13,332.22 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC Capital 22,322.37 SOURCE GAS Services 1,066.45 STEPHEN M.STRACHAN Deposit Release 5,500.00 TOWN OF GYPSUM Services 200.98 TOWN OF GYPSUM Services 194.73 VISION SECURITY LLC Services 807.62 WASTE MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED Services 136.27 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY Supplies 12.27 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY Supplies 88.62 YAMPA VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION Services 47.29 1100 Road and Bridge Fund Total 762,848.62 1110 Social Services Fund ANDREA LARKIN Services Expense Reimbursement 35.88 ANDREA LARKIN Services Expense Reimbursement :184.19 ARIEL CLINICAL SERVICES Services 2,240.00 BUSINESS INK,CO Supplies 137.00 CAMILA GILFILLAN Services Expense Reimbursement 59.89 CAPITAL ONE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Supplies 217.80 CAPITAL ONE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Supplies 124.00 CAROL J.BLEVINS Services 500.00 CAROLINE MURPHY Services Expense Reimbursement 354.82 7 01/07/2014 CDW GOVERNMENT Supplies 344.43 CLARIBEL SOTO Services 85.68 CNIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS Payroll 384.60 CNIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS Payroll 633.50 COLORADO COUNSELING INC Services 300.00 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA Services 546.21 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA Services 425.04 CYNTHIA AGUILAR Services Expense Reimbursement 109.23 CYNTHIA AGUILAR Services Expense Reimbursement 77.12 DANIELLE MT.PLEASANT Services Expense Reimbursement 23.73 DISCOVER GOODWILL OF SOUTHERN AND WESTERN COLORADO Services 484.00 EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT-ATTN FINANCE Interfund Payables 141,733.02 EAGLE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT Services 1,920.76 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER Payroll 155,207.27 EAGLE SINCLAIR Services 49.98 EAGLE SINCLAIR Services 25.00 El Montanes LLC Services 125.00 ESTEBAN SAENZ LOPEZ Services 85.68 File&ServeXpress Holdings LLC Services 10.00 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 17,338.42 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 1,115.64 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 3,348.97 JENNIE QUEVEDO Services Expense Reimbursement 72.89 JENNIE QUEVEDO Services Expense Reimbursement 94.36 JOANNE M.ROCK Services 103.68 JOANNE M.ROCK Services 182.88 JOHN C COLLINS PC Services 6,060.00 LA QUINTA Services 225.00 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES,INC Services 182.55 LARA HEATHER LAWDERMILK Services 23.73 LARA HEATHER LAWDERMILK Services 315.27 LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA MANAGEMENT,INC Services 21.25 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Payroll 405.46 MARIA NIEVES Services Expense Reimbursement 15.82 MARIA VAZQUEZ Services Expense Reimbursement 142.38 MARICELA PINELA Services Expense Reimbursement 42.38 MARICELA PINELA Supplies Expense Reimbursement 9.99 MEGAN BURCH Services Expense Reimbursement 145.21 • MELISSA BARBOUR Services Expense Reimbursement 30.02 MIKE DENNIS Services 500.00 MONICA CASILLAS Services 91.80 NATHAN YOUNG Services Expense Reimbursement 88.14 OFFICE DEPOT Supplies 32.00 OFFICE DEPOT Supplies 155.07 OFFICE DEPOT Supplies 2.55 OSM DELIVERY LLC Services 219.37 PITKIN COUNTY Services 1,213.80 PITKIN COUNTY Services 21.50 PROFORMA H2R MARKETING GROUP Services 74.25 8 01/07/2014 RACHAEL MESSERICH Services Expense Reimbursement 47.46 ROSA REA Services Expense Reimbursement 66.78 ROSA REA Services Expense Reimbursement 40.68 SECURECARE TECHNOLOGIES,INC. Services 22.60 SIGN LANGUAGE,LLC Services 585.00 THE BANCORP BANK HSA Payroll 100.00 TIGERDIRECT,INC Supplies 1,240.14 VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED Services 1,452.45 VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED Supplies 224.99 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 48.90 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 51.99 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 214.99 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 922.60 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 245.00 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 7.60 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 36.98 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 32.93 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 131.40 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 98.21 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 1,202.75 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 243.00 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 158.94 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 81.91 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 135.06 WOODS,RITA Services Expense Reimbursement 192.10 WOODS,RITA Services Expense Reimbursement 22.60 XEROX CORPORATION,INC Services 181.92 YOLANDA M.THIERFELDER Services Expense Reimbursement 117.52 1110 Social Services Fund Total 346,604.71 1140 Offsite Road Improvements SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC Capital 14,059.57 1140 Offsite Road Improvements Total 14,059.57 1151 Sales Tax E.V.Transp. ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY Supplies 939 ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY Supplies 68.33 AT&T Services 410.41 CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING Supplies 688.10 CENTURYLINK Services 349.39 CNIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS Payroll 411.50 COLLETTS ENTERPRISES,INC. Supplies 1,291.60 COLORADO PRINTING COMPANY Services 5,875.08 COMPLIANCE ALLIANCE INC Services 640.00 D&D MANZANARES,INC. Services 35536 DOCTORS ON CALL Services 310.00 DONALD C WEAKLEY Services 2,346.17 EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT-ATTN FINANCE Interfund Payables 700,197.17 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER Payroll 237,871.24 9 01/07/2014 GLENWOOD MEDICAL ASSOCIATES Services 32.00 GRAND JUNCTION PIPE Supplies 43.80 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 19,242.02 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 1,440.62 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 4,890.72 H&B SNOW REMOVAL SERVICES,INC Services 349.65 HOLY CROSS ENERGY Services 961.67 JP TRUCKING INCORPORATED Services 840.00 LANCE TRUJILLO Services Expense Reimbursement 138.99 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Payroll 696.85 LOOMIS ARMORED US,LLC Services 127.13 LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC Services 20,760.44 NEXTEL Services 1,213.98 NOBLE WELDING AND FABRICATION Services 262.00 OFFICE DEPOT Supplies 198.87 RAE CONSULTANTS,INC Services 1,850.00 SAMBA HOLDINGS,INC. Services 149.65 SOURCE GAS Services 525.64 THE BANCORP BANK HSA Payroll 327.70 TOWN OF AVON Supplies 2,824.34 TOWN OF GYPSUM Services 219.25 TOWN OF GYPSUM Services 212.43 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 103.85 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 97.37 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 143.15 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 59.08 VISA CARD SERVICES ' Supplies 328.90 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 32.50 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 25.75 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 287.70 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 590.04 VISION SECURITY LLC Services 1,061.04 WASTE MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED Services 148.66 WORKFLOWONE Services 1,499.28 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY Supplies 23.01 XCEL ENERGY Services 606.57 XEROX CORPORATION,INC Services 1,098.23 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE Supplies 159.22 1151 Sales Tax E.V.Transp.Total 1,014,395.84 1152 Sales Tax E.V.Trails ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY Supplies 27.50 CDW GOVERNMENT Supplies 1,522.99 CNIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS Payroll 76.92 CTL THOMPSON,INC. Capital 3,444.00 EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT-ATTN FINANCE Interfund Payables 3,148.24 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER Payroll 9,632.96 GRAND JUNCTION PIPE Supplies 70.00 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 1,159.88 10 01/07/2014 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 0.00 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 0.00 GROUND ENGINEERING CONSULTING INC Capital 1,955.00 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Payroll 15.64 MOUNTAIN MAINTENANCE Services 504.00 OLDCASTLE SW GROUP,INC Capital 124,010.36 OTTEN,JOHNSON,ROBINSON,NEFF&RAGONETTI,P.C. Capital 1,688.00 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 3,640.69 1152 Sales Tax E.V.Trails Total 150,896.18 1160 Airport Fund ALPINE ARMS Supplies 7,078.77 AMERICAN LINEN Services 132.14 AUTO TRUCK GROUP LLC Supplies 215.12 BLUEGLOBES,LLC Supplies 479.16 CAPITAL ONE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Services 45.82 CAPITAL ONE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Services 29.89 CDW GOVERNMENT Supplies 2,796.95 CED CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTORS Supplies 2,357.73 CED CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTORS Supplies 394.92 CHRIS ANDERSON Services Expense Reimbursement 103.93 CHRIS ANDERSON Supplies Expense Reimbursement 159.20 CHRISTINA ANNE COCKREAM Services 1,000.00 CNIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS Payroll 374.30 COLLETTS ENTERPRISES,INC. Supplies 2,539.70 COLLETTS ENTERPRISES,INC. Supplies 13,785.76 D&D MANZANARES,INC. Services 1,789.00 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Services 11,235.58 DISH NETWORK Services 74.99 DJENSEN ELECTRIC INCORPORATED Supplies 92.50 EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT-ATTN FINANCE Interfund Payables 216,684.31 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER Payroll 118,512.04 EAGLE EMBROIDERY Supplies 345.72 FASTENAL COMPANY Supplies 45.88 FRONTIER RADIO COMMUNICATIONS Supplies 855.00 GARD SPECIALISTS CO,INC Supplies 275.88 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 11,91130 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 317.81 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 3,313.32 HOLY CROSS ENERGY Services 5,821.90 JBT'S CUSTOM SILK Supplies 22.00 JVIATION,INC Capital 15,327.00 KAPLAN KIRSCH&ROCKWELL,LLP Services 2,190.00 KAPLAN KIRSCH&ROCKWELL,LLP Services 2,010.19 KEVIN PFEIFFER Services 1,000.00 LAWSON PRODUCTS,INC Supplies 622.58 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Payroll 108.89 MILTON SOUZA Services 1,000.00 MYSLIK INCORPORATED Supplies 2,772.40 11 01/07/2014 O J WATSON COMPANY INCORPORATED Supplies 2,350.03 OG PRINTER INC Supplies 468.80 OLDCASTLE SW GROUP,INC Supplies 983.00 PST ENTERPRISES INC Supplies 1,124.73 PST ENTERPRISES INC Supplies 19.98 RUSTY S.GURULE Services 1,000.00 SOURCE GAS Services 2,151.83 THE BANCORP BANK HSA Payroll 450.00 TOWN OF GYPSUM Services 437.10 UNITED RENTALS Capital 13,599.00 VAIL VALLEY JET CENTER Services 20.60 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 3,728.21 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 213.71 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 29.99 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 47.02 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 2,000.00 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 617.56 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 82.21 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 85.75 VISION SECURITY LLC Services 3,421.32 WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY Services 40.00 WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY Supplies 269.13 WASTE MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED Services 180.00 WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES Supplies 48.25 WIRELESS ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS INC. Supplies 1,358.00 WIRELESS ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS INC. Supplies 1,755.31 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY Supplies 280.75 XEROX CORPORATION,INC Services 701.18 1160 Airport Fund Total 465,285.14 1170 Conservation Trust Fund WESTERN EAGLE COUNTY METROPOLITIAN RECREATION DIST Services 7,231.00 1170 Conservation Trust Fund Total 7,231.00 1180 800 MHZ Fund CENTURYLINK Services 459.51 E-470 PUBLIC HIGHWAY AUTHORITY Services 6.50 EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT-ATTN FINANCE Interfund Payables 21,991.63 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER Payroll 5,552.19 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 669.58 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 37.08 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 26.00 HOLY CROSS ENERGY Services 564.02 MOTOROLA Services 1,900.00 QWEST CORPORATION Services 1,450.00 US DOI BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Services 152.21 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 88.33 VISA CARD SERVICES . Supplies 27.09 12 01/07/2014 1180 800 MHZ Fund Total 32,924.14 1209 Public Health Fund ALEJANDRO M.MONREAL Services 380.00 ANDREA VESQUE Services 76.80 ANDY'S REPAIR INC. Services 875.25 ANGELA PINELA Services Expense Reimbursement 59.89 ANGELA PINELA Services Expense Reimbursement 23.73 BARBARA WHITFORD Services 24.80 CAPITAL ONE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Supplies 90.29 CAPITAL ONE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Supplies 1,803.14 CARLY RIETMANN Services Expense Reimbursement 64.18 CHRISTI COUCH Services 240.00 CHRISTI COUCH Services 40.00 CNIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS Payroll 438.44 CNIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS Payroll 760.72 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIROMEN Services 1,280.00 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA Services 1,345.96 COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES,INC Services 6,045.74 CONSORTIUM FOR OLDER ADULT WELLNESS Services 4,178.00 CONSUELO AGUILAR Services 15.20 CSU EXTENSION Services 226.08 DEBORAH YOUNG Services Expense Reimbursement 60.46 DEBORAH YOUNG Supplies Expense Reimbursement 7.20 EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT-ATTN FINANCE Interfund Payables 112,184.83 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER Payroll 99,455.17 EARLY CHILDHOOD PARTNERS Services 150.00 GILMA GARCIA Services Expense Reimbursement 59.33 GOLDEN EAGLE SENIORS Supplies 30.00 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 11,382.26 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 482.56 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 257.70 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 1,127.34 HEATHER GILMARTIN Services Expense Reimbursement 22.60 HEINRICH MARKETING,INC. Services 725.00 JENNIE WAHRER Services Expense Reimbursement 162.72 JENNIE WAHRER Services Expense Reimbursement 45.20 JENNIFER AMY COCKERELL Services 160.00 JENNIFER LUDWIG Services Expense Reimbursement 101.70 KAREN KOENEMANN Services 19.21 KATIE HAAS Services 9.72 KRISTIN ALYSE ARKIN Services 88.31 KRISTIN ALYSE ARKIN Services 86.39 LARSON,REBECCA Services Expense Reimbursement 118.65 LARSON,REBECCA Services Expense Reimbursement 7.91 LAVINA BEVERIDGE Services Expense Reimbursement 1,144.69 LEEANNA SALAZAR Services 150.00 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Payroll 276.96 MADELINE MOOS Services 72.00 13 01/07/2014 MELINA VALSECIA-MONREAL Services Expense Reimbursement 296.15 MERCK ATL Supplies 644.22 METROPOLITAN PATHOLOGIST PC Services 414.00 Mountain Refrigeration Inc Services 135.00 OFFICE DEPOT Supplies 29.04 PAT NOLAN Services Expense Reimbursement 57.63 PAT NOLAN Supplies Expense Reimbursement 13.49 PAULA A PALMATEER Services 14.40 SANDRA EINSPAHR Services 5.60 SMITH MEDICAL PARTNERS LLC Supplies 1,722.54 THE BANCORP BANK HSA Payroll 56.00 THERESA CAREY Services Expense Reimbursement 154.81 THERESA CAREY Services Expense Reimbursement 94.92 VALLEY VIEW HOSPITAL Services 120.00 VANESA DOTY Services Expense Reimbursement 49.72 VELASCO,GABRIELA Services Expense Reimbursement 22.60 VELASCO,GABRIELA Services Expense Reimbursement 178.31 VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED Services 516.78 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 34433 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 29.66 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 250.00 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 246.85 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 314.91 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 251.91 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 943.31 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 228.74 1209 Public Health Fund Total 253,491.05 1401 Housing Operations Fund CNIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS Payroll 384.60 CNIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS Payroll 34230 EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT-ATTN FINANCE Interfund Payables 89,320.27 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER Payroll 32,768.94 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 4,248.84 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 733.06 HOUSING FUND Community Grants 20,000.00 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Payroll 157.46 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 110.67 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 379.11 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 1,246.85 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 614.99 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 50.00 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 1,503.00 1401 Housing Operations Fund Total 151,860.09 1442 Open Space Fund CNIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS Payroll 19230 CNIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS Payroll 249.98 EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT-ATTN FINANCE Interfund Payables 161,821.74 14 01/07/2014 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER Payroll 9,439.29 EWING TRUCKING&CONSTRUCTION,LLC Services 7,370.00 EWING TRUCKING&CONSTRUCTION,LLC Capital 12,302.15 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 1,369.80 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 1,333.20 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 0.00 HOLY CROSS ENERGY Services 81.67 RARE EARTH SCIENCE,LLC Capital 3,438.75 SIGN DESIGN&GRAPHICS,LLC Services 175.00 STEWART TITLE OF COLORADO INCORPORATED Capital 3,497,468.00 TOBY SPRUNK Services Expense Reimbursement 88.14 US DOI BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Services 1,621.73 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 110.68 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 181.01 1442 Open Space Fund Total 3,697,243.44 2150 Capital Improvements Fund COLWEST ROOFING AND WATERPROOFING CO.,INC. Capital 45,742.75 D&D MANZANARES,INC. Services 3,868.00 EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT-ATTN FINANCE Interfund Payables 4.650.25 EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT-ATTN FINANCE Interfund Payables 186.310.83 EDWARDS METROPOLITAN DIST Community Grants 9.925.00 ELAM CONSTRUCTION INC Capital 135.269.85 ENCORE ELECTRIC,INC. Capital 1.824.00 FIRKINS GARAGE DOORS INCORPORATED Services 8,875.00 IMPRESSIONS OF ASPEN,INC Supplies 13,136.44 MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS PC Capital 345.00 MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS PC Capital 1,365.00 MOTOROLA Supplies 6,300.00 OLDCASTLE SW GROUP,INC Capital 5,819.60 PAINT BUCKET Supplies 2,213.33 PROPERTY IMAGING LLC Services 250.00 ROD'S PAINTING,INC. Services 7,940.00 SYMPHYSIS,OLIVIER A.PENNETIER Capital 1,200.00 2150 Capital Improvements Fund Total 435,035.05 3600 Landfill Fund ACZ LABORATORY INC Services 3,177.88 BLUE TARP FINANCIAL,INC. Supplies 31.48 CNIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS Payroll 84.60 D&D MANZANARES,INC. Services 366.30 EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT-ATTN FINANCE Interfund Payables 227,288.49 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER Payroll 46,492.59 E-WASTE RECYCLERS OF COLORADO Services 2,136.01 FYS SERVICES,INC Services 3,649.13 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 5,687.60 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 385.22 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 1,712.92 HOLY CROSS ENERGY Services 3,172.70 15 01/07/2014 KRW CONSULTING Services 10,856.22 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Payroll 124.68 MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS PC Capital 345.00 OFFICE DEPOT Supplies 5.99 OFFICE DEPOT Supplies 22.36 PROFORMA H2R MARKETING GROUP Supplies 111.75 PST ENTERPRISES INC Supplies 73.44 SATELLITE SHELTERS,INC Services 5,714.00 STORM'S SPECIALTY SERVICE,INC. Services 235.00 THE BANCORP BANK HSA Payroll 78.84 TOWN OF VAIL Services 1,710.00 ULTIMATE SPECIALTIES Services 675.00 VAIL HONEYWAGON LTD Services 11,975.33 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 19.94 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 31.37 VISION SECURITY LLC Services 805.00 WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES Services 15.00 WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES Supplies 140.90 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY Supplies 731.90 XEROX CORPORATION,INC Services 315.03 3600 Landfill Fund Total 328,171.67 3700 Motor Pool Fund A AND E TIRE INC Supplies 2,224.06 AIRGAS INTERMOUNTAIN INCORPORATED Services 2,359.23 BAYSHORE TRUCK EQUIPMENT COMPANY Supplies 830.70 BERTHOD MOTORS INC Services 769.74 BRONN TRUCKING INC. Services 600.00 CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING Supplies 250.15 CLAIMS SERVICES GROUP INC Services 159.00 CNIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS Payroll 410.76 COLLETTS ENTERPRISES,INC. Supplies 105,130.25 CUMMINS ROCKY MOUNTAIN Supplies 7,613.77 D&D MANZANARES,INC. Services 80.96 DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES Supplies 1,355.46 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER Payroll 63,391.18 EATON SALES&SERVICE,LLC. Services 367.10 EP BLAZER LLC Supplies 986.65 GILLIG LLC Supplies 2,157.66 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 7,656.82 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 0.20 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 10.00 GREAT WEST RETIREMENT SERVICES Payroll 2,097.30 H,H&H AUTOMOTIVE PAINT INC Supplies 126.45 HANSON EQUIPMENT Supplies 225.62 HENSLEY BATTERY LLC Supplies 824.27 HOGAN MFG.,INC. Supplies 1,166.32 HOLY CROSS ENERGY Services 1,602.77 INTERMOUNTAIN COACH LEASING INC. Supplies 731.56 16 01/07/2014 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC Capital 2,009.00 LAWSON PRODUCTS,INC Supplies 294.27 LIGHTHOUSE INCORPORATED THE Supplies 557.68 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Payroll 104.40 MID WEST TRUCK PARTS&SERVICE Supplies 8,741.80 O J WATSON COMPANY INCORPORATED Supplies 156.48 OFFICE DEPOT Supplies 60.33 POWER EQUIPMENT COMPANY Supplies 344.28 PST ENTERPRISES INC Supplies 77.75 PST ENTERPRISES INC Supplies 207.41 PST ENTERPRISES INC Supplies 2,700.71 SAFETY KLEEN Services 235.72 SERCK SERVICES INCORPORATED Supplies 1,106.33 SIGNATURE SIGNS Supplies 22.00 SOURCE GAS Services 884.46 SUMMIT AUTO SERVICE,INC Services 100.00 SUMMIT AUTO SERVICE,INC Supplies 288.00 THE BANCORP BANK HSA Payroll 57.70 TIRE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS Supplies 6,721.26 TOWN OF GYPSUM Services 365.41 TOWN OF GYPSUM Services 354.06 UNITED STATES WELDING Services 34.80 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 25.00 VISA CARD SERVICES Supplies 284.60 VISION SECURITY LLC Services 568.40 VISTA FD,LLC Supplies 44.30 VISTA TD,LLC Supplies 593.40 WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY Supplies 595.19 WASTE MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED Services 247.77 WESTERN SLOPE IRON AND SUPPLY,INC Supplies 77.40 WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES Supplies 136.95 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY Supplies 11.55 XEROX CORPORATION,INC Services 123.79 3700 Motor Pool Fund Total 231,260.18 3730 Insurance Reserve Fund COLORADO COUNTIES CASUALTY AND PROPERTY POOL Services 31,392.53 EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT-ATTN FINANCE Interfund Payables 11,732.33 3730 Insurance Reserve Fund Total 43,124.86 3790 Health Insurance Fund BERNIECE GUTIERREZ Services Expense Reimbursement 75.61 CAPITAL ONE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Services 334.88 GILSBAR,INC. Payroll 859.50 HEATHER MATHEWS Services Expense Reimbursement 15.00 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Payroll 4,135.41 LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Payroll 3,680.02 THE BANCORP BANK HSA Payroll 599.14 THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE OM Services 1,150.00 17 01/07/2014 VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER Payroll 800.00 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 562.26 3790 Health Insurance Fund Total 12,211.82 3900 911 Fund CENTURYLINK Capital 102,537.82 COOPER NOTIFICATION,INC. Services 16,300.00 EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT-ATTN FINANCE Interfund Payables 9,049.26 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES,INC Services 1,228.06 TOWN OF VAIL Services 2,444.62 TOWN OF VAIL Services 15,905.38 TOWN OF VAIL Supplies 5,000.00 TOWN OF VAIL Grant Contribution 381,828.00 VISA CARD SERVICES Services 3,595.65 3900 911 Fund Total 537 888.79 Grant TAW , i�, ':..�. � � �, P 1. Special Recognition— Alfred P. Sloan Award to Eagle County Government for Excellence in Workplace Effectiveness and Flexibility Lisa Ponder,Human Resources Ms. Ponder explained the award. The award was applied for in 2013 with emails being sent to many of our employees. She believes that the more people had control over where,when and how they worked,the more productive they were. She reiterated the need for and benefit of balance in people's lives. She provided some examples of flexible schedules depending on people's positions. This tied into the wellness program. Chairman Fisher explained that this represented a change in philosophy. Ms. Ponder added that it was not easy to live in this expensive place,and providing flexibility allowed people to enjoy their lives. Commissioner Chandler—Henry thanked Ms.Ponder for her and her staff's work on this initiative. Consent Agenda Chairman Fisher stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: 2. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of January 6,2014(Subject to Review by the Finance Director) John Lewis,Finance 3. Agreement between Eagle County and Colorado Counties Casualty and Property Pool for Partially Self- Funded Program Jan Miller,Facilities 4. Resolution 2014-001 Approving Variance from Improvement Standards for Berlaimont Estates(Eagle County File No.VIS-4398) Ben Gerdes,Engineering 5. Colorado Department of Transportation FTA Section 5311 Grant Agreement with Eagle County for Offset of General Operating Costs Tracy Stowell, ECO Transit 18 01/07/2014 6. Memorandum of Understanding with Pitkin and Gunnison Counties to Provide Access up to$50,000 of Energy Smart Revolving Loan Fund to Lake County Residents Adam Palmer,Environmental Health 7. First Amendment to Agreement with Energy Smart Partners LLC to Provide Access Up To$50,000 of Energy Smart Revolving Loan Fund to Lake County Residents Adam Palmer, Environmental Health 8. Participation Agreement with Cloud City Conservation Center to Provide Energy Smart Colorado Program Services and Access Up To$50,000 of Energy Smart Revolving Loan Fund to Lake County Residents Adam Palmer,Environmental Health 9. Resolution 2014-002 Approving the Eagle County Land Use Regulation Amendment for the Floodplain Overlay Zone District(Eagle County File No. LUR-4550) Greg Schroeder,Engineering Tracy Stowell spoke about the grant agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation. This was the fourth year the county had received the grant in the amount of approximately$200,000 each year. There were 13 other agencies in the state who received this grant. It was a competitive process. Adam Palmer spoke about items 7 and 8. He stated that these items helped residents in neighboring counties improve their properties and make them more energy efficient. These residents would now have access to loan funds to make improvements. Commissioner Chandler—Henry thanked Greg Schroeder for his work on the floodplain plan. Commissioner Ryan moved to approve the Consent Agenda for January 7, 2014, as presented. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Fisher opened public comment. Chairman Fisher put parameters on public input. The purpose was to educate the board with new information and not to expound on decisions that had already been made. It was not an opportunity to make derogatory or uncomplimentary comments about any of the board members. Public input needed to be limited to new information not available elsewhere. Barbara Allen spoke to the board. She believed there was still room for change pertaining to certain decisions. Chairman Fisher stated that decisions were final until a future Board of Commissioners reviewed the same and determined that changes were or were not appropriate. Ms. Allen stated that the voters voted for decisions to be made at the county level. Chairman Fisher stated that the vote was taken into consideration when a determination was made. Ms. Allen stated that in the future the board should take responsibility and not say that the voters wanted something. She believed that the Land Use Regulations for growing marijuana were not written in stone. Chairman Fisher stated that this has been provided for in the Land Use Regulations through the Special Use Permit process. Ms. Allen spoke about the accreditation for the Eagle Valley Land Trust. If marijuana was allowed to be grown on this agricultural land the land value would increase. The marijuana endangered wildlife and the environment. She hoped that any future requests would be denied. Chairman Fisher closed public comment. 19 01/07/2014 Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals 10. Shop&Hop#3,LLC d/b/a Shop&Hop#3 #12-90584-0000 Renewal of a 3.2%Beer License in Eagle-Vail. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. 11. Edwards Station,LLC d/b/a Edwards Station #24-69488-0000 Renewal of a 3.2%Beer License in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. 12. X-Bar Fly,Inc. d/b/a Sato Sushi #04-33696-0000 Renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. 13. Downtown Brown,LLC d/b/a Café 163 #15-75032-0000 Renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. 14. Vail Valley Foundation d/b/a Vilar Performing Arts Center #18-18611-0000 Renewal of an Arts License in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. Other 15. Grill at Singletree,LLC d/b/a Balata #12-56479-0000 Report of Change/Manager Registration-The applicant wishes to register Sven Essler as the new manager,replacing Luke Callaghan. Mr. Essler has no criminal history and was reported to be of good moral character. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for January 07, 2014, as presented. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 20 01/07/2014 Commissioner Ryan moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Housing and Development Authority 16. Construction Agreement between Riverview Apartments Preservation LP and R.A.Nelson LLC for Riverview Apartments Condensation/Soffits Project Jill Klosterman,Housing Ms.Klosterman explained that there was an extensive remodel in the Riverview Apartments and they had recently discovered leaking in the soffits in the stair towers. This contract was between Riverview and R. A. Nelson to repair the soffits. The work would be started in the next week. The contract amount was $26,000 not to be exceeded. She introduced the Housing Authority board members. There were no other structural issues. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the construction agreement between Riverview Apartments Preservation LP and R.A.Nelson, LLC for the Riverview Apartments Condensation/Soffits Project. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Ryan moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority and re- convene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Work Sessions (recorded) Eagle County Room 17. Lake Creek Village Apartments Improvements Update Jill Klosterman,Housing 18. ECO Build Committee Adam Palmer,Environmental Health Planning Files 19. ZC-4354,ZS-4356,AFP-4353 Salt Creek Ranch Subdivision,Lots 1 and 3 Kris Valdez Greg Schroeder Peggy Brasington,Property Owner Jason Hershman,Applicant Mauriello Planning Group: Dominic Mauriello,Representative Note: Tabled from 9/17/13, 10/01/13, 10/29/13 and 12/17/13 Action: The purpose of the Zone Change and Amended Final Plat is to rezone Lot 1 from"Agricultural Residential"and Lot 3 from"Resource"to"Resource Limited",to combine Lots 1 and 3,and a Special Use Permit for a dog kennel on the newly created Lot 1. Location: 2980 Salt Creek Road,Lots 1 and 3, Salt Creek Ranch Subdivision FILE NO./PROCESS: ZS-4356/Special Use Permit,ZC-4354/Zone Change 21 01/07/2014 PROJECT NAME: Salt Creek Subdivision Lots 1 and 3 LOCATION: 2980 Salt Creek Road OWNER: Peggy Brasington APPLICANT: Jason Hershman REPRESENTATIVE: Dominic Mauriello,Mauriello Planning Group, LLC STAFF PLANNER: Kris Valdez, MURP,AICP STAFF ENGINEER: Greg Schroeder,P.E., Senior Staff Engineer I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Applicant is proposing an overnight dog boarding facility in the Salt Creek Valley. In order for this use to happen, the Applicant is requesting an Amended Final Plat to combine Lots 1 and 3, a Rezoning of the property from Agricultural Residential on Lot 1 and Resource on Lot 3 to Resource Limited for both properties, and a Special Use Permit for the operation of a dog kennel on the combined properties. The Applicant has stated that the main objective of the facility is to provide dogs with a safe place to exercise, socialize, and be cared for with supervision and attention. Staff has concerns as outlined in the staff report about the ability of a commercial operation to fit in with the character of the neighborhood as well as being compatible with the existing surrounding land uses in regards to wildlife, noise and traffic impacts. The Applicant has taken mitigation measures attempting to preserve the rural character, views and protects quality areas through screening the dog runs, moving the proposed dog runs to outside the 75 foot stream setback, and utilizing approximately 1-2 acres of the 24.89 acre property for the business thereby reducing the footprint of the operation. The Applicant has also responded to comments from the neighbors and the Planning Commission by reducing the number of dogs proposed from 30 to 10 and eliminating the dog daycare component of the application. Standards for a Special Use Permit (1) Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Special Use IS NOT in substantial conformance with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, Area Community Plans and any applicable ancillary County adopted documents pertaining to natural resource protection, wildlife, or infrastructure management. (am 11/08/05) (am.05/08/12) (2) Compatibility. The Special Use IS OR CAN BE MADE TO BE generally compatible with the existing and currently permissible future uses of adjacent land and other substantially impacted land, services, or infrastructure improvements. (am.05/08/12) (3) Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES 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 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential, Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. (4) Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. The design of the proposed Special Use DOES OR CAN BE MADE TO BE reasonably avoid adverse impacts, including visual impacts of the proposed use on adjacent lands including trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, or otherwise create a nuisance. (am.05/08/12) (5) Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. The proposed Special Use DOES OR CAN BE MADE TO BE minimize environmental impacts and DOES NOT cause significant deterioration of water and air resources,wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. 22 01/07/2014 (6) Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use WILL 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. (7) Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES or can be made to comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. (8) Other Provisions. 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. Standards for a Rezoning (1) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.The proposed amendment DOES consider the purposes and intents of the Comprehensive Plan, all ancillary County adopted Specialty and Community Plan documents, and IS NOT consistent with all relevant goals,policies,implementation strategies and Future Land Use Map designation. (2) Compatible with Surrounding Uses.The proposal DOES OR CAN BE MADE TO BE compatible with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property; dimensional limitations of the proposed zone district,when applied, SHOULD result in development that will be harmonious with the physical character of existing neighborhood(s) surrounding the subject property. (3) Public Benefit.The proposal DOES address a demonstrated community need or otherwise results in one or more particular public benefits that offset the impacts of the proposed uses requested, including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing; childcare facilities; multi-modal transportation, public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements;preservation of agriculture/sensitive lands. (4) Change of Circumstances.The proposal DOES address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occurred to the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community. (5) Adequate Infrastructure.The property subject to the proposal IS served by adequate roads,water, sewer and other public use facilities. II. BACKGROUND: The property was originally subdivided in October 2008, as part of the Salt Creek Ranch Final Plat which created three(3)new lots of record,Lot 1 crosses Salt Creek Road and Lot 3 runs parallel to Salt Creek Road. The Applicant is proposing a dog ranch through a Special Use Permit request which will take place solely on Lot 1. In order for the use to be allowed through a Special Use Permit, Lot 1 must be combined with Lot 3 for a total acreage of 24.89 and rezoned to Resource Limited(RL). The proposed dog ranch consists of 10 dogs for overnight stays. The kennel would operate seven (7) days a week. The facilities consist of the overnight boarding occurring in the ground floor of the existing home, and fenced, screened kennel areas. Each dog will be evaluated by a certified dog trainer to determine which group they will be assigned to base on age, energy level and if there are any behavior issues prior to being admitted to the kennel. Access,Parking and Traffic The site is accessed via Salt Creek Road.A 50' setback for all structures is required from the road and a 75' setback is required from Salt Creek. The Applicant has amended the application to move all elements of the kennel operation outside of the 75' streamside setback based on comments from Staff. Parking will occur on the existing driveway. Concerns have been raised by surrounding property owners about increased traffic from the business. In response, the Applicant's business plan states that dog owners will have the option of having the dogs shuttled to 23 01/07/2014 the site in one of two vans. One van will service up valley residents, Vail to Edwards, and another will service down valley residents from Eagle to Dotsero. The cost of the shuttle is built into the fee structure. Clients will also have the option of driving to the site for the purpose of dropping off or picking up their dogs. Drop off and pick up activities would occur between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm. The state of Colorado requires that there must be one employee for every 15 dogs. The Applicant is proposing to conduct the business by himself, along with his girlfriend, both residents on the subject property. Therefore there will be no additional employees. Water and Wastewater Water for the property is provided by a well permitted by the State. The current well permit doesn't allow for commercial use. The Applicant is proposing that the file be conditioned to allow the well permit to be changed to accommodate a commercial use. Until such time that a water augmentation plan is completed, the Applicant is proposing to use the existing well according to the permitted uses, which include domestic use by a single family home, one acre of lawn irrigation and watering of livestock and domestic animals. The Applicant is also proposing to utilize bottled water and possible construction of a cistern for providing water to the dogs. Wildlife The Colorado Parks and Wildlife raised concerns in their referral letter dated July 17, 2013 and August 10, 2013 as well as subsequent emails. The agency is concerned with the interaction of dogs and wildlife, as the area is identified as critical wildlife habitat. In response, the Applicant proposes to screen the outdoor dog runs and dogs will be on leash whenever they are outside the kennels. The Applicant has also stated that a dog kennel is a similar use to a livestock ranch therefore the impact to wildlife would be minimal. Staff does not agree with this assumption as outlined in Section VI. Summary Analysis. III. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS At the November 20, 2013 hearing, the Planning Commission and Eagle County agencies made the following comments as well as response from the Applicant and Staff: 1) A Commission requested that the proposed Performance Standards include that dogs will be fed indoors at all times. a) Applicant Response: That will be added to the Performance Standards. (Please see number 4.8 in the Operational and Performance Standards) 2) A Commission requested that the proposed Performance Standards include that dogs be on leash at all times when outside the fenced areas. a) Applicant Response: That will be added to the Performance Standards. (Please see number 3.4 in the Operational and Performance Standards) 3) A Commission requested that references to the proposed 3,000 square foot barn be eliminated from the Performance Standards. a) Applicant Response: That will be removed from the Performance Standards. 4) A Commission requested a yearly report to staff regarding how the business is progressing. a) Applicant Response: We are willing to provide a report every year on how the project is meeting the conditions of approval. (Please see Condition#18.) 5) A majority of the Commissioners complemented the Applicant on the amount of changes to the application, agreeing to the conditions,and responding to the neighbors. 6) Two Commissioners were still concerned with the compatibility with the neighborhood and compliance with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and Eagle Area Community Plan. 24 01/07/2014 7) Voting for Zone Change-ZC-4354: Unanimous 8) Voting for Special Use Permit-ZS-4356: 4 approvals,2 denials At the October 16, 2013, hearing the file was tabled without discussion. However, since the tabling, the original ISDS permit was discovered and staff is suggesting the following condition be added to the file: 1) Prior to the start of the business, the Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS) will be certified by a Professional Engineer (PE) for commercial use. If any modifications and/or upgrades are required, these shall be completed prior to the business opening. At the September 18, 2013, hearing, the Planning Commission and Eagle County agencies made the following comments as well as response from the Applicant and Staff: 1) A Commissioner asked the Applicant if he'd be willing to only feed the dogs inside. a) Applicant Response: Yes,all dogs will be fed inside. 2) A Commissioner asked if the dogs will be licensed in Eagle County,be vaccinated, and be spayed or neutered. a) Applicant Response: Yes, the dogs will be licensed, but visitors to Eagle County may have their dogs registered in other areas. All dogs will be screened for behavior. (The applicant has supplied an example of the waiver the clients will fill out prior to being part of the daycare and/or overnight boarding, if approved.) 3) A Commissioner was concerned about the large mountain lion population located in the area and that a mountain lion could jump over the fencing. The Commissioner would like the Applicant to consider making the screening fence higher. a) Applicant Response: The dogs will be constantly supervised by staff and the Applicant is suggesting the following condition via subsequent memo,"The applicant shall be required to extend height of fenced dog areas as may be necessary by adding either solid fencing or wire or mesh material to prevent dogs from jumping over the fence." 4) A Commissioner requested that the payment for the road impact fees be changed to be collected at the time of the use,rather than at the time of building permit. a) Applicant Response via subsequent memo: The Applicant has proposed the following condition, "The Applicant shall provide Road Impact Fees to the Engineering Department upon establishing of the use on the property." 5) A Commissioner was concerned about the availability of water,the impact of the use on the existing well,and the timing for the installation of the proposed cistern. The Commissioner is also concerned about the economic model of the business with offering a shuttle and the time of the van trips. a) Applicant Response via subsequent memo: The Applicant proposes the following condition in regards to the water, "The Applicant shall obtain a well permit that complies with the intended uses on the property and correct the well location with the Colorado Department of Water Resources within one(1)year of the approval date or shall use an alternative water source for employees and dogs that does not require a new well permit." 6) A Commissioner was concerned about no condition of approval for shuttling,which if the shuttle proposal doesn't work,there will be greater traffic impacts on Salt Creek Road. a) Staff Response: Since the shuttling is represented in the application as the means to reduce traffic counts, should the business not utilize shuttling to and from the site,then the use would not be in compliance with the proposed Special Use Permit.Therefore the Applicant would need to amend the application through the public hearing process. 7) A Commissioner had comments regarding the amount of fencing on the property. Specifically when a dog is dropped off or taken out of the van, a dog could escape and run on Salt Creek Road. 25 01/07/2014 a) Applicant Response via subsequent memo: "Fencing of property-While we understand the concern that a dog may get out of the control of the applicant or dog owner upon delivery or pickup and that the entire area should be fenced,the applicant believes that its operation will appropriately address this issue in the handling of dogs. In order to operate a credible dog daycare facility,the applicant will have to ensure the safety of all dogs or the facility will not be in operation for very long.The applicant believes the concept of fencing the entire loading and unloading area is overly intrusive on the operation of this business and therefore we believe this should not be a condition of any approval.For the same reasons,we don't believe there should be a requirement to connect the two fenced areas,though we may choose to do so." 8) A Commissioner requested that the business be certified by a national organization. a) Applicant Response via subsequent memo: The Applicant is proposing an additional condition to address the comment,"The boarding of dogs is regulated by the State of Colorado pursuant to Colorado Department of Agriculture section 8 CCR 1201-11.The applicant shall obtain a license from the State as necessary to operate this facility." 9) A Commissioner was concerned about the narrow driveway and he would like to see improvements. a) Applicant Response via subsequent memo: The Applicant is proposing two additional conditions to address the comment,"The applicant shall work with Eagle County to install a traffic control sign along Salt Creek Road to warn travelers of the narrow road and curves in close proximity to the driveway for this property. Additionally,the applicant shall install a sign along the driveway warning drivers of a narrow driveway." and"The applicant will provide two turnouts of approximately 8' in width along the driveway so that cars can easily pass one another on the driveway. The applicant with work with Eagle County Engineering and the Fire District on appropriate locations for the turnouts in the field." 10) A Commissioner asked if the barn will house dogs overnight. a) Applicant Response:No, dogs will only be housed in the renovated basement. 11) A Commissioner asked how much water dogs drink on a daily basis. The Department of Water Resources has standards for home based businesses. a) Applicant Response via subsequent memo: The Applicant proposes the following condition in regards to the water, "The Applicant shall obtain a well permit that complies with the intended uses on the property and correct the well location with the Colorado Department of Water Resources within one(1)year of the approval date or shall use an alternative water source for employees and dogs that does not require a new well permit." 12) A Commissioner asked if the Applicant is confident with the noise mitigation plan. a) Applicant Response: Yes,this proposal is different than other kennel models.As part of the original application the Applicant submitted a self-conducted Noise Study. 13) Two Commissioners asked if the existing ISDS needs to be upgraded. A Commissioner was doubtful that employees will use the porta-potties. a) Applicant Response: The Applicant contacted Ray Merry in Environmental Health and he responded with the following statement: "We [Environmental Health] can search for our existing septic permit record and you may have to help us zero in on which system serves this dwelling since I think there are several dwellings on the Brasington property. As far as its adequacy,the way to go would be to have the system certified by an engineer since the use of the system is changing from residential to commercial and our rules require commercial systems to be designed by a professional engineer.The PE could put together a report that evaluates the adequacy based on flows and area and even make some recommendations about maintenance, etc." b) Staff has followed up with Environmental Health and the original ISDS permit is being researched. c) The Applicant responded via subsequent memo with the following statement: "Cleaning of kennel areas- The kennel areas will be cleaned in the same fashion that one would clean floors in one's home. Typically 26 01/07/2014 this is done using a vacuum,towels, and mops. This may produce some dirty mop water which will be disposed of down the sink thus flowing to the septic system. Given that the lower level of this home currently contains two bedrooms and a bathroom and could be occupied today by people,the applicant believes there will be a net reduction in waste water flowing into the septic system. This facility will be required to meet any requirements of the Environmental Health department and therefore no condition is required in this regard." 14) A Commissioner asked if the surrounding property owners are fulltime residents. a) Applicant Response: Some are fulltime residents and some are seasonal. 15) A Commissioner is concerned about the operation of the kennel before the barn is built. a) Applicant Response: There is the fenced area for exercising the dogs. The Applicant has also proposed the following condition via subsequent memo: "The barn will be provided within three years of the special use permit being approved.Until the barn is constructed,the total number of kenneled and day use dogs shall be limited to 20 at any one time. If the barn is not constructed,the special use shall be allowed to continue with the 20 dog limit." 16) A Commissioner asked how the dogs will get from the house to the barn. a) Applicant Response: The dogs will be brought to the barn on leash from the fenced exercise area.The Applicant responded via subsequent memo with the following statement: "Fencing of property-While we understand the concern that a dog may escape the control of the applicant or dog owner upon delivery or pickup and that as a result the entire area should be fenced,the applicant believes that its operation will appropriately address this issue in the handling of dogs. In order to operate a credible dog daycare facility, the applicant must ensure the safety of all dogs or the facility will not be in operation for very long.The applicant believes the concept of fencing the entire loading and unloading area may be overly intrusive on the operation of this business and therefore the applicant believes this should not be included as a condition of approval. For the same reasons,we don't believe there should be a requirement to connect the two fenced areas,though we may choose to do so." 17) A Commissioner was concerned about snow removal and the type of turf proposed in the outdoor exercise area. The Commissioner mentioned that if the snow becomes packed down, it raises the level of the ground which would make it easier for dogs to jump out of the fenced area. a) Applicant Response: The Applicant responded via subsequent memo with the following statement: "Outdoor dog areas and snow removal-The fenced areas are proposed to be improved with a special artificial turf product designed specifically for dogs. The turf is antimicrobial and is under laid with sand that promotes appropriate drainage into the ground and away from the surface.During the winter the turf is kept free of snow using shovels and a snow blower therefore eliminating the issue of the snow being packed and acting as a sponge with dog urine.The snow will be blown/shoveled over the fence. The areas where this relatively clean snow is `stored' is at significant distance from the creek therefore eliminating impacts to the creek or the riparian area." 18) A Commissioner requested that the Applicant review the access easement for the property. a) Applicant Response via subsequent memo: The Applicant is proposing an additional condition to address the comment, "The applicant shall modify or vacate the access easement to the property and reestablishes necessary to remove any restrictions that might prevent the proposed use at the time of the recordation of the amended final plat for the property. [Note: The access easement was established in 1992 when the ownership of the properties was held by different parties. Both properties are held today by the owner (Brasington) and therefore the easement language is easily modified to accommodate the proposed use.] 19) A Commissioner requested that the file, if approved,be reviewed within three years of the approval date. a) Applicant Response via subsequent memo: The Applicant is proposing an additional condition to address the comment,"The special use approval shall be reviewed by staff after it has operated for 3 years and notify the applicant in writing of issues, if any,that may need to be addressed. Should the use is found by staff to be inconsistent with the special use approval and the issues are not addressed by the applicant,a hearing with the Planning Commission may be required to review,revise,or revoke the special use." 27 01/07/2014 20) A Commissioner suggested the following condition: "The Applicant shall apply best management practices to address dog waste down gradient from the outdoor kennel and dog runs." 21) A Commissioner requested that the Applicant work with Staff on a new set of conditions,reevaluate the number of dogs proposed for the project and continue working with Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 22) The project was tabled to October 16t for Planning Commissioner deliberation and a vote. IV. SITE DATA: Future Land Use Map The subject property is located outside the Town of Eagle in unincorporated Eagle County. The Eagle Area Future Land Use Map(2010) shows the property as located within the"Agricultural/Rural"land use designation: The intent of the Agricultural/Rural Area is as follows: A. Preserve the rural, open character of Eagle County's hinterlands. Retain large tracts of private land. Encourage continued agricultural uses and traditional rural lifestyles. B. Avoid up-zoning(retain Resource zoning)and promote owner-initiated down zoning. C. Where 35 acre subdivision is proposed on properties with Resource zoning, encourage the use of the County's Conservation Subdivision process. D. Limit"density bonuses"via the County's Conservation Subdivision process to lands with Resource zoning. E. Support lot size restrictions provided by subdivision covenants where they exist, and promote the preservation of these covenants in perpetuity. F. Preserve and/or appropriately manage the quality of natural resources, including wildlife habitat, vegetation, view sheds and sensitive lands. The protection of critical wildlife habitat should supersede development goals on these lands. G. Avoid high and extreme wildfire hazard areas, and satisfy all requirements for wildfire mitigation around structures. H. Avoid development that would exacerbate or create noncompliance with established level of service standards on roads and/or at intersections within the Planning Area. I. Work to ensure that road standards and provisions for dual access are satisfactorily addressed in these areas. J. Utilize and/or implement appropriate strategies from the Eagle River Watershed Plan to protect ground and surface water resources. K. Support Town ordinances related to water service in these areas. L. Support and encourage efforts by the Town of Eagle and Eagle County to maintain adequate stream flows in local streams and rivers. M. Preserve elements of Eagle County's history and heritage. The subject properties are also part of the Brush Creek Character Area located outside the Town of Eagle area in unincorporated Eagle County. The Eagle Area Character Area Land Use Map (2010) shows the property as located within the"Brush Creek Character Area"land use designation: The Planning Principles of the Brush Creek Character Area are as follows: A. Within the Urban Growth Boundary, locate new development close to existing development of similar intensity. Encourage clustering to balance conservation and development objectives so that wildlife habitat, views and sensitive environmental areas are preserved. Within the Urban Growth Boundary, preserve the attributes and quality of the"country lane"experience along Brush Creek Road(note"countryside"designation on FLUM). B. New land uses within the Urban Growth Boundary should be designed to be compatible with the intents and purposes of this Eagle Area Community Plan. C. Preserve the attributes and qualities of the Brush Creek Character Area outside the Town's Urban Growth Boundary as they currently exist. Limit new development to that provided by current zoning. The clustering of 28 01/07/2014 residential units that might be approved through an Eagle County Special Use Permit for a Conservation Subdivision should be restricted to lands with Resource zoning. D. Implement rural design standards to maintain the historic agricultural character of homes and structures outside the Town's urban growth boundary. E. Avoid and protect critical wildlife habitat areas and movement corridors inside and outside the Town's urban growth boundary. F. Protect and preserve the quality of view sheds and prominent view corridors. G. Preserve the quality of wetlands, streams and riparian corridors, and the vegetative communities that they support. H. Promote the acquisition and/or conservation of private properties as open rural land. Support efforts to implement a transfer of development rights (TDR)program to conserve the open and undeveloped character of the area outside of the urban growth boundary. I. Enhance multi-modal and pedestrian connectivity within the Brush Creek Character Area. J. Improve or add public land access points where appropriate. K. Work towards removing unnecessary fencing, and encourage the use of wildlife friendly fencing according to CDOW standards. L. Avoid development on ridgelines and steep slopes. M. Maintain public land boundaries in their existing configuration, unless the public benefits derived from a land trade or exchange significantly outweigh any resulting negative impacts. The parcel is also part of the Outlying Rural Subdivision(ORS) within the Brush Creek Character Area. The intent of the ORS Area is as follows: A. Provide safe, functional neighborhood environment. B. Preserve rural character,views and sense of openness. C. Protect quality natural areas and other sensitive lands. D. Maintain densities and intensities of use provided by existing zoning. E. These subdivisions were approved prior to the adoption of this plan and constitute spot zoning, which is discouraged by County Land Use Regulations.No additional areas have been identified on the 2009 Eagle Area Community Plan FLUM where this designation would be appropriate. The Applicant has stated that the proposed Rezoning, Special Use Permit and Amended Final Plat meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the 2010 Eagle Area Community Plan; staff questions the ability of a commercial operation to fit in with the scope and character outlined in these plans as well as being compatible with the existing surrounding land uses.The Applicant has taken mitigation measures attempting to preserve the rural character, views and protects quality areas through screening the dog runs,moving the proposed dog runs to outside the 75 foot stream setback, and utilizing approximately 1-2 acres of the 24.89 acre property for the business. Surrounding Zoning: Resource (R). The purpose of the Resource zone district is to maintain the open rural character of Eagle County and to protect and enhance the appropriate use of natural resources and agricultural uses in the County including water, minerals, fiber and open land. This is accomplished by limiting residential development to very low density single-family uses on lots of thirty-five (35) acres or larger, or by encouraging clustered development on smaller lots within those portions of a property that do not contain environmental resources or natural hazard areas and by maintaining the remainder of the property as common open space or ranch land, and by limiting new commercial development to uses that have a resource orientation and to small recreation areas that comply with Master Plan policies for such uses. Agricultural Residential (AR). The purpose of the Agricultural Residential (AR) zone district is to maintain the rural character of outlying areas of Eagle County, while allowing for compatible low density residential development. This is accomplished by permitting development of single-family dwelling units on relatively larger lots of ten(10) acres or more, or by encouraging clustered development on smaller lots within those portions of a property that do not contain environmental resources or natural hazard areas and by maintaining the remainder of the property as common open space or agricultural land. 29 01/07/2014 Resource Preservation (RP). The purpose of the Resource Preservation (RP) zone district is to preserve the open character and associated public benefits of those lands in Eagle County, and not located entirely within the boundaries of an existing city or town, that are owned by the Federal Government on the date of adoption of this zone district in the event of sale of such lands by the federal government into private ownership. This is accomplished by disallowing certain land uses; requiring County approval for other land uses which may negatively impact the scenic quality and open character of these lands and by limiting residential development to one dwelling unit per 80 acres. Proposed Zoning: Resource Limited (RL). The purpose of the Resource Limited (RL) zone district is to protect areas of Eagle County that contain valued natural resources and agricultural uses, while allowing some relatively low density development to occur. This is accomplished by permitting development of single-family dwelling units on relatively larger lots of twenty (20) acres or more, or by encouraging clustered development on smaller lots within those portions of a property that do not contain environmental resources or natural hazard areas and by maintaining the remainder of the property as common open space or agricultural land. Land Use Zoning North: Residential/BLM Agricultural Residential/Resource Preservation South: Residential Resource East: Residential Agricultural Residential West: Residential Resource Existing Zoning: Resource and Agricultural Residential Pi�,Zoning: Resource Limited Curt ievelient Residential structure Co : Residential building site Total Land Area: Acres: ';I 24.89 I Square feet 1,084,208.4 sq.ft. Total Open Space: N/A Water: Public: N/A Private: Well Sewer: Public: N/A Private: Septic Meese: ' Salt Creek Road I V. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Referral copies of this application were sent for review on July 3, 2013. The following section references the comments of all agencies that submitted an official referral response to Eagle County prior to the date of this report. To see the Applicant's response to these comments, if not noted in the section below,please see Mauriello Planning Group Memo dated August 5,2013. • The following agencies were sent referrals and either no concerns were raised or no response was sent back: Eagle County Animal Services, Eagle County Assessors, Eagle County Road and Bridge, Eagle County Sheriff's Office, Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist, Colorado State Health Department: Water Quality, Bureau of Land Management, Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA), Eagle County Paramedic Services, Greater Eagle Fire Protection District, Holy Cross Electric, Public Service Company, Qwest, PTI, CenturyTel, and Town of Eagle. Eagle County EnWineerinR: - Sufficiency Comments dated July 1, 2013: "I am in receipt of the above mentioned application, and have the following sufficiency review comments to offer: Page 1, Introduction, 4th paragraph: The Applicant has stated that there is a pick-up/drop-off service available, but that clients are still able to drive to the site. Provide a daily traffic generation assessment based upon the anticipated.operations. 30 01/07/2014 ' Noise Mitigation: The only discussion regarding noise mitigation is based upon"operational standards"to limit noise. Please provide additional information with regards to noise mitigation for the facilities and what procedures or operational standards will be used to mitigate noise. Also provide information relating to noise impacts to surrounding properties. Road Access: Salt Creek Road is a gravel surfaced road that is county maintained. The majority of the traffic consists of residents that regularly travel on the corridor. Provide information specifying what hazard and impacts clients traveling to and from the facility may have on the road. - Referral Comments dated July 18, 2013: "I am in receipt of the above mentioned application, and have the following referral comments to offer: 1. The Applicant has stated that the anticipated traffic generation for the proposed use is 20 daily trips. This would be characteristic of what a single family and an accessory dwelling unit would generate. No improvements for Salt Creek Road are anticipated with this level of traffic generation. 2. The kennel facility will require road impact fees to be paid prior to operation. As a kennel facility is not shown on the road impact fee schedule found under ECLUR Section 4-710, please contact this office for assistance on calculating the impact fee. 3. The Applicant has stated that they will mitigate noise due to the size of the property and the adjacent neighbors being far away. Additionally, dogs will be kept in small groups during exercise, and all animals will be kept inside during nighttime. Presently, it is not known if noise will be detectable at the property boundary and adjacent properties. The Applicant shall provide either: a) evidence of no detectable noise at the property boundary and adjacent properties, or b) a noise management plan detailing what actions occur when noise is detected past the property boundary and adjacent properties. - Referral Comments dated August 28, 2013: I am in receipt of the application dated August 22, 2013 for the 3rd Review of the Plat Re-Review, and have no comments to offer. - See conditions:2,3, 13, & 14 Earle County Environmental Health Department: - "Our comments on the aforementioned files are focused on the potential environmental impacts that present themselves from dog kennel operations. Sorry about sending an email as opposed to a memo but this is the quickest way to get comments to you. I don't have a feel for the magnitude of this operation at a maximum number of 30 dogs so maybe you might reach out to Rich,our new Animal Services Director to get his recommendations as well? The environmental issues associated with the operation are water source, water quality protection, waste management and noise. Their plan suggests mitigation for pet waste management (by having daily collection and disposal and noise by having dogs kept indoors) but I would suggest we build in an enforcement mechanism to assure they are following their plan so they can respond to concerns accordingly. The Applicant should verify with DWR that the source of water to be used for this commercial operation is authorized by their water right. For example if the water comes from a well, does the well need to be a commercial well or is the well allowed to be used for livestock and if so,using for dogs in OK? The Applicant understands that the fenced area near Salt Creek is within the 75' stream setback. Will the Applicant be requesting a variance of going through a FONSI process to allow this? Perhaps the site visit will help us come up with ideas for erosion/runoff control or the area may be moved away?I understand the area is already disturbed but without seeing it, it is difficult to anticipate what sort of mitigation is the most appropriate." See condition:2, 6,16, & 17 31 01/07/2014 State of Colorado,Division of Water Resources - Referral Response dated July 24, 2013: Email from Karlyn Armstrong: "We have reviewed the proposal to combine Lots 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Subdivision and obtain a Special Use Permit for a commercial dog kennel on the property. The Applicant has an existing residence on Lot 1 that uses a well and septic system; no information was provided about the well. The proposed structures on the newly combined lot will include the existing single family dwelling including a downstairs kennel facility, a new 3,000 square foot barn, and two fenced dog activity areas. No buildings will be located on the west side of the property (formerly lot 3). The kennel will have up to 5 employees, 2 of which will reside in the residence, overnight boarding for up to 20 dogs and day boarding for between 25-30 dogs. It is unknown what, if an, irrigation will take place on the property. This office has record of one existing well permit within the Salt Creek Ranch Subdivision. Permit no. 257058 was issued on May 19, 2004 as the only well on 40 acres, which can generally be described as the boundaries of the Salt Creek Ranch Subdivision. The uses of this well are limited to fire protection, ordinary household purposes inside no more than three single family dwellings, the irrigation of not more than one acre of home gardens and lawns, and the watering of domestic animals. The permit was issued for a location in what is now Lot 2 of the Salt Creek Ranch Subdivision. In 2007 the Applicant proposed to subdivide the parcel into the three lots described in this application. On December 5, 2007 this office responded to the subdivision application with a statement that the subdivision did not have a legal water supply because we could not locate a well permit for the subdivision. However, it is now apparent that permit no. 257058 is located in the subdivision. Therefore, we recognize that the Salt Creek Ranch Subdivision, pursuant to DWR Policy 95-7 (the policy in place at the time of the subdivision), has a legal water supply through permit no. 257058. Pursuant to this policy, no additional exempt well permits shall be allowed within this subdivision. Permit no. 257058 is limited to residential uses only. Commercial uses, such as those proposed in this application, cannot use water from the well as currently permitted. Specifically, the proposed uses which would be prohibited under the existing residential permit include: all uses associated with the watering and care of the dogs, the drinking and sanitary uses of the employees, and the irrigation of any property used for business purposes. Uses for strictly residential purposes, such as a single family dwelling that has no business access and any residential gardens, could still be allowed under this permit. The Applicant will either need to re-permit the existing well with a non-exempt permit that operates pursuant to a court decreed Plan for Augmentation or continue using the existing well for the residential uses on the property and find an alternate water source for the commercial uses. An alternate source could be a second well that is permitted pursuant to a Plan for Augmentation or water brought in from another source that is legally available for use at the proposed kennel facility. If the Applicant chooses to develop a Plan for Augmentation for the existing well, the plan would need to cover the subdivision's residential uses and the proposed commercial uses. So long as the Applicant does not use water from the well operating under permit no. 257058 for commercial purposes, this office has no objection to this application. The Applicant should note that permit no. 257058 appears to be permitted for a location that is more than 200 feet away from the well's actual location. If this is true, the Applicant will need to file a well permit amendment to correct the location of the permit. If you or the Applicant has any questions,please contact Ivan Franco in this office. - Applicant Response dated August 12, 2013: The Representative spoke with Karlyn Armstrong, Water Resource Engineer, with the Division of Water Resources via phone and came to the following conclusion: "The Applicant's revised plan to use water from a legal source located off of the property and brought to the site for employee use, watering of dogs, and irrigation of turf areas used by the dogs is an acceptable alternative to the DWR in order to preserve the existing exempt well permit on the property. 32 01/07/2014 In the longer term, it would also be acceptable and reasonable to permit a new commercial well subject to an augmentation plan that would serve the new barn, employees, irrigation for dog use areas, and the kennel area within the home. In this case the current exempt well would continue to serve the current and future residential uses on the property. There are some other alternatives that could also be done, but like the longer term option,these will take a year or more to permit through the water court system. To summarize the issue,there appears to be adequate means to serve the residential and commercial uses on the site with water as long as they are done subject to the use restrictions placed on the current well. Based on this,DWR appears to have no objection to the proposal. I have copied Karlyn on this email so that she can reply as well." - Referral Response dated August 13, 2013: Email from Karlyn Armstrong: "I concur with Dominic's conclusions regarding our comments. So long as the Applicant does not use the residential well for any commercial uses,we have no objections to the application. Please let us know if you have any additional questions or concerns." See condition: 5 Colorado Parks and Wildlife: - Referral response dated July 16, 2013: Email from Perry Will: "Thank you for including our agency in the application review of the Salt Creek Ranch rezoning and special use permit request. After reviewing the application the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife (CPW) would offer the following comments and recommendations based on the information provided. The Applicant has recognized that the property proposed for this zoning change and special use permit is located in an area designated as winter range, severe winter range and a concentration area for the local wildlife,both elk and mule deer. All of these designations, barring elk winter range, are considered as "Critical Wildlife Habitats" by Eagle County. The Applicant has also correctly stated that there are no "migration corridors"mapped on the property. This does not mean that wildlife do not use or move through and around the property, it indicates that there has been no designated corridor set aside for this purpose because the current zoning addressed wildlife movement adequately with the current permitted densities and allowed uses. The proposed project does change both use and zoning. The proposed use also "raises red flags" because of the numerous wildlife studies that demonstrate the potential impacts to wildlife from dogs. The impacts from dogs to wildlife vary from increased heart rates (disturbance), to movement of animals to inferior habitats (avoidance), to decreased health and production, to potential death dependent on the circumstances of the encounter. All the studies have a common denominator; dogs have a negative effect on wildlife. The proponent has partially mitigated issues concerning wildlife and dogs; in particular they have addressed the containment of the dogs in indoor facilities or in adequately fenced areas with visual barriers to reduce the impacts. They have further indicated that dogs will not be walked on the property, on or off leash, which also negates some of the potential impact to wildlife. What is difficult to address and mitigate is the presence of 25 to 30 dogs on the property on a daily or even occasional basis. While the dogs will be contained inside or within a fenced area there will still be an impact to wildlife. The dogs will still be seen coming onto the property, walking to do their"business,"moving from the indoor facilities to the outdoor runs and then leaving the property. The other element is that the dogs will be heard, dogs excited to be at the play area, excited to see other dogs, and the social interaction between the dogs once they are together. The expected result from this new use, a dog facility,by wildlife will be avoidance. This may mean a buffered area where wildlife will not venture within a certain distance of the facilities and area used by the dogs. 33 01/07/2014 Research studies indicate disturbance levels of about % mile for many dog related activities while others impacts from dogs have resulted in total abandonment of the impacted property by the local wildlife populations. While the overall impact of losing critical wildlife habitat of 20 or 25 acres may seem minimal and proponents often state that the loses are a small percentage of the overall critical habitat availability; all of these small loses have added up over the years to the point that the remaining critical habitat in Eagle County is "critical" to the continued health and preservation of the local wildlife populations. Eagle County has developed guidance documents which state avoiding development or fully mitigating impacts within critical wildlife habitat. While the proponent contends that this proposal is in accordance with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the Eagle Area Community Plan because it"maintains the agricultural use"designated for the area. This is a service oriented business not an agricultural pursuit even though it involves animals. The increased traffic on Salt Creek Road also seems to be underestimated by the proponent, there are "an estimated 8 trips a day added to the Salt Creek traffic" complying with the agricultural definition. Even with the pick-up and shuttling of dogs by large commercial vehicles this would seem to be an underestimate of the increase in use on Salt Creek Road. Owners still have the option of drop off and pick up which adds to the trip number. As stated earlier, this area is located within winter range and severe winter range, and concentration areas for wildlife, increased trips, particularly early in the day and toward evening, pick up and drop off times, and during the winter months will increase the number of wildlife killed on the road. Recommendations: If this proposal is deemed an appropriate use for this property the DPW would make the following recommendations to reduce the impacts to wildlife. Because this is a rezoning Eagle County has the ability to enforce the new standards on this proposal. This would include the 75 foot riparian zone set back or the 100 year floodplain whichever is more restrictive. Riparian habitat provides the most diverse number of species and highest density of wildlife and acts as a natural migration path for many wildlife species. The 75 foot setback helps protect this habitat. The construction and location of dog runs and buildings should allow for the unimpeded movement of wildlife through the property. The development of the barn and the runs should be clustered allowing for movement around the facilities or provide large openings between the runs and facilities, the standard for movement or migration corridors in Eagle County is 1000 feet of width. Fences need to be screened to decrease visibility from inside the fence to the outside and vice versa. Lighting should not be allowed outside the developed facilities or dog run areas. Mitigation for the increase in traffic both during the day and during the winter months is a more difficult proposition. Minimizing the number of trips would be the key component. Restricting patrons from dropping off and picking up their dogs, and limiting the number and times of the day the large capacity vans are allowed to bring dogs onto and off the facility grounds would meet this objective and help keep the number of trips at or below 8 per day meeting the agricultural standard. Without imparting some restrictive controls the number of trips for people dropping off and picking up 25 to 30 dogs could substantially increase the amount of traffic on Salt Creek Road. In conclusion,this proposal is located almost entirely on critical wildlife habitat and there are limited options to mitigate for the impacts from dogs on wildlife. The proposal does try to address the issues of free ranging dogs, with the inside facilities and screen runs; however, there are still impacts that are not addressed. The proposal does not seem to be compatible with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan or the Eagle Area Community Plan in keeping the area agricultural, this is a business. The documents guiding Eagle County address development in critical wildlife habitat with avoidance being the first option." - Referral response dated August 12, 2013: Email from Perry Will: "Thank you for providing the proponent's responses to the concerns and recommendations the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife, CPW, provided in their July 17t letter on this proposal. While the proponent has addressed the CPW's concern about the dog 34 01/07/2014 runs within the 75 foot riparian setback by eliminating that portion of the proposal there continues to be wildlife concerns that have not been addressed and mitigation has not been proposed to address those concerns. The first concern is addressed in Eagle County's guiding documents, Development Impacts under Wildlife Resources, the policy states, "Development in areas critical to the continued wellbeing of Eagle County's wildlife populations should not be allowed." This proposal is located in an area that has been designated as critical wildlife habitat on a number of levels including winter range for mule deer, severe mule deer winter range, severe elk winter range, concentration area for elk. All of these are recognized as "critical wildlife habitat" designations by Eagle County. The July 19t letter provided possible impacts from dogs on wildlife; vetted research studies will support those claims. While the actual footprint of this proposal encompasses a relatively small area of the property the impacted area will be larger. Dependent upon topography and vegetation in the area the distance of impacts from dogs to wildlife vary. Wildlife may react to disturbance in a variety of ways ranging from continued use or partial use of the area with increased heart rates (decreased vitality) on the low end of the impact scale to abandonment and death on the other end. While the proponent thinks this is in character with the agricultural character of the area, wildlife react much differently to horses, cows, goats, llamas, and sheep than dogs. Evolution has ingrained dogs as possible predators and threats to wildlife. Whatever semantics are used to describe this business "ranch, day care, or whatever" the reality is dogs will impact the wildlife using the area. The justification for this proposal is that the business, "doggy day care" is more consistent with an agricultural use than a commercial use. The proponent does state,"While the use is certainly a business endeavor the use is more consistent with agricultural activities than with either residential or commercial uses. Given the number of dog owners in this county it is evident that there is a need for such a use but locating this type of use within a commercial zoned area is somewhat incompatible with the location and intensity of commercial areas where there are cars, pedestrians, traffic and other activities that present hazards to these pets or other commercial activities. The same is true of more traditional residential areas." This pet business, while possibly needed, is not unique in Eagle County. Currently, there are other businesses in Eagle County which provide the services described in this proposal; doggy day care is provided at Walking the Dog in Avon, dog training is provided Pets Inc. in the Riverwalk in Edwards, pet grooming in a variety of locations, and kenneling is available from several veterinary services and Walking the Dog all of which are located in commercial areas. While the proponent feels this business' "purpose and location are ideal" the reality is other similar businesses are located in areas not designated as critical wildlife habitat and serve the same purpose without impacting the resource. The existence of these other businesses would indicate that putting this proposed service in a commercial area would be valid and compatible with zoning. The proponent's justification that current zoning does not prohibit a homeowner and accessory dwelling unit owner from having 25 to 30 dogs is not a mitigation strategy that tries to address any of the concerns of the July 19`h letter. What might occur on this site should this proposal not be approved is unknown and speculative and fails to address the issues and concerns regarding wildlife or the impacts from this proposal. The proponent has addressed the potential traffic increases by stating that the number of trips will be within the current zoning range of a primary and accessory unit. The residence with kennel will be occupied by. permanent residents, there will be employees, there will be shuttles of dogs, deliveries, and there is the possibility of"drop offs"by pet owners. The permanent residents will probably need to make the same number of trips any other primary residence owner would make; the additional traffic from the other uses, employees, shuttles, deliveries and drop offs would seem to exceed the amount of traffic the road would receive from the current zoning. Animal vehicle collisions, AVC, do occur at any speed, these occurrences do increase with speed and location of the road. AVC occurs in areas with lower speed limits, Capitol Street in Eagle is 25 mph yet two or three deer are killed there almost every year, in an area with fewer deer than Salt Creek. The Salt Creek road is located in area heavily utilized by wildlife,particularly at certain times of the year. While"...the pricing structure may discourage or eliminate customers from coming to the property"there is no restriction on customers coming to the property. If there is no regulation on customer drop-offs and pick -ups then the number of trips may escalate. 35 01/07/2014 In conclusion, the CPW feels that a"doggy day care"business does not comply with Eagle County's desire to maintain an agricultural character in this area. Eagle County's policies discourage "development in areas critical to the continued wellbeing of Eagle County's wildlife populations should not be allowed," Salt Creek has been designated as critical habitat for mule deer and elk and that adequate mitigation has not been proposed or provided to offset the impacts from this proposal. This proposal will have an impact on the local wildlife populations. What may occur in the future on the property under current zoning is speculative and does not address the impacts from this proposal. Other similar businesses are located within commercially zoned areas throughout the county." - Referral response dated December 19,2013: Email from Perry Will: "The Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife, CPW,has had the opportunity to review the amended application for the Wanderlust Dog Ranch and would offer the following comments and recommendations.The proposal while further mitigating impacts to wildlife cannot mitigate the primary wildlife concern,that being that the proposed business will be located entirely within an area that is designated as critical wildlife habitat.The Comprehensive and Area Community Plans both specifically address development within critical wildlife habitat and direct the county to preserve and protect designated areas, and that `protection of critical wildlife habitat should supersede development goals on these lands.' The proponent states that this use is compatible with the other agricultural uses in the area. This proposal is a business involving animals not an agricultural endeavor. Wildlife reacts quite differently to dogs than to the "other agricultural"uses like horse training and boarding or livestock grazing; dogs are perceived as predators and threats to be avoided. While amending the application to overnight only, limiting the number of dogs to a maximum of 10 animals, restricting the hours outside and kenneling within the primary residence on the property does reduce the impact there will still be a negative effect for local wildlife populations. Does the"Public Benefit" offset the impact from this proposal?While limiting the number of dogs to 10 and over-night use only decrease the impact to wildlife,this also substantially reduces the public benefit.The increasing dog population may be a change of circumstances but locating a kenneling within critical wildlife habitat does not conform to the County's guidance documents. The applicant's business model is sound and probably needed within the county. However, dogs and wildlife are not a good mix. This business should be located in an area away from wildlife habitat. See conditions: 6& 7 Colorado Geological Survey: - Referral response dated August 12, 2013: Email from Jill Carlson: "Colorado Geological Survey's review of the Salt Creek Ranch Lots 1 and 3 referral is attached. The site is quite steep, and I am concerned about potential slope instability associated with clearing and grading for the planned barn and fenced activity areas. Colorado Geological Survey has completed its review of the above-referenced zone change, special use permit, and amended final plat referral. The subject property is located at 2980 Salt Creek Road, Eagle. I understand the Applicant (1) proposes to change the lot 1 and 3 zoning from Resource and Agricultural Resource to Resource Limited, (2)requests a Special Use Permit for a dog kennel, and(3)proposes to combine lots 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Subdivision to create one 24.89-acre lot. With this referral, I received a copy of the Land Use Application Form(signed June 13, 2013), a letter response to Eagle County's Sufficiency Review and Comments (Mauriello Planning Group, July 1, 2013), a General Site Plan, an application submittal for the proposed Wanderlust Dog Ranch (June, 2013), an Overall Property Boundary Map, a Site Plan Blow-Up, an Aerial Site Plan, and an Amended Final Plat (Starbuck Surveyors, June 7, 2013). No geologic or geotechnical information was provided. 36 01/07/2014 Geologic hazards.According to available geologic mapping(Tweto et al, 1978, Geologic map of the Leadville 1° x 2° quadrangle, northwestern Colorado: U.S.G.S., Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-999, scale 1:250,000), the site is underlain by Cretaceous "calcareous shale and manly limestone" of the Niobrara Formation, and Benton Shale. Shale is often associated with slope instability. According to Eagle County geologic hazard mapping, the property may be exposed to hazards associated with erosion due to flooding on Salt Creek,potentially unstable slopes, and rockfall. These potential hazards exist regardless of the zoning, land use, density or development plans. Construction-related slope instability. The site contains slopes of approximately 20% to 35%. I am concerned that substantial clearing and grading will be needed to develop building pads for the proposed "fenced activity areas" and 3000 sq. ft. barn. Factors that can decrease existing slope stability in steep, potentially unstable areas include reducing vegetative cover and altering the grade and drainage patterns of the existing topography, all of which would occur if the planned project features are developed. The Applicant should have a qualified geotechnical consultant determine stable, maximum temporary and permanent cut slope angles and heights based on site-specific soil and bedrock engineering properties, with a reasonable factor of safety, and provide a grading plan consistent with the recommendations. CGS would like to review the slope recommendations and grading plans when available. The Applicant should be aware that slope stability analysis may be required. Water quality setback. It appears that a 100-year flood zone has not been identified for Salt Creek, at least in the vicinity of the subject property. If the Applicant has supporting DFIRM data, map panel(s), or other documentation that shows a 100-year flood zone along Salt Creek and that would result in a different water quality setback, CGS would like to review that information. Otherwise, a minimum 75 ft. setback from the southern edge of the creek channel is recommended." *Since the proposed barn for indoor play areas is no longer part of the proposal, the geotechnical recommendations will be handled at the time of building permit should the applicant decide in the future to build a structure. VI. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER LETTERS: Please see the attached adjacent property owners' letters. VII. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: As stated previously, staff questions the ability of a commercial operation to fit in with the character outlined in Community Area Plan documents. Staff has concerns regarding the compatibility of the proposed uses with the existing surrounding land uses if the project is approved without conditions.The application asserts that because the property has been previously platted, there is additional development potential on the property. Staff believes the application overstates the amount of allowed development. Lot 1 is only allowed to have a single family home and customary accessory residential uses, which are defined as, "buildings for shelter or enclosure of property or domestic animals commonly associated with residential uses, fences, and hedges, gardens, walls and similar landscape features,"per Article 2 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Per the subdivision of the Salt Creek Plat in 2007, Lot 3 is allowed to have agricultural uses. No development is allowed on Lot 3. In addition, Lots 1 is allowed agricultural and customary accessory agricultural buildings. The Residential and Agricultural Zone District Use Schedule specifically singles out "Kennel"as a Special Use Permit and therefore should not be considered the same intensity of use as agriculture, as the application contends. The application continues with the assumption that the kennel will not generate more traffic than a typical single family residence and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). On Lot 1, the ADU would require a Limited Review process. This would indicate that further scrutiny is required for an ADU on this property. If Lot 1 were developed to include an ADU, there would be 10 trips per day per unit, which totals 20 trips a day. There is no guarantee that an ADU would be approved on this property In addition, the Applicant has not adequately addressed the concerns of Colorado Parks and Wildlife or addressed the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan regarding development in critical wildlife areas. The Applicant has correctly 37 01/07/2014 stated the property as platted and zoned could permit development. However, as detailed previously, the allowed development would be low density residential and agricultural in nature. As Colorado Parks and Wildlife has pointed out in their referral letter, livestock typically will have a different impact on wildlife than dogs might. While Eagle County does not regulate the number of personally owned domestic pets or livestock, the assumption is made that the animals would be for the owners of the property, not for people dropping off and picking up dogs which then rises to the level of a commercial operation. The Applicant has taken mitigation measures attempting to preserve the rural character,views and to protect quality areas through screening the dog runs from wildlife, building a barn facility in the future for the kennel, moving the proposed dog runs to outside the 75 foot stream setback, and utilizing approximately 1-2 acres of the 24.89 acre property for the business. The Applicant has also met with the referral agencies to address their concerns and the applicant has significantly amended the application in an attempt to respond to those issues. The proposed zone district amendment may serve to protect the quality of life and the preservation of the surrounding area as a world class tourist destination by clustering the potential for future development upon Lot 1, thereby maintaining the rural character of the area. The kennel may serve tourist/visitor populations as well as local residents. According to the application, this type of facility is needed to Eagle County "to provide dogs with a safe place to exercise, socialize, and be cared for with the highest supervision and attention." This facility would be a small business operation which is encouraged in Eagle County. Staff believes if the proposed use complies with the noise standards in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, adheres to representation made in the application, and meets the suggested conditions; the project can be compatible with the surrounding residential structures and uses in the area. Public notice was provided and staff has received multiple comments from adjacent property owners or other residents of the area concerning the request. Please see Section V: Adjacent Property Owner Letters for a list of concerns. IX. SUGGESTED FINDINGS: Staff suggests the application as conditioned meets the majority of the following findings necessary for the approval of any Special Use: (1) Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Special Use IS NOT in substantial conformance with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, Area Community Plans and any applicable ancillary County adopted documents pertaining to natural resource protection, wildlife, or infrastructure management. (am 11/08/05) (am.05/08/12) (2) Compatibility. The Special Use IS OR CAN BE MADE TO BE generally compatible with the existing and currently permissible future uses of adjacent land and other substantially impacted land, services, or infrastructure improvements. (am.05/08/12) (3) Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES 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 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential, Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. (4) Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. The design of the proposed Special Use DOES OR CAN BE MADE TO BE reasonably avoid adverse impacts, including visual impacts of the proposed use on adjacent lands including trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration,or otherwise create a nuisance. (am.05/08/12) 38 01/07/2014 (5) Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. The proposed Special Use DOES OR CAN BE MADE TO BE minimize environmental impacts and DOES NOT cause significant deterioration of water and air resources,wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. (6) Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use WILL 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. (7) Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES or can be made to comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. (8) Other Provisions. 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. Staff suggests the application as conditioned meets the majority of the following findings necessary for the approval of any Rezoning: (1) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment DOES consider the purposes and intents of the Comprehensive Plan, all ancillary County adopted Specialty and Community Plan documents,and IS NOT consistent with all relevant goals,policies, implementation strategies and Future Land Use Map designation. (2) . Compatible with Surrounding Uses.The proposal DOES OR CAN BE MADE TO BE compatible with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property; dimensional limitations of the proposed zone district, when applied, SHOULD result in development that will be harmonious with the physical character of existing neighborhood(s) surrounding the subject property. (3) Public Benefit.The proposal DOES address a demonstrated community need or otherwise results in one or more particular public benefits that offset the impacts of the proposed uses requested, including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing; childcare facilities; multi-modal transportation, public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements; preservation of agriculture/sensitive lands. (4) Change of Circumstances.The proposal DOES address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occurred to the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community. (5) Adequate Infrastructure.The property subject to the proposal IS served by adequate roads, water, sewer and other public use facilities. X. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S OPTIONS: 1. Deny [File No. ZS-4356, ZC-4354] if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Table [File No. ZS-4356, ZC-43541 if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 3. Approve [File No. ZS-4356, ZC-43541 with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood 39 01/07/2014 properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan(and/or other applicable master plans). XI. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS FOR THE REZONING: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. XII. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. The Applicant shall adhere to the approved Operational and Performance Standards. The Special Use shall comply with current Eagle County regulations with regard to noise. The Applicant may be required by the County staff to prove that operation complies with the current noise regulations should a substantiated complaint be received. The County may require a hearing to revisit,revise or revoke the Special Use Permit should the County receive three (3) or more substantiated complaints concerning noise and/or odors from the Special Use within a six(6)month period. 3. The Applicant shall provide Road Impact Fees to the Engineering Department upon establishing of the Special Use on the property. 4. Dog waste shall be collected on a daily basis and disposed of properly so as to not become a nuisance to adjacent property owners or impact water quality. 5. The Applicant shall correct the well location with the Colorado Department of Water Resources within one (1) year of the approval date of this Special Use Permit. The Applicant shall use an alternative water source for dogs that does not require a new well permit until such time that a new well permit is obtained that complies with the intended uses on the property. 6. The Applicant shall provide wildlife resistant trash containers on site. Trash, including dog waste, shall be disposed of at a rate that does not create significant odor nuisance for the neighbors based upon three or more substantiated complaints within a six(6)month period. 7. The County may require a hearing to revisit, revise or revoke the Special Use Permit should wildlife deaths of three (3) or more a year occur related to the traffic associated with the Special Use on Salt Creek Road. 8. The Special Use is limited to the operation under the direction of this Applicant. Any change in ownership of the property or the business shall void this Special Use Permit. 9. Prior to recordation of the Amended Final Plat for the property, the Applicant shall modify or vacate the access easement to the property and reestablish as necessary to remove any restrictions that might prevent the Special Use. . 10. The Applicant shall be required to extend the height of fenced dog areas as may be necessary by adding either solid fencing or wire or mesh material to prevent dogs from jumping over the fences. 11. The total number of kenneled dogs shall be limited to 10 at any one time. 40 01/07/2014 12. The Special Use approval shall be reviewed by County staff after it has operated for 3 years. Staff shall notify the Applicant in writing of issues, if any,that may need to be addressed. Should the use be found by staff to be inconsistent with the Special Use approval and the issues are not addressed by the Applicant, a hearing with the Board of County Commissioners may be required to review, revise, or revoke the Special Use Permit. 13. The Applicant shall work with Eagle County to install a traffic control sign along Salt Creek Road to warn travelers of the narrow road and curves in close proximity to the driveway for this property as may be permitted. Additionally,the Applicant shall install a sign along the driveway warning drivers of a narrow driveway. 14. The Applicant shall provide two turnouts of approximately 8' in width along the driveway so that cars can easily pass one another on the driveway. The Applicant shall work with Eagle County Engineering and the Fire District to determine appropriate locations for the turnouts in the field. 15. The Applicant shall adhere to any requirements of the Building Department for the conversion of the first floor of the building from a residential use to a kennel. 16. The boarding of dogs is regulated by the State of Colorado pursuant to Colorado Department of Agriculture section 8 CCR 1201-11. The Applicant shall obtain a license from the State as necessary to operate this Special Use. 17. Prior to the start of the Special Use,the Individual Sewage Disposal System(ISDS)will be certified by a Professional Engineer (PE) for commercial use. If any modifications and/or upgrades are required, these shall be completed prior to any business being conducted under the Special Use Permit. 18. The Applicant shall provide County staff with a yearly report starting in January 2015, documenting how the Special Use is meeting all the conditions of approval. APPENDIX A—SPECIAL USE PERMIT NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-250 Special Use Permits Section Purpose: Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses allowed in a zone district, but which may be determined compatible with the other uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location, design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location with surrounding land uses. All Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in this Section. Standards: Section 5-250.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon findings that there is competent evidence that the proposed use as conditioned, fully complies with all the standards of this Section, this Division,this Article, and these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate to ensure compliance with the following standards, including conformity to a specific site plan, requirements to improve public facilities necessary to serve the Special Use, and limitations on the operating characteristics of the use, or the location or duration of the Special Use Permit 41 01/07/2014 STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-250.B.1] The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN s e t i quo g '8" _ & Designation o , iz vo Exceeds Recommendations _ Incorporates Majority of X X X X X Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Xl X2 X3 Not Applicable X X Xl: Water is provided by a well approved by the State Engineer.The current well permit does not allow for commercial use. The Applicant is proposing that the file be conditioned so the well permit is changed to accommodate a commercial use. Until such time that a water augmentation plan is completed, the Applicant is proposing to use the existing well in line with the permitted uses, which is domestic use by a single family home, one acre of lawn irrigation and watering of livestock and domestic animals. The Applicant is also proposing to utilize bottled water, possible construction of a cistern and providing a portable restroom for employees until such time that a permanent, reliable water source is approved for residential and commercial use,this policy goal is not met. X2: The Applicant has not adequately addressed the concerns of Colorado Parks and Wildlife or addressed the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan regarding development in critical wildlife areas. The Applicant has correctly stated the property is platted for development, as detailed previously. However, the allowed development would be agricultural in nature and as Colorado Parks and Wildlife has pointed out in their referral letter,livestock has a potentially different impact on wildlife than dogs. X3: Salt Creek traverses through Lot 1, the location of the proposed kennel. Staff has requested that the Applicant provide current water quality levels to determine in the future if water quality is compromise by the approval of the kennel. STANDARD: Compatibility. [Section 5-250.B.2J The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS As stated previously, staff questions the ability of a commercial operation to fit in with the character outlined in Community Area Plan documents. Staff has concerns regarding the compatibility of the proposed uses with the existing surrounding land uses if the project is approved without conditions. The 42 01/07/2014 application asserts that because the property has been previously platted, there is additional development potential on the property. Staff believes the application overstates the amount of allowed development. Both Lots 1 and 3 are only allowed to have a single family home and customary accessory residential uses, which are defined as, "buildings for shelter or enclosure of property or domestic animals commonly associated with residential uses, fences, and hedges, gardens, walls and similar landscape features," per Article 2 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. In addition, Lots 1 and 3 are allowed agricultural and customary accessory agricultural buildings. The Residential and Agricultural Zone District Use Schedule specifically singles out "Kennel" as a Special Use Permit and therefore should not be considered the same intensity of use as agriculture, as the application contends. STANDARD: Zone District Standards.[Section 5-250.B.3] The proposed 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 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential, Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. [Section 5-250.B.4] The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special 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. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 43 ,fixeee.Os ECLAIR Rfirenumis _ Satisfies EW x x X X Requirements +r� Does Not"Sate tali( ? X1 X1 X1 Requirement -- Nt Applicable X X Xl: While the application stipulates that noise and odors will not be a problem, staff has suggested a condition that should three (3) or more substantiated complaints be received within a six (6) month period regarding the kenneling operation, the County has the ability to require a hearing lo revisit, revise or revoke the Special Use Permit. Although the Applicant has provided information to support their claims but staff questions the methodology used by the applicant because a noise meter was not used. Staff has requested noise and odor levels from other similar operations but this hasn't been provided. STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. [Section 5-250.B.5] The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. 43 01/07/2014 EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 4 6 i i Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirement X X X X X X Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Xl Not Applicable Xl: While the application stipulates that noise and odors will not be a problem, staff has suggested a condition that should three (3) or more substantiated complaints be received within a six (6) month period regarding the kenneling operation,the County has the ability to require a hearing to revisit,revise or revoke the Special Use Permit. Although the Applicant has provided information to support their claims but staff questions the methodology used by the applicant because a noise meter was not used. Staff has requested noise and odor levels from other similar operations but this hasn't been provided. STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities. [Section 5-250.B.6] The proposed Special Use Permit shall 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. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 3 c aa. a. p- rn ' H a„ r,s sn Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Xl X Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable X X X X Xl: Water for the property is provided by a well permit from the State. The current well permit doesn't allow for commercial use. The Applicant is proposing that the file be conditioned so the well permit is changed to accommodate a commercial use. Until such time that a water augmentation plan is completed, the Applicant is proposing to use the existing well in line with the permitted uses, which is domestic use by a single family home, one acre of lawn irrigation and watering of livestock and 44 01/07/2014 domestic animals. The Applicant is also proposing to utilize bottled water, possible construction of a cistern and providing a portable restroom for employees. STANDARD: Site Development Standards. [Section 5-250.B.7] The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS i� i � { t �i 7 I jai£I� i £(iv;fi c�id e c� � hd�£f£4s£¢`�di yu l� it i ! a t �s � �r k ,t t43 I: s. .ft* f i vi ii-�� ttUi o 1°i 7£ s ' t Taon s r r t ,1� R a I t �" � t+��^[k l( a �{ £i h � �J�i�'�f7G��d"� F, u r 1 £ 3 3 i 4 d 4 r 3 .., ', a oc .r 3li :., �... a. ,±. b.;.yu+,Dk tii.gigi.,�,.fw1n}� . t 3+ X Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards(Division 4-1) X Landscaping and Illumination Standards(Division 4-2) I X Sign Regulations(Division 4-3) X Wildlife Protection(Section 4-410) 7&8 X Geologic Hazards(Section 4-420) 6 X Hillside Development(Section 4-425) X Wildfire Protection(Section 4-430) X Wood Burning Controls(Section 4-440) X Ridgeline Protection(Section 4-450) X Environmental Impact Report(Section 4-460) X Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards(Division 4-5) 2&9 X Noise and Vibration(Section 4-520) 2,4&9 X Smoke and Particulates(Section 4-530) X Heat,Glare,Radiation and Electrical Interference(Section 4-540) X Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials(Section 4-550) X Water Quality Standards(Section 4-560) X Roadway Standards(Section 4-620) i X Sidewalk and Trail Standards(Section 4-630) X Irrigation System Standards(Section 4-640) X Drainage Standards(Section 4-650) X Grading and Erosion Control Standards(Section 4-660) X Utility and Lighting Standards(Section 4-670) X Water Supply Standards(Section 4-680)* X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards(Section 4-690) X Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards(Division 4-7) 3 45 01/07/2014 STANDARD: Other Provisions. [Section 5-250.B.8] 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. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS APPENDIX B—REZONING A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-230 Amendments to the Text of These Land Use Regulations or Official Zone District Map Section Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide a means for changing the boundaries of the Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations by reference, and for changing the text of these Land Use Regulations. It is not intended to relieve particular hardships, or to confer special privileges or rights on any person, but only to make necessary adjustments in light of changed conditions. Standards: Section 5-230.D. No change in zoning shall be allowed unless in the sole discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, the change is justified in that the advantages of the use requested substantially outweigh the disadvantages to the County and neighboring lands. In making such a determination, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the application submittal requirements and standards. STANDARD: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.1] Does the proposed amendment consider the purposes and intents of the Comprehensive Plan, all ancillary County adopted Specialty and Community Plan documents, and is it consistent with all relevant goals, policies, implementation strategies and Future Land Use Map designations including but not necessarily limited to the following: EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN X EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Section 3.2 General Development Policies a,c,e,f, g,h,i and k Policy `a': "Those attributes that support quality of life options unique to Eagle County today should be preserved for future generations" This proposal would cluster development on approximately 1-2 acres of the 22 acres which supports the rural character of the Salt Creek Valley and is down zoning Lot 1 and creating a legal, conforming lot by incorporating Lot 3. Policy `c': "Growth should be managed toward future sustainability — a healthy balance between economic success, quality of life and the preservation of the environment". 46 01/07/2014 The proposed zone district amendment helps to protect approximately 22 acres of land since the kennel operation is limited to approximately two(2)acres of the entire property. Policy `e': "Urban and suburban type growth should be appropriately designed and should be located within or immediately contiguous to existing towns and community centers". Not applicable. Policy `f: "New communities proposed for unincorporated areas of the County should be subject to a thorough and rigorous set of development criteria" Not applicable. Policy `s': "Redevelopment and/or revitalization of currently underdeveloped, outdated, rundown, or otherwise dysfunctional areas should be encourages". Not applicable. Policy`h': "Open corridors between towns and community centers should be preserved". Not applicable. Policy `I': "A cluster style of development should be encouraged, especially in areas where cultural, environmental or scenic resources at risk". The purpose of this zone district amendment is specifically to down-zone the property where the kennel will take place.The developable area is being limited to approximately two (2)acres of the 24.89 total acreage. Policy `k': "Local communities should establish unique venues, attractions and design standards directed toward enhancing individual community character and developing a sense of place" Not applicable. Section 3.3 Economic Resources Policies b,c,d,e,f,h,j,m and o Policy `b': "A healthy, attractive business environment, appropriate to the area's character and resources, should be fostered". According to the application, this type of facility is needed to Eagle County"to provide dogs with a safe place to exercise, socialize, and be cared for with the highest supervision and attention." This facility would be a small business operation which is encouraged in Eagle County. Policy `c': "Those qualities that make Eagle County a world class tourist destination and a great place to live, work and play should be identified,promoted and protected". The proposed zone district amendment may serve to protect the quality of life and the preservation of the surrounding area as a world class tourist destination by clustering the potential for future development upon Lot 1, thereby maintaining the rural character of the area. The kennel may serve tourist/visitor populations as well as local residents. Policy `d': "The potential impacts of second-home ownership and an aging resident population in Eagle County should be identified and incorporated into the decision making process". Not applicable. 47 01/07/2014 Policy`e': "Commercial development should occur at a pace commensurate to growth in Eagle County': The Applicant has identified this type of business as an unmet need in Eagle County which is providing dog kenneling in a rural environment. Policy`t': "Commercial uses should be appropriately scaled and should be located within towns and community centers". While this is a commercial use,the Applicant specifically chose,this location because of the rural nature. Policy `h': "Commercial development should fit a regional economic structure that promotes a coherent regional `community'while respecting sub-area character and identity" Once again, the Applicant has identified this type of business as an unmet need in Eagle County which is providing dog kenneling in a rural environment. Policy `j': "Agricultural land uses should be retained to preserve Eagle County's historical heritage and scenic quality for the benefit of future generations': Currently, there are no agricultural uses on the property; therefore this standard is Not Applicable. Policy `k': "Timber harvesting and mining should be recognized as viable economic activities, so long as negative social, cultural and environmental impacts are appropriately mitigated': Not applicable. Policy `m': "Economic infrastructure should be planned for in advance, and should be adequate to support existing and future business needs". Not applicable. Policy `o': "Future economic development in Eagle County should center on the area's existing amenities while encouraging new knowledge and technology based enterprises" Not applicable. Section 3.4 Housing Policies a, d,e, g and n Policy `a': "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers". Not applicable. Policy`d': "Efforts to increase the stock of affordable rental units for local workers should be supported". Not applicable. Policy`e': "Adequate housing options for Senior Citizens should be available': Not applicable. Policy `g': "Well designed mobile home subdivisions, modular home subdivisions and mobile home parks should be encouraged where appropriate" Not applicable. 48 01/07/2014 Policy`n': "Development should share responsibility for fulfilling Eagle County's workforce housing needs". Not applicable. Section 3.5 Infrastructure and Services Policies a, c, g,i,j,k,m and o Policy`a': "Developed areas in Eagle County should be served by multiple modes of transportation". Not applicable. Policy `c': "Residential neighborhoods should include an appropriate mix of community services and community centered retail spaces that can be accessed by alternative modes of transportation': Not applicable. Policy `g': "Eagle County should be adequately and efficiently served by mass transportation systems and facilities' Not applicable. Policy `i': "Exemplary emergency and community services should be available to all residents, visitors and second home owners". The existing property is currently served by emergency service providers. Policy `j': "The management and distribution of recreation areas and facilities in Eagle County should be implemented in an environmentally conscientious manner". Not applicable. Policy `k': "Adequate and efficient infrastructure should exist within community centers and suburban neighborhoods for the delivery of domestic drinking water and for the treatment of domestic sewage". Not applicable. Policy `m': "Communication infrastructure should be sufficient to support all anticipated needs in Eagle County". Not applicable. Policy `o': "The service and infrastructure needs of all socio-economic, age and cultural groups present in Eagle County should be fully addressed". Not applicable. Section 3.6 Water Resources Policies a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h and i Policy `a': "The long term viability of both ground and surface water sources should,be protected': The Applicant understands the limitations of the current well permit and the DWR policies regarding home-based businesses.While the well is permitted to serve three single-family homes, irrigate an acre of lawn and gardens, and allow for the watering of livestock and domestic animals and the site is only developed with one single-family 49 01/07/2014 home,the Applicant understands that the well permit may have to be changed or updated to allow this"commercial uses"which adds water for dogs associated with the business. If the Applicant intends to use the well beyond the current limitations,he will run through the appropriate steps to secure the rights to allow water for providing water to the dogs.The permitting for additional water rights can be a lengthy and expensive process, so it makes sense to condition the approval that adequate water be provided. In the meantime,the Applicant is proposing to use the well for its permitted uses including residential uses (up to three residential units -only one currently on the property),watering domesticated animals associated with the residential use(the owner's pets), and irrigation of the property(up to one acre of lawn and gardens). For the watering of pets associated with the dog use,the Applicant will provide water brought to the site which may include a large cistern for onsite water storage.Additionally,the Applicant will correct the well location with DWR. Policy `b': "Minimum in-stream flows should be maintained and efforts to establish optimum in-stream flow standards in Eagle County should be supported". Not applicable. Policy'c': "Water conservation efforts by all water users in Eagle County should be implemented". The application does not address water conservation but future uses by right (ie. residential and/or agricultural buildings) will be subject to ECO Build and, therefore, subject to review for water, energy and other natural resource conservation. Policy `d': "New water diversions and water storage projects should result in positive impacts to Eagle County's economy and environmental quality" Not applicable. Policy `e': "Collaborative efforts on regional land and water use planning efforts to address future growth, water supply, and stream flow protection should be encouraged". Not applicable. Policy 'f': "Water quality in Eagle County should meet the highest applicable standards" The Applicant has moved all proposed dog runs outside of the 75 foot streamside setback of Salt Creek. Policy `g': "Surface and groundwater supplies should be protected from agricultural, industrial and development related impacts". See previous comment under Policy"a"in Section 3.6, Water Resources. Policy `h': "Aquatic and riparian habitats should be protected from agricultural, industrial and development related impacts" As stated previously, the Applicant has moved all proposed dog runs outside of the 75 foot streamside setback of Salt Creek. Policy 'i': "Water-related recreation should be encouraged where appropriate at a level that will not damage related resources,ecosystems and environments". Not applicable. 50 01/07/2014 Section 3.7 Wildlife Resources Policies a,b,c, d,e,f and i Policy `a': "The integrity, quality and interconnected nature of critical wildlife habitat in Eagle County should be preserved' The Applicant has not adequately addressed the concerns of Colorado Parks and Wildlife or addressed the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan regarding development in critical wildlife areas. Policy `b': "The well-being of wildlife species of economic importance should be actively monitored and protected". See previous comment under Policy"a"in Section 3.7,Wildlife Resources. Policy `c': "The well-being of wildlife species of less economic importance and those on the rare and endangered species list should be actively monitored and protected." See previous comment under Policy"a"in Section 3.7,Wildlife Resources. Policy `d': "Development in areas critical to the continued well-being of Eagle County's wildlife populations should not be allowed". See previous comment under Policy"a"in Section 3.7, Wildlife Resources. Policy `e': "Where disturbances to wildlife habitat cannot be avoided, development should be required to fully mitigate potential negative impacts' The Applicant has taken mitigation measures attempting to preserve the rural character, views and protect quality areas through screening the dog runs, moving the proposed dog runs to outside the 75 foot stream setback, and utilizing approximately 1-2 acres of the 24.89 acre property for the business. Policy 'f': "Broad development patterns and the cumulative impacts of incremental development on wildlife habitat and wildlife populations should be accounted for in the decision making process". See previous comment under Policy"e"in Section 3.7,Wildlife Resources. Policy `i': "Access to public lands and opportunities for public land recreation should be balanced with the need to preserve quality wildlife habitat". Not applicable. Section 3.8 Sensitive Lands Policies a,c,e and g Policy a': "Development should avoid areas of significant natural hazard". Development of the subject property will be restricted to those areas of the property outside the 75 foot setback from Salt Creek. The Applicant will comply with the requirements of the Colorado Geological Survey prior to the issuance of any building permit. Policy `b': "The mitigation of natural hazards should be done in a manner that protects the integrity of the natural environment and the visual quality of the area': See above comment. 51 01/07/2014 Policy `c': "Development and development patterns should preserve landscapes that include visual, historic and archeological value". The proposed zone change will help protect the visual and historic value of the subject property by reducing the potential for future development upon the subject property. Policy`e': "A variety of approaches should be utilized to preserve land as open space". The purpose of this application is to reduce development potential on the subject property and, therefore to afford better opportunities to preserve larger areas of the two properties. Policy`g': "Appropriate access should be provided to public lands and rivers". Not applicable. Section 3.9 Environmental Quality Policies a, c and d Policy `a': "Air quality should meet the highest applicable safety standards, as well as the aesthetic expectations of local residents': While the application stipulates that noise and odors will not be a problem, staff has suggested a condition that should three(3)or more substantiated complaints be received within a six(6)month period regarding the kenneling operation, the County has the ability to require a hearing to revisit, revise or revoke the Special Use Permit. Although the Applicant has provided information to support their claims but staff questions the methodology used by the applicant because a noise meter was not used. Staff has requested noise and odor levels from other similar operations but this hasn't been provided. Policy `c': "Noise should be minimized to meet the highest applicable safety standards, as well as the aesthetic expectations of local residents" See above comment. Policy `d': "Energy efficiency and the reduction of overall energy consumption should be a primary goal for future operations and developments in Eagle County': Not applicable. Section 3.10 Future Land Use Map Policy a Policy `a': "Zone changes and site-specific land use proposals should reflect the written policies of this Comprehensive Plan, the land use designations of the Future Land Use Map and the goals and objectives set forth within Area Community Plans, as applicable': The future land use map for the 2010 Eagle Area Community Plan identifies the subject property as being within "Agricultural/Rural Area,the Brush Creek Character Area and the Outlying Rural Subdivision Area". Section 4 Adopted Area Community Plans All relevant goals,policies and FLUM designations 2010 Eagle Area Community Plan EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 52 01/07/2014 The Applicant has stated that the proposed Rezoning, Special Use Permit and Amended Final Plat meet the intent of the 2010 Eagle Area Community Plan; staff questions the ability of a commercial operation to fit in with the scope and character outlined in these plans as well as being compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. The Applicant has taken mitigation measures attempting to preserve the rural character, views and protects quality areas through screening the dog runs, moving the proposed dog runs to outside the 75 foot stream setback, and utilizing approximately 1-2 acres of the 24.89 acre property for the business. STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-230.D.2J Does the proposal provide compatibility with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property? Dimensional limitations of the proposed zone district, when applied, should result in development that will be harmonious with the physical character of existing neighborhood(s)surrounding the subject property. As stated previously, staff questions the ability of a commercial operation to fit in with the character outlined in Community Area Plan documents. Staff has concerns regarding the compatibility of the proposed uses with the existing surrounding land uses if the project is approved without conditions. The application asserts that because the property has been previously platted, there is additional development potential on the property. Staff believes the application overstates the amount of allowed development. Lot 1 is only allowed to have a single family home and customary accessory residential uses, which are defined as, "buildings for shelter or enclosure of property or domestic animals commonly associated with residential uses, fences, and hedges, gardens, walls and similar landscape features,"per Article 2 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Per the subdivision of the Salt Creek Plat in 2007, Lot 3 is allowed to have agricultural uses. No development is allowed on Lot 3. In addition, Lots 1 is allowed agricultural and customary accessory agricultural buildings. The Residential and Agricultural Zone District Use Schedule specifically singles out"Kennel" as a Special Use Permit and therefore should not be considered the same intensity of use as agriculture, as the application contends. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Public Benefit. [Section 5-230.D.3]Does the proposal address a demonstrated community need or otherwise result in one or more particular public benefits that offset the impacts of the proposed uses requested, including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing; childcare facilities; multi-modal transportation, public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements;preservation of agriculture/sensitive lands. Once again,the Applicant has identified this type of business as an unmet need in Eagle County which is providing dog kenneling in a rural environment. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Change of Circumstances. [Section 5-230.D.4J Does the proposal address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occurred to the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community? EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS X NOT APPLICABLE 53 01/07/2014 STANDARD: Adequate Infrastructure. [Section 5-230.D.5] Is the property subject to the proposal served by adequate roads, water, sewer and other public use facilities? The property will be served by private water and wastewater facilities (i.e.well and septic). EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE DISCUSSION: Mr. Hunn presented the files; a Zone Change, a Special Use Permit and an Amended Final Plat. He reviewed the criteria for the various requests. He showed various slides and maps of the parcel and surrounding lands. He acknowledged the receipt of significant neighbor opposition to the project. There were 18 conditions specific to the special use permit. The applicant had been proactive in responding to concerns by Colorado Department of Wildlife,Eagle County's Planning Commission and to the concerns of the neighbors. Bryan Treu,County Attorney spoke. All standards need to be considered,but did not need to be reviewed one by one. The staff presentation included all three requests, and if the Special Use Permit was not approved the first two would be unnecessary. Dominic Mauriello presented a PowerPoint slide show related to the request. The applicant was under contract to purchase the property pending approval of the applications. They were asking for approval for an overnight dog condo arrangement. The proposed use was unique and not found elsewhere in the county. They were eliminating a non-conforming lot in the process. The consolidated parcel would meet the 20 acre minimum. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Originally the plan was for 30 dogs maximum per night. There would only be 10 dogs allowed overnight in the current plan. The barn originally proposed would also be eliminated. The dogs would be confined within the structure at night and there would be no night lighting other than the minimum required by code. He showed a calculation of the separation from adjacent residential uses. The nearest residence was 1200 feet away. There was adequate separation from other activities. Pet turf would be used to cover areas on which the dogs would be active. The dogs would be contained with no possibility of roaming freely or irritating wildlife. If there were more than 3 deaths of animals per year due to the increased traffic,the Special Use Permit could be reviewed and revoked. He spoke about noise mitigation. Reducing the number of dogs, concentrating use on the property, dogs indoors after 6:00 p.m. and rejecting dogs that have a history of making too much noise. Noise complaints would be addressed immediately with neighbors. If there were complaints the board would have the ability recall the use permit,review it and even revoke the permit. All lighting would be dark sky compliant. There was a well on the property. They also had a wild land fire protocol in the event of a fire. They believed it to be a compatible use for the neighborhood. Commissioner Ryan asked about the combination of lots one and three. Mr. Treu indicated that combining the two lots gave the minimum size required for a special use permit. Commissioner Ryan wondered about traffic trips per day. Greg Schroeder indicated that he believed the doggie shuttle would be the preferable method to transport dogs to the facility. The maximum additional trips would be 20 per day, or the equivalent of one to two single family residences. Commissioner Chandler—Henry asked about the steep slopes and wondered if the planning department was concerned. Mr.Mauriello stated that the concern was related to the previously proposed barn. Commissioner Chandler—Henry asked about the shuttle. She wondered if this was optional or mandatory. Mr. Mauriello stated that it would be recommended,but would be optional. Commissioner Chandler—Henry asked about noise mitigation during the day. Mr. Mauriello indicated that the dogs would not be outdoors all at the same time,but in a rotation. Commissioner Ryan asked how the operation would be managed. 54 01/07/2014 Jason Hershman,the applicant explained that daily operations would change depending on the number and type of dog on property. They would get plenty of exercise in terms of the yard and fenced in area near the previous barn location. Commissioner Ryan wondered about how they would be supervised. Mr. Hershman stated that the dogs would never be left alone and determination of exactly how they would be managed would depend upon the mixture of animals at any given time. He spoke about the rationale in starting a website prior to getting approval for the requests. Chairman Fisher opened public comment. Marian Jackman of Eagle Ranch expressed support for the dog ranch. She spoke about a recent walk when about 100 elk came galloping up. She was congratulated by an Eagle County Animal control officer for controlling her dogs as they galloped by. She believed that having such a facility would reduce dogs getting loose while in the care of temporary care givers such as teenagers. She liked this concept and believed it was suitable to meet her needs. Debra Mace spoke to the board. She felt that a facility such as what was proposed was really needed. She was in favor. She has a background in dog training. Kimberly Meyer,resident of Edwards spoke. She has been aware of it for months and was impressed by the proposed owner's efforts to address all potential concerns. She had been training dogs for 20 years,mostly unpaid. She had a degree in Wildlife Management and taught environmental training. Scott Hershman spoke. He'd been in the valley for 6 years and was tired of driving to Denver to board his dogs. He expressed support for the facility and hoped for a positive outcome. He currently resided in Edwards. Chairman Fisher closed public comment. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the current status of the neighbors objections to the revised proposal. Mr.Mauriello believed that the applicant had addressed most of the initial comments and issues but there was one aggressive neighbor that they were unable to meet their expectations. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that her objections related to the non-compliance of the county comprehensive plan related to the critical wildlife border. Mr.Mauriello explained that the proposal was in critical wildlife habitat but there would be fencing and the applicant proposed additional wire on the top to keep dogs from jumping over the fence.There was also dense brush surrounding the kennel area. The fence would be 6-8 ft. in height. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the noise complaints and how the concerns with dogs barking would be addressed. Mr.Mauriello stated that the applicant was more at risk with noise condition than any other but was willing to take the risk. Mr. Treu suggested spoke about the enforcement measures and that 3 or more complaints within any 6 month period would trigger a violation and a public ,1}g Commissioner Ryan wondered how many ciristhere,vt ld be at any one time and how long they would be permitted to be outside. k • ; #4" Mr. Hershman stated that the dogs would re'' l o b" o ". c*1 k ng2l ar 1 ho r, any one time Commissioner Ryan spoke about the fact that ant had worked with staff and wondered if the standard related to the impact to wildlife and the inconsistency to the comprehensive plan had been discussed. Mr.Mauriello stated that the applicant believed that the impacts to wildlife would be minimal based on the mitigation plan in place. The reduction in the number of dogs and the 18 conditions put the burden on the applicant. Mr. Hunn stated that looking at the policy statements from the community plan and future land use map, staff believed it would be a balancing act and instructed the applicant that they would have to accept the conditions on their file. Commissioner Fisher asked about the proposed training facility in the town of Eagle. Mr.Hershman stated that he was in the process of opening a facility in the town. Commissioners Chandler-Henry asked if 10 dogs were enough to make this business financially viable. Mr. Hershman believed it would be financially viable with the day care training component. 55 01/07/2014 Mr. Hunn reviewed the proposed 18 conditions. The county had good control over the noise mitigation. Chairman Fisher asked if the special use permit would run with the land. Mr.Narracci stated that the board had a lot of latitude in how to approve the special use which was the case here. Commissioner Ryan believed the applicant had put a lot of work and heart into the request. They had taken a lot of mitigation measures. The number of dogs had been reduced to 10 dogs and there were no additional comments or complaints by neighbors. The proposal was in a critical wildlife area and there would still be an impact to wildlife. She read a letter submitted by the Department of Wildlife regarding the negative effect on wildlife by dogs. She'd seen the screening of the brush and believed it provided a good buffer. She understood that the dogs would not be outside all day. She believed it met a need by dog owners and met a majority of the findings necessary for approval. Commissioner Chandler-Henry complimented the Planning Commission on their review and the hard work by the applicants. She believed that there was evidence that the applicant had mitigated the wildlife concerns. She was a little uncomfortable but believed there was a public benefit. Chairman Fisher felt the proposal was not consistent with the comprehensive plan and not consistent with what neighbors had visualized when purchasing their property. It was not compatible for the rural community. She expressed concerned with dogs in heat and how that might be dealt with in the housing component. She believed the applicant underestimated the knowledge needed to run a kennel on a year around basis. She wondered how emergencies would be handled in the business plan. She suggested opening a business in town first rather than changing a neighborhood for a business the applicant was only trying. She did not believe the applicant had the proper skill set to run this type of business at this time. Mr.Treu stated that the standards for the approval for the zone change had changed slightly but believed it would be appropriate to make the recommendation to approve based on the recommendation of staff and Planning Commission. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve file nos.ZC-4354,ZS-4356, AFP-4353 Salt Creek Ranch Subdivision Lots 1 and 3 with the proposed conditions. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of two to one with Commissioner Fisher voting against. There being no further business before th- +. ' eting was adjourned until J.n 14, 2014. C:::;%g/e/4" 410" * Attest: L._._. Clerk to the Board Chai an 56 01/07/2014