HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 11/24/1980i
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
r>
MINUTES
November 24, 1980
Board Present: John Clarke, Dennis Georg, Dave Gilfillan, Carolyn Haase,
Ben Napheys, Gary Ross, Ed Stoner
Staff Present: Curt Smith, Joe Frank, Cathy Chianese, Ken Waido, Susan Epstein
Legal Representative: Pete Ruggiero
Ross: Called meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Announced the items which had been continued or withdrawn.
Explained the procedure for the consent agenda. Asked if anyone wished
to have discussion on any of the items on the consent agenda.
Clarke: Moved approval of Items 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 (excepting those which had
been continued or withdrawn).
Haase: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0 - 1, Gilfillan abstaining due to his recent
appointment to the Board.
9. #203-79B Wagon Wheel 3rd Filing Preliminary P.U.D.
A preliminary proposal for a residential P.U.D. of 49 fourplexes on 20
acres located west of Shields Street and south of Casa Grande Blvd.,
zoned RP, Planned Residential District. The preliminary P.U.D. includes a
5,100 sq. ft. day care center.
Applicant: Melody Homes, c/o Gefroh Associates Inc., One Drake Park,
Suite 23, 333 W. Drake, Fort Collins, CO 80526 (Lester Kaplan, Planning
Consultant)
Chianese: Described the proposal, stating staff recommended approval.
Ross: Asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Board on this item.
Kurt Reed: With Gefroh Associates. Pointed out that the proposal is a part of the
entire Wagon Wheel project. Said he would be available to answer questions.
Alan Apt: Resident on Ryeland Lane. Said it is admirable that a development of this
density is being proposed close in to the City, but said it is unfortunate
that there is not a greater variety of buildings used in the development.
Stated the landscaping also looks good.
Reed: Stated this P.U.D. is a part of the Wagon Wheel project which encompasses
100 acres and offers several unit types which will provide variety. Said
the fourplexes would have different exterior appearances which would give
a greater impression of mixture of unit types. Showed slides of different
elevations and noted that the buildings would be set at different angles to
P & Z Board Minutes
11/24/80
Page 2
each other, again to give a variety of appearances.
Stoner: Asked how many different exterior elevations there would be.
Reed: Replied there would be three different elevations. Stated they had gone
to great lengths with this plan to provide a variety of spatial layouts
on the site. Noted that the previous plan, based on a repeated pinwheel
layout, had been changed to provide a more varied layout.
Napheys: Asked Reed to point out the active open space.
Reed: Pointed out the active open areas on the slide of the site plan, noting
that the proposal easily complies with the P.U.D. requirements for open
space.
Napheys: Asked if there were any recreational devices with these areas.
Reed:
Replied that a tennis court and a child's play area were being considered,
but had not been finally decided upon.
Ross:
Asked if anyone else wished to comment.
Georg:
Asked how the day care center area would be utilized if a day care center
did not develop.
Reed:
Replied the day care center is in the southwest corner of the P.U.D. which
is adjacent to single family areas in the Wagon Wheel project. Said he
did not know what would be done with the area if no day care center developed.
Napheys:
Asked if the day care center were in this filing.
Reed:
Responded that it is not a part of this proposal.
Chianese:
Stated that the day care center is a part of the P.U.D. under the RLP zoning,
noting that it would have to be in the RLP portion of the Wagon Wheel project,
Pointed out that the applicanthadlisted two conditions with respect to
development of the day care center: that these lots will be made available
for sale to a day care operator for a period of time not to exceed the
lesser of the following: 1) such time as 75% of the 281 lots in Filing No.
2 have been sold, and 2) 2 years from the date of final planning commission
approval of this P.U.D. If the above time period passes and no day care
operator has agreed to purchase and develop this site, the developer
reserves the right to develop these 4 lots as single-family residential
sites as they are now platted. Any other development would require
amendment of the P.U.D.
Stoner:
Moved approval for the Wagon Wheel Third Filing Preliminary P.U.D.
Georg:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried, 6 - 0 - 1, Gilfillan abstaining, Haase commenting that she
had concern addressed to Poudre School District about the potential impact
on enrollment at Blevins Junior High School from this project, Stockbridge
P.U.D. (180 units), and Kingstowne Village P.U.D.
10. #117-80
Kingstowne Village Preliminary P.U.D.
A preliminary proposal for 124 units on 16 acres located north of Horse-
b Board Minutes
'?/24/80
=age 3
tooth Road and west of Shields Street, zoned RP, Planned Residential.
Applicant: Larry and Sue King, c/o Gefroh Associates, Inc., One Drake
Park, Suite 23, 333 N. Drake, Fort Collins, CO 80526.
-nianese: Described the proposal, noting staff is recommending approval.
=oss:
Asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in support of the
proposal.
Les Kaplan:
Representing the applicant. Stated their objectives on -this property
include high -quality town -homes to provide an alternative to the row
town -homes which are being done in Fort Collins. Said that the town -
home building gives the appearance of a large; prestigious, single-
family structure, with each unit having its own garage, entrance, and
facade on one side of the building. Stated a large amount of landscaping
is planned near the building to enhance the idea of a luxurious -style
town -home with the single-family,detached, architectural character.
Noted that each town -home would have 1000 sq. ft. on the main floor,
totalling an average of 1800 sq. ft. per unit. Said that the density,
excluding the condominium area in the southeast, is about 5.6 DU/acre,
and including the condominium area, is about 7.7 DU/acre in a 12 DU/acre
zoning district. Pointed out that one reason for the location of the
condominium area is that it is presently the site of the Werner Farm, and
the applicants would like to ensure that their parents have the opportunity
to stay on it as long as they would like, and the condominium area would
be the last area to be built. Said the street system was primarily
determined by City requirements. Stated elevation drawings were available
if the Board wished to see them.
Haase:
Asked how many feet separate the exits onto Seneca Street from Guinevere
Court and Lancelot, noting they seemed quite close and could present a
potential traffic problem.
Kaplan:
Replied that those intersections were even closer on the original design,
but the Traffic Engineer had recommended they be changed to the present
distance. Pointed out that each of those streets was non -continuous and
would have a limited number of units on it, so there would be little traffic.
Rapheys:
Stated that the layout of Kingstowne Village appears to be very similar
to the layout of Wagon Wheel which was turned down by City Council earlier,
noting that the units seem to be basically in a row.
Kaplan:
Stated there is an enormous difference between the two plans. Said Wagon
Wheel was designed for a middle -income market at $40,000 to $50,000 a unit,
while the Kingstowne units, twice the size of the Wagon Wheel units and
more luxurious, would probably go on the market at over $100,000 each.
Pointed out that the Wagon Wheel townhomes were planned at a density of
10 DU/acre, while Kingstowne would be about half that density. Stated
that the building placement would also be different, noting that Kingstowne
would have only two cul de sacs, where the other had had repeated pinwheel
arrangements with about nine cul de sacs.
Napheys:
Asked to see the elevation drawings.
,:a?Ian:
Showed the drawings to the Board.
P & Z Board Minutes
November 24, 1980
Page 3
Seorg
Asked what recreation facilities would be provided.
Kaplan:
Replied that the project is not big enough to sustain tennis courts or
a swimaing pool, but pointed out that as part of the Trend Homes Subdivision
there is a 10 to 15 acre park nearby, and another is planned as part of
the Section 34 Master Plan. Also noted that to the east will be the
12-acre regional recreation center, part of Cunningham Corners P.U.D.,
and in the Four Seasons P.U.D. there will be a membership club with outdoor
tennis facilities, therefore there should be adequate recreation facilities
in the area for Kingstowne residents. Also mentioned Rolland Moore Park,
not far away on Shields Street.
icapheys:
Asked if those areas are presently in existence._
Kaplan:
Replied that Rolland Moore Park has City priority for the next year, and
that he did not know the time schedule for the others, noting also that he
did not yet know the schedule for the Kingstowne development either. Said
there is in excess of 25% open space in this proposal. Pointed out that
open space requirements are the same regardless of density.
Ross:
Asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in opposition to the proposal.
Georg:
Moved approval of the Kingstowne Village Preliminary P.U.D.
Haase:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried, 6 - 0 - 1, Gilfillan abstaining.
11. n79-79B
Feeney P.U.D. Revised Preliminary
A preliminary proposal for 2 commercial buildings (12,000 sq. ft. and
8,500 sq. ft.) located on Lot 1 and Lot 3, Feeney Subdivision on South
College Avenue, zoned HB, Highway Business.
Applicant: Tom Feeney, c/o Gefroh Associates Inc., One Drake Park,
Suite 23, 333 W. Drake, Fort Collins, CO 80526
Frank:
Described the proposal, stating staff recommended approval. Pointed out
that the Board had received a letter from the applicant today which
clarifies some points.
Ross:
Stated there were several conditional recommendations on the cover sheet
for the item and asked if they had all been addressed.
Frank: Replied they had.
Stoner: Questioned usage of the canal for storm drainage, noting that ditch companies
are not usually willing to accept it.
josh Richardson: City engineer. Stated that the ditch companies' approval is required
in order to use any ditch, but that he had not yet seen such approval.
:rank: Said that the applicant's letter stated that retention ponds would be
temporary until ditch company approval was obtained.
Stoner: Asked if any developer had ever gotten such approval.
Richardson: Replied not to his knowledge.
P & Z Board Minutes •
11/24/80
Page 5
Ross: Stated the ponds would have to be permanent then.
Richardson: Replied it would have to be permanent, or some system would have to be
devised to get into the drainage systems on the other side of the canal.
Frank: Noted that no final approval would be given until the storm drainage
issue was resolved.
Ross: Asked if there were further questions for staff.
Stoner: Said there are many items still to be addressed.
Ross: Said that since this is a preliminary and the Board would be seeing the
final, that if these problems were not resolved, the applicant could very
well have a problem with final approval. Said it would not be inappropriate
for the Board to take positive action on a proposal such as this, knowing
that all the problems would have to be taken care of prior to final approval.
Asked if anyone representing the applicant would like to address the Board.
Jim Gefroh: With Gefroh Associates. Pointed out that the amendment addresses only
Lots 1 and 3 of the over-all P.H.D. and no change was being requested to
Lots 2 and 4, the restaurant site to the south. Pointed out that in the
amendment the on -site planning was upgraded to current site and landscape
regulations of the city, improving both the landscaping and traffic circu-
lation.
Ross:
Asked if he understood that the problems with the proposal would have to
be addressed fully.
Gefroh:
Said the owner is aware of those problems and will address them, and work
them out with City staff.
Napheys:
Asked what restaurant, if a restaurant chain, would be going in there.
Gefroh:
Replied that it is designed for a drive -through chain restaurant, and that
it is presently planned to be a Wendy's.
Thomas Feeney: Applicant. Said he would answer questions about the detention ponds.
Ross:
Asked about the plan to drain run-off into the ditch.
Feeney:
Replied they would probably have a permanent detention pond in the back of
the property. Asked for the planned time for putting in Mitchell Drive.
Ruple:
Stated that the approved P.U.D. has a requirement that this portion of
Mitchell Drive be built when Lots 5 and 6 are constructed which are on
the east side of the Drive. With respect to extending Mitchell Drive north
to Horsetooth, said there are no City plans for that at this time.
Napheys:
Asked if Gefroh's comments in letters that approval for drainage from the
ditch company would be requested were incorrect, that such approval would
not be sought at all.
Feeney:
Replied that the results of his meetings with the ditch company were that
it did not want any drainage at all, but that the temporary design was
P & Z Board
Minutes
11/24/80
Page 6
done in hopes that that attitude might change.
Napheys:
Assuming that ditch company approval is not forthcoming, asked where a pond
might be located.
Feeney:
Pointed out on the slide of the site plan where it
would be.
Ruple:
Stated it would actually be on the east side of Mitchell Drive, and noted
they were saying "retention", not "detention", with
respect to that particular
pond.
Gefroh:
Pointed out that the pond would be in the northern
portion of Lot 5, and is
designed for a 100-year rain run-off.
Napheys:
Asked if that is where it is right now.
Gefroh:
Replied that the property is presently unimproved,
but that the pond would
be put in with the development of Lots i and 3.
Ross:
Asked if the Engineering Department is comfortable
with having the retention
pond across the street from the development.
Ruple:
Replied there should be no problem; it is simply a
matter of transportation
of the water to the other side.
Ross: Stated a flume or culvert would have to be put in.
Ruple: Agreed.
Clarke: Asked why the amendment was being requested.
Feeney: Replied that these two lots had never been finalized.
Clarke: Expressed concern about the parking in Lots 1 and 3, and asked if the increas
was prompted by the City's change in parking requirements.
Feeney: Replied that that change did improve the economics of the proposal.
Ross: Asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to this proposal.
Ed Zdenek: Representing Mitchell Company with respect to Mitchell Road. Said he
understood that Mitchell Drive is designed to connect with the Square
properties, and asked if the alignment had been approved with the inter-
mediate landowners or would happen in the future, and when. Expressed
concern about access to Mitchell Drive from the LaRue property, east of
the subject proposal (indicated its location on a slide).
Napheys: Asked if Zdenek were speaking against approval for the proposal.
Zdenek: Replied he is until those points can be clarified.
Smith: Stated that Mitchell Drive is not at this time in any of the City's
traffic or transportation plans, so there is no timetable or definite
alignment at present, as indicated by Ruple.
Ross: Asked if a bridge were planned across Larimer Canal No. 2.
P •& Z Board Minutes
11/24/80 7
Page 7
Ruple: Replied, not to his knowledge, noting that alignment with the entrance to
the Square had been considered.
Ross: Asked Zdenek whether the LaRue property would have access to JFK Drive.
Zdenek: Replied that such access is expected, but that JFK has not been finally
approved. Stated that the proposed alignment would interfere with
improvements made on the site to the north of the subject proposal, which
gives them concern that the proposed alignment may not come to pass.
Napheys: Pointed out that the item under discussion is an amendment to an approved
P.U.D. and asked if Zdenek had any comments about how the amendment would
change the situation with respect to his concerns.
Zdenek: Replied that there appears to be no change, noting that he had only recently
been asked to interface with this problem.
Ross: Stated it appears that Mitchell Drive will eventually cross Larimer County
Canal No. 2 anyway because the canal veers to the west, so at some point the
LaRue property and Mitchell Drive would be on the same side of the canal,
so some sort of access should be available without a secondary bridge.
Zdenek: Agreed that it appeared it could be worked out, and asked for time to work
on these concerns.
Ross: Said that these problems could be worked on with the applicant prior to
final submittal. Asked if anyone else wished to speak on the proposal.
Niapheys: Asked if Board denial of the amendment would nullify the previous approval
or whether it would stand.
Frank: Replied that the previous plan would still be in effect.
Haase: Moved approval of the Revised Preliminary Plan for the Feeney P.U.D.
Clarke: Second.
Napheys: Suggested an amendment to the motion that the issues in the October 22
letter to Mr. Gefroh be adequately addressed prior to final submittal.
Haase: Said it was her understanding that it would be necessary to so address
those issues prior to final in any case, therefore rejected the amendment
to the motion.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0 - 1, Gilfillan abstaining, Napheys voting with the
understanding that the items in the October 22 letter would be addressed
prior to final approval, and commenting that he looked askance at the fact
that Gefroh's letters of November 6 and 24 with respect to drainage were
incorrect at the time of writing.
17. #128-80 Suitts Rezoning
A request to rezone 71.2 acres located along the south bank of the Poudre
River at Timberline Road (extended) north of East Prospect Road, currently
zoned T-Transitional to I-G, General Industrial.
Applicant: Colorado Mortgage Co., c/o William Suitts, Vice-Pres., Manhattan
Plaza Building, 75 Manhattan Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
P & Z Board Minutes
11/24/80
Page 8
,;aido: Described the proposal, giving staff recommendation for approval subject
to the condition that the property be developed as part of a P.U.D.
oss: Asked if the applicant wished to speak.
Timothy Hasler: Representing Colorado Mortgage Company. Stated the applicant agreed
to the condition suggested by staff. Said he would answer questions.
Napheys: Asked what the long, red line along the east side of the property was.
Waido: Replied that that is part of the property, and was originally so drawn
at the time of annexation in order to meet the state's contiguity require-
ments.
Napheys: Asked if the strip was usable in any way.
Waido: Pointed out that the adjoining property is zoned IP, Industrial Park,
and with the suggested P.U.D. condition, would probably be developed
together with the subject parcel.
Napheys: Asked what the adjacent properties were zoned.
Waido: Pointed out that most of the surrounding property is not in the City
except for a a recent annexation which is zoned I-L, also with a P.U.D.
requirement. Said the County zoning is probably either 0-Open, or
industrial.
Clarke: Asked if the land between the strip and the river is zoned I-L.
Waido: Replied it is I-P; the I-L is on the other side of the river.
Georg: Asked the applicant how the extension of Timberline Road would be done
through his property.
William Suitts: Applicant. Said that he had donated four acres to the city a few
years ago for a different alignment which is now a sewer line. Stated the
City had said it would reconvey about 3 acres, retaining a 30' strip for
the sewer line, and had asked for a 120' strip for the highway, to which
he had agreed. Explained in more detail how the property lines had been
drawn at the time of annexation.
Ross: Said he had been on the Board at the time of annexation. Said the City
had planned to buy the land with the lakes on it, and if they had bought
all the way to the west boundary of the long, narrow strip, then the
rear of the property would not have had contiguity to the City and could
not have been annexed at that time. Stated the strip of land was worked
out as a convenience to both the City and the property owners, and when
the plans did not work out, the property was left drawn as it is. Said
he was certain the whole property would be done with a master plan.
Asked if anyone else wished to speak on the proposal.
Art: Said he supported the staff's recommendation of approval with the condition
of a P.U.D. so that the trail system could be protected.
P A Z Board Minutes •
11/24/80
Page 9
Clarke: Stated that he believed the I-G zoning is proper for this land, and
moved the proposal be recommended for approval, conditional upon development
as a planned unit development.
Napheys: Second.
Suitts: Stated he had made provisions to donate a 28-acre parcel to the city for
the trail system.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0 - 1, Gilfillan abstaining.
18. #132-80 Tysdal Out -of -City Water Service Request
Request for out -of -city water service to the Tysdal property in the
vicinity of Bingham Hill Reservoir.
Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Tysdal, 4110 Bingham Hill, LaPorte, Co 80535
Chianese: Described the request, saying the staff recommends approval subject to
the conditions requested by the Water Board:
1) Successful negotiation of easements desired by the City in association wit
Bingham Hill Reservoir and Claymore Lake.
2) Property owners agree to annexation when desired by the City of Fort
Collins.
Ross: Asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter.
Stoner: Moved recommendation of approval of the request, subject to requested condi-
tions.
Haase: Second.
Vote: Motion carried, 6 - 0 - 1, Gilfillan abstaining.
19. #120-80 Amendment to the H-B Zone
An amendment to the H-B zone to allow building supply yards and storage
of lumber materials under the condition of a P.U.D.
Applicant: City of Fort Collins
Waido: Gave staff report, recommending approval.
Ross: Asked what kind of storage would be allowed, inside or outside or what.
Waido: Replied that would depend on the P.U.D. and the magnitude of the facility.
Smith: Stated the specific language would allow either inside or outside storage
like that allowed in other districts.
Napheys: Asked what the specific language is.
Waido: Stated they had not prepared the specific language for the zoning ordinance,
but that presently in the ordinance is a list of uses allowed in the H-B
zone which are allowed only as part of a P.U.D. Building supply yards
and storage of lumber materials would be added to that list.
Smith: Said, for example, that in the I-L zone one of the allowed uses is Item
2c, Builders' Supply Yards and Lumber Yards. Stated that they recommended
P & Z Board Minutes
11/24/80
Page 10
that exact language be added as a use in the H-B zone under a P.U.D.,
probably Item No. 17.
Napheys: Asked Ruggiero to word a proper motion for the Board to allow their
recommendation to be approved.
Ruggiero: Said there is really no need to word the motion as the Board could approve
it in concept, and all that would be done would be to add a new use, No.
17, Builders'Supply Yards and Lumber Yards. Said that the ordinance which
would go to Council would simply say that the code is hereby amended to.
add an additional use, No. 17, to read as follows: Builders' Supply Yards
and Lumber Yards.
Napheys: Asked if it would be No. 17 or 18.
Smith: Replied it would be 17 and No. 17 would be renumbered as Item No. 18.
Also noted that the opening paragraph would be changed to read "4 through
17 inclusive as part of a P.U.D.".
Clarke: Stated the main reason for the change seemed to be to gain more control
over the use so it can be allowed in the H-B zone rather than having to go
into an I-L zone.
Waido: Stated it would eliminate some problems the City has had, interpreting
whether or not it is an accessory use or a primary use.
Clarke: Stated that based on the language of the H-B district with respect to
buffering residential districts and on the control provided by the P.U.D.
the use would be proper in the H-B zone.
Moved recommendation of approval of the Amendment to the HB zone.
Gilgillan: Second.
Georg: Stated that when making recommendations to the council the Board should
see the exact wording they are discussing.
Napheys:
Asked, in that light, if Mr. Clarke would accept an amendment to his
motion, recommending to City Council that Section 118-62A be amended to,
in the second sentence, add the words "Sections A, 4 through 17, inclusive"
rather than 16, and add Section 17 to read "Builders' Supply Yards and
Lumber Yards; and the present 17 be renumbered No. 18".
Clarke:
Accepted the amendment.
Gilfillan:
Second.
Ross:
Commented that he is not an attorney, but that there is always an attorney
present from the City, and that the staff, not the Board, is there to make
legal interpretations. Said that concern about the exact wording on every
motion could become a real problem for the Board. Noted that when there
is a problem, the attorney usually asks for clarification so the staff will
know how to draw up the proper wording.
Vote:
Motion carried, 7 - 0.
P & Z Board Minutes . •
11/24/80
Page 11
20. 121-80 Revisions to BL, C, IL, and IP Zones to Allow Day Care Centers
A Revision to the zoning ordinance to add Day Care Centers as a use by
right in the BL, C, IL, and IP zoning districts.
Applicant: City of Fort Collins
Waido:
Gave staff report, recommending approval.
Haase:
Pointed out that this revision had arisen from the Loop -Miller Rezoning
request, Case No. 89-80 which Planning and Zoning Board and City Council
recently denied. Said that if the revision were approved, the day care
facility would have a right by use in the BL zone which is the current
zoning for the Loop -Miller property. Expressed concern about whether
those people who had spoken against the Loop -Miller Rezoning were aware
of this staff -initiated proposal, saying that if they are not, she
felt.hesitant about reviewing and recommending on the proposal at this
meeting. Noted that the Coloradoan article of November 23 did not contain
information on the revision proposal, and that barring notification by
staff, there had not been proper public notification.
Waido:
Replied that staff had not sent letters as they would have done on a
rezoning, but that he could not speak as to why the Coloradoan did not
mention the revision request.
Ross:
Agreed that in this case it would be inappropriate to make a recommendation
on this request without more notification.
Georg:
Said the Board needs to review the regulations that apply to changing the
lists of permitted uses. Pointed out that Section 80 of Chapter 118 of
the code, note A states that upon application or on its own initiative
the City Council may, by resolution, add uses listed for a zoning district
any other similar use which conforms to the conditions set forth in the
following special findings: 1) Such use is more appropriate in the use
group to which it is added than in any other use group; 2) such use
conforms to the basic characteristics of the use group to which it is to
be added; 3) such use does not create any environmental impact. Stated
that the proposed change does not apply to 1 or 3, but it does apply to
Finding No. 2, and said that children's centers do not conform to the
general characteristics of BL, C, IL or IP zoning districts. Said that
such a district does exist where children's centers would be appropriate,
the BP, where the basic intention of the district is to permit business
establishments for the convenience of neighborhoods. Noted that child
care centers are only allowed in that district as part of a P.U.D. Said,.
in following the code, this change would not be appropriate.
Ruggiero:
Stated that the City Charter provides that ordinance changes shall be
published in full prior to a meeting, and that that is the form of notice
commonly used by cities for public notice.
Stoner:
Asked if the term "child care centers" should be used rather than "day
care centers".
Smith:
Said he is correct, the relevant term is "child care centers".
Waido:
Pointed out that a child care center can go into the BP district without
o & Z Board Minutes
i1/24/80
Page 12
a P.U.D. as it is a use by right from the RM zone.
3eorg: Said that according to that one note under Section 80, this change would
not be appropriate.
S-.:ith:
Said that the City Council had asked for this change and had asked the
staff to prepare it and have the Planning and Zoning Board review it.
Said that the Council had determined that the change would be appropriate
for the zones in question, but that the P & Z Board did not have to agree
with that interpretation.
Napheys:
Asked for clarification of terms with respect to day care or child care.
Smith:
Replied that the correct term would be "child care centers", the larger
scale facility rather than the in -home care facilities.
Uapheys:
Stated this is another reason why the Board should be presented with the
precise language they are being asked to review. Also expressed concern
about the lack of public notice about the hearing of this item at this
meeting.
Faase:
Said that she had not meant to imply that responsibility for significant
and major notice rests with the daily newspaper, but contended that the
responsibility lies with the staff and with the Planning and Zoning Board.
Suggested that in the future the Board should work closely with staff to
personally contact the media with a special note of emphasis for major
public notice on such items.
Georg:
Said he would disagree with Council's interpretation that child care
centers do conform to the basic characteristics of the BL, C, IL or IP
zones.
kaido:
Said the philosophy behind the proposed change is to allow child care
centers in areas which can be employment nodes of the community.
I::ase:
Said there might be support for child care centers in the BL or C, but
not for all four zones lumped together. Stated the Board needs more
review and study of this change before making a recommendation to City
Council, and that notice should be given to more people, especially those
concerned aboutthe Loop -Miller Rezoning.
Clarke:
Said that when he voted on the Loop -Miller Rezoning, he had said that he
thought child care centers should be allowed in the BL zone. Pointed out
that the BL zone definition says that it is for neighborhood convenience
centers, and contended that there is no doubt that a child care center is
a convenience to a neighborhood. Said he shared concern about the
appropriateness of the C, IL and IP zones for child care centers, and he
would not support that. Pointed out that there is landscape review in
the BL which would provide the Board with some control over child care
centers in that zone.
Stoner:
Stated that he is in favor of child care centers in all four zones in
order to promote community mixed uses and pedestrian access from residences
to work and child care. Pointed out that a child care center would be
well located between Woodward Governor and neighboring residential areas.
Contended that the market would prevent anyone from putting in a child
P & Z Board Minutes i •
11/24/80
Page 13
care center in an aesthetically unappealing area, such as next to a
cement plant. Said that child care facilities in the proposed zones
would be more appropriate than in low density residential areas.
Napheys: Moved the item be tabled until the next regular meeting, so that some
general notice can be given the public, and some specific notice can be
given to the parties involved in the Loop -Miller Rezoning, so that the
Board will not appear to have done by indirection what it refused to do
by direction.
Haase: Second.
Ross: Said that since the Board had turned down the Loop -Miller request, why
would child care centers be appropriate in other BL zones. Contended
that landscape review does not always work as a means of providing
control, and asked if some sort of special site review should be considered
Said he is not ready to support the requested changes at this time, but
expressed agreement with Stoner that employment centers are the appro-
priate locations for child care centers, at least some of them.
Clarke: Said that with proper site plan review, he could support this kind of
use in the C, IL and IP zones as well as BL, and said that is the answer
to this problem, as landscape review would not be sufficient.
Ross: Agreed that landscape review is not the answer.
Smith:
Pointed out there are two possible approaches to site plan review and
asked the Board to express a preference: one approach would be site plan
review which is usually done at the administrative level and considers
circulation and landscape treatment; the second approach would be a
P.U.D. requirement which would come formally to the Board and to the
Council only on appeal.
Ross, Clarke,
Georg: Expressed a preference for the P.U.D. approach.
Napheys:
Said he thought there shobe more areas allowed for location of child
care centers, but did not*at these four districts would be the appro-
priate ones. Pointed out that the State of Colorado, through the local
Department of Social Services would have to license child care centers.
Said he wanted to be convinced of which zones they should be in.
Clarke:
Asked about the possibility of having something in the way of the special
use review in the RH zone.
Smith:
Replied his reservation would be that that would be the only use which
would be set up that way. Noted there are some supplemental regulations
now that deal with child care centers, and one option would be to pull
child care centers out of all zones, and put them as a supplemental
regulation allowable in any zone pursuant to being developed in a planned
unit development. Again pointed out that that would be the only use so
treated, so it raises questions about whether this use merits such treatment
over any other use in the City. Said he had not felt that was the case.
Clarke:
Said maybe the P.U.D. approach allowing it in all zones would be the best
way.
P & Z Board Minutes
11/24/80
Page 14
Gilfillan: Called for the question.
Vote: Motion carried 7 - 0; Haase commented that it would be useful to know
how much land would become available for child care center development
in each of the recommended zones, and also to find out the experience
of other Colorado cities, whether they permit child care centers in
comparable zones and whether it has been successful.
Waido: Stated that the ordinance change would allow child care centers in all
zones except the RE and RL, and the city comprises about 24 square
miles, of which little RL is vacant, so a considerable amount of ground
would become available.
Haase: Asked, if only BL were considered, how much additional land would become
avaiTable, noting that she is leaning toward approval for just one district.
Waido: Replied that would be more workable.
21. #129-80 Monte Vista P.U.D.
A Master Plan for a residential P.U.D. of 40 units on 80 acres, located
112 mile east of I-25, south of Highway 14, zoned FA-1, Farming.
Applicant: Kitchell Properties, 1433 Meeker Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80524
Albertson -Clark: Described the proposal and gave staff report, recommending denial.
Ross: Asked if a representative of the applicant wished to speak.
Apt: Stated he was speaking as a citizen, saying the project should not be
approved because it is clearly outside both the County growth clusters
and the Urban Growth Area. Said it runs counter to the purposes of both
the City and the County Land Use Plans and is a good example of leap -frog
development, disrupting phased, planned growth. Pointed out that it is
not near shopping, jobs or schools and will create additional vehicle
miles which will add to air pollution, traffic problems on County roads,
and strain fire and police protection. Contended there is more than
enough land designated for this type of development in County growth
clusters and the Urban Growth Area. Said that recommending approval would
run counter to the Inter -governmental Agreement as well and would in a
sense violate the public trust. Noted that as the County quite often
uses the County Master Plan as a guideline for making decisions, the
Planning and Zoning Board could use the City's Policies Plan as a guildeline
in this case even though it is outside the City limits. Some of the
policies which could be considered in this instance are 3A, promotion of
maximum utilization of land within the City; 3D, location of residential
development close to employment, recreation, and shopping facilities;
6, the City will work with the County to develop implementation techniques
which reinforce their respective Land Use Plans; 43, the City shall prepare
and utilize an environmental management plan which shall include the
following measures: conservation of exhaustible resources; 46, conservation
of resources and energy shall be addressed by land use, site planning
and design criteria; 49, the City's Land Use Policies Plan shall be
directed toward minimizing the use of private automobiles and toward
alleviating and mitigating the air quality impacts of concentrated use
of automobiles. Contended the proposal goes counter to all these policies.
Pointed out that the County's Policy Plan, as Albertson -Clark had said,
P & Z Board
Minutes •
11/24/80
Page 15
defines rural development as land uses naturally and normally incidental
to, subordinate to, or exclusively accessory to farming, forestry, or
livestock production, including agribusiness, and this proposal clearly
does not fit that description.
Ross:
Asked if this property were included in the Urban Growth Area, to which
it is adjacent, whether this kind of development could be approved.
Pointed out it could be a problem to prohibit development just because
it happens to fall just outside an arbitrary line.
Smith:
Replied that if it were within the Urban Growth Area, the type of
development called for would be at urban density, which this clearly is
not. Said the purpose of the Urban Growth Area was to define the limits
of urbanized development, and the question of what happens outside the
boundary is a policy question. Said there is a newly -defined cluster
of rural, non -farm development in the County Land Use Plan as a result
of defining the Urban Growth Areas, which is in the Corridor area and
is designated at a maximum density of 2.29 acres per unit and up. Said
that otherwise there are no areas in the County designated for that type
of large -lot development, and the remainder of the County is basically a
rural area. Noted that the rationale for the location of the boundary
in that particular area is the Boxelder Cluster, approved in the County's
Land Use Plan, and the tying -in of the area of the intersection of
Highway 14 and Interstate 25. Said that the boundary follows exactly
the boundary of the Boxelder Cluster and reinforces their plan.
Clarke:
Asked why the line was drawn just to the north of this property.
Smith:
Replied his recollection is that it was based on the Boxelder Sanitation
District's service areas, and the Urban Growth Area boundary was based
on the Boxelder boundary.
Napheys:
Asked if he understood correctly that urban density would be required on
one side of the boundary, and only rural density on the other, so there
would be no place for 2-acre lots.
Smith:
Replied the only place for such large -lot development would be in the
Corridor area, between Highway 34 and Harmony Road.
Napheys:
Asked why that area was so designated, if it was because of the availability
of services.
Smith:
Replied there are some services and streets there and it was also set
aside as it had been studied in detail, whereas the rest of the County
had not been. Said that if the Board feels this kind of development is
appropriate in this location, one possibility would be to suggest that
the County Plan be amended to incorporate this area into a rural, non-
farm area so that the Board would not be in the position of recommending
something inconsistent with the County Plan.
Ross:
Asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment.
Apt:
Commented on the seeming arbitrariness of the boundary line, noting that
the County had often inconsistently approved leap -frog development and
that the County should stick to its own plan.
P & Z Board Minutes
11/24/80
Page 16
Haase: Moved that the Monte Vista P.U.D. be recommended to the County for denial.
Georg:
Second.
Vote:
Motion carried, 5 - 0 - 2, Ross and Stoner abstaining.
22. #130-80
Northridge Country Estates Subdivision
A preliminary proposal for a residential subdivision of 42 units on 550
acres, located north of Fort Collins on the west side of Rocky Ridge
Reservoir, zoned 0-Open.
Applicant: Gefroh Associates Inc., 333 West Drake Road, Suite 23,
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report, recommending denial.
Ross:
Asked if the applicant wished to speak.
Kurt Reed:
With Gefroh Associates. Requested the Board's recommendation of
approval to the County. Stated this property begins just one mile
north of the Urban Growth Area and pointed out the need for a tran-
sition of densities from the UGA to rural densities. Stated that the
County Land Use Plan suggests that peripheral lands in some areas
around the Urban Growth Area may be suitable for large -lot subdivisions.
Said that this proposal is a large -lot subdivision, with 10-acre lots
and the unsubdivided area to be used for open space and existing agricul-
tural use. One consideration with respect to whether this area is
appropriate for large -lot development would be agricultural uses on the
property and its historical agricultural use. Said this property had
been used mostly as grazing land, with only the south end of the site
being suitable for tilling, noting this would be the area which would
not be subdivided. Another consideration would be its relationship to
existing development in the area. Said there is the existing Deines-
Lockman Subdivision east of the south parcel, to the east 112 mile is
another subdivision of a density of about 2 acres per unit, to the south
there are other subdivisions. A third consideration would be whether the
property is suitable for a large -lot subdivision in the peripheral area.
Stated it is within a mile of the Urban Growth Area, water facilities are
adequate, fire protection is available and hydrants would be constructed,
schools are adequate with busing required as elsewhere in the area. Asked
if there were any questions.
Stoner:
Asked how many acres are presently irrigated there.
Reed:
Replied the only irrigated area is the agricultural land in the south
area. Stated there are irrigation canals across the property.
Stoner:
Asked what district would provide the domestic water.
Reed:
Replied it would be the ELCO plater District, which has a storage tank in
the area and some existing water lines. Said his developer would work with
ELCO to extend water lines into the development.
Clarke:
Asked what the County road standards are in that area.
P & Z Board Minutes • •
11/24/80
Page 17
Need: Replied he did not the specifics, but they would be gravelled, surfaced,
all-weather roads which would have to adhere to a minimum slope and
minimum width, ditch area, and right-of-way.
Stoner: Asked, as a land planner as well as an architect, what Reed thought of
keeping development within the Urban Growth Area is it now stands, since
that had been approved by both City and County.
Reed: Replied that the Urban Growth Area cannot be followed as a strict pattern.
Said it defines the area at which urban densities should cease and noted
that this proposal is not at urban density, but is a transitional
density which works well with the Urban Growth Area line. Said the
market and the need exist for this kind of development.
Napheys: Asked what amenities this area offers to the prospective buyer.
Reed: Replied the amenities would include the large lot; limited building
envelopes so placed because of water table, slopes and other considera-
tions; three acres per lot of common open space --a total of 120 acres --
along Dry Creek to be used for agricultural and equestrian uses; a
community center for the homeowners' association which would also be an
equestrian center where horses could be boarded; the trail system.
.'Napheys: Asked if these lots would have mood views of the Front Range.
Reed: Replied they would have an excellent view as it is very high property.
Smith: Asked what the costs to each lot would be for maintaining common facilities.
Reed: Replied the costs had been looked at, but not finalized, and had been
determined to be feasible for the project. Stated the homes built in this
area would probably be no less than $150,000.
Ross: Asked what water would be available to keep the area green in the dry
summers.
Reed: Replied that the present owner has a few shares of water supply in storage
and some shares in another water company which he would dedicate to the
property and which could be used for horses and gardening. Said that
the bulk of the property would not be allowed to be disrupted from its
natural state under the covenants.
Georg: Asked if any of the lots would have access to the water.
Reed: Replied that none of the lots actually have access rights to the water
although several of them border on reservoirs. Said that plater Supply
and Storage is agreeable to allowing residents free access to the
reservoirs and would eventually anticipate the formation of an association
for the use of the reservoirs. Noted they are currently leased to the
Wildlife Department.
Georg: Asked, since the development does not fit into the County's Master Plan,
if the applicant had worked with the County to try to change that plan.
Reed: Replied they had worked with the County on the basis of the existing
zoning. Said they had previously submitted a plan for this property
P & Z Board Minutes
11/24/80
Page 18
which would have rezoned the property to FA-1 and developed it under a
P.U.D. with about 200 one -acre units, but that plan had been defeated.
Said the present proposal seems to be more realistic to the County
planners, but has not yet been before the County Planning Commission.
Stated this plan is geared to the existing zoning.
Georg: Asked whether they had asked the County to modify their position on the
Intergovernmental Agreement.
Reed: Replied they had not done so.
Ross: Asked if anyone wished to comment on the proposal.
Apt: Stated this subdivision should not be recommended for approval as there is
a larger issue at stake, the Intergovernmental Agreement. Said that since
it has not been modified, rural development north of Harmony Road has not
been covered clearly in the Agreement. Contended that a decision on this
project would be premature at best and would be detrimental to the purpose
of the Intergovernmental Agreement. Stated it is time for the City and
County to get together again and decide what rural development is, whether
it is supposed to occur outside the Corridor area, if not, this type of
development might be appropriate for the Corridor area. Again suggested
using the City's Land Use Policies Plan as a guideline, the same policies
applying that he mentioned with respect to the Monte Vista P.U.D. Pointed
out that City staff had said this subdivision is located in the middle of
producing agricultural land, but that there had been no County inventory
of producing agricultural lands, so it is not clear whether this develop-
ment is in the middle of producing land or not. Said the impact of a
subdivision would be detrimental to any agricultural land around it, so
again any decision on this subdivision would be premature until that
inventory is completed. Pointed out there is more than enough land
designated for development in both the City and County, although not at
this density. Stated that his personal belief is that 13-acre homesites
are not needed in this age of energy dependence on the Middle East, air
pollution problems, the world food situation and the disappearance of
agricultural lands of any kind. Said, however, that he believes that
people have a right to this life style, but that there has been more than
enough of this type of development approved in the County, noting that
Larimer County leads the state in rural subdivisions. Said that practi-
cally anywhere in the County development could be justified by a "close
enough" proximity to existing development, and that that is the problem.
Stated he had hoped the Intergovernmental Agreement would deal with this
issue, and this should be discussed with the County. Said that the "large
lot subdivisions and peripheral properties" mentioned by Reed had not
been dealt with in the Intergovernmental Agreement, and approving it in
a piecemeal fashion would have a negative, accumulative effect. Contended
that if this kind of subdivision is seen as appropriate, then part of
the County should be designated for it; that would be planning. Pointed
out the air pollution in terms of particulates which would be increased
by building more gravel roads. Stated these lots would also have a good
view of the Rawhide Power Plant. Concluded by saying again that approval
of this proposal would be premature.
Reed: Pointed out that this property is probably closer to downtown Fort Collins
than some of the recently annexed property and proposed P.U.D.'s on the
southern edge of town, so one of its strongest points is its location on
P.& Z Board Minutes •
11/24/80
Page 19
•
the north side of town, where it will enhance and encourage development
in that direction.
Stoner: Agreed that that area to the northwest is marginal farm land and therefore
appropriate for development and development should be encouraged there.
Said that despite the conflict with the Urban Growth Area, this would be
a nice subdivision, would encourage growth in the north part of town, and
the Board should recommend approval of it.
Napheys: Asked whether this property has available the same sort of utility services
that the Corridor area has.
Reed:
Stated the property does have access to existing water storage facilities
and water facilities which are adequate to serve the site; available
fire protection; available school facilities. Sewer would be handled
through a septic system development which is being reviewed by the
County Health Department. Said those areas where a septic system would
not work are being removed from the subdivision.
Napheys:
Asked which fire protection district would serve the subdivision.
Reed:
Replied he had a letter from the district which he thought was the
Poudre Valley, stating it could provide fire protection and asking the
developer to install fire hydrants throughout the development.
Ross:
Expressed reluctance to pick away at the Urban Growth Area, but said
he also could see the advantages of growth to the north. Asked what they
had suggested to the County with respect to the previous proposal.
Smith:
Replied that the County had designated a cluster for rural, non -farm
development in the area between Harmony Road and Highway 34 on the County
Land Use Plan, and that that is the only area in the County so designated.
Otherwise the Plan calls for rural development, and there is nothing in
the plan for determining what is appropriate. Said there has been no
detailed analysis in terms of what the service capacities are as had been
done in the Corridor. The definition of rural development in the County's
Land Use Plan was staff's basis for recommending denial.
Napheys:
Asked what time would be needed to get the requested direction from the
County.
Smith:
Replied it is not a matter of what the City could do as it is a County
process. Suggested the Board could suggest to the County that they
work toward clarifying the issue as the County had not yet undertaken
any studies to define any other rural, non -farm areas. Said the City
staff would be willing to work with the County on such a study.
Napheys:
Asked what Apt had meant by the phrase "planning gap".
Apt:
Replied that he meant precisely this kind of development. Said that the
rural, non -farm development in the Corridor is two to five acres, but
that this kind of development is not defined in the Intergovernmental
Agreement at all, and that is the planning gap. Questioned whether this
is the right kind of development to encourage growth to the north and
said that is part of the issue which needs study.
P & Z Board Minutes
11/24/80
Page 20
Stoner: Asked, if Apt were a developer, how long he thought he would have to
wait for the City and County to come to an agreement, and whether he
would be able to wait that long.
Apt: Replied that it should certainly be done quickly and expressed sympathy
for the developer. Said that at the same time, the developer should have
been aware of what the Land Use Plan stated and of the Intergovernmental
Agreement, so he is taking a chance in coming in with a proposal which
does not conform to these documents. Said.that many piecemeal develop-
ments have been approved over the years, and now is the time to say no,
and begin serious planning. - -
Georg: Said that was his point in asking whether the developer had worked with
the County to revise the Intergovernmental Agreement, contending that
the developer in this case has some responsibility to work with the
County. Stated this proposal is outside the Agreement no matter how
nice it appears to be, and the City and County should show leadership
in either modifying or sticking with the agreement.
Clarke: Agreed there is definitely a need for City -County cooperation in addressing
this kind of development. Said he felt there is a need for this kind of
a project within confines of location and amount, but that it presently
does not fit into the mold that has been created to handle planning.
Georg: Pointed out that the Land Use Policies No. 41 and 42 respecting develop-
ment to the northeast do not seem to apply in this case.
Napheys: Said he is in the same position as Clarke, but that if they had some
assurance from the County that this issue could be resolved in a reasonable
amount of time, he would be for tabling it. -Said, however, that that
would probably be unrealistic.
Stoner: Moved recommendation of approval to the County of the North Ridge Country
Estates Subdivision.
Georg: Second.
Clarke: Said it may be best to err on the side of conservatism in this instance,
in that if approval is recommended and then a few months hence the Board
decides that is a mistake, it would be unfortunate. Said he feels this
is the time to hold back a little bit.
Haase: Expressed agreement with Clarke that there is not enough information;
the studies have not been done; but there is a directive to the County
from the evening's discussion regarding rural non -farm development. Also
agreed that there is a need to encourage growth to the north and northeast,
and that there are aspects of the proposal which are attractive.
Vote: Clarke: no; Gilfillan: yes; Stoner: yes; Ross: no; Napheys: joined with
Mrs. Haase's comments regarding the importance of clarifying the
definition of rural, non -farm development and agreed with the need for
a study of the areas to the northwest, north and northeast of the City
with respect to developments such as this, and voted no; Haase: no;
Georg: no, because it would be a poor precedent to set and a vote of
yes would show lack of leadership on the part of the City in working with
the Land Use Policies.
Motion defeated, 5 - 2.
w
P.& Z Board
Minutes •
11/24/80
Page 21
Ross:
Asked staff to contact the County staff with respect to coming to some
kind of an agreement on the issues raised on the two referrals. Said
his no votes were an attempt to hold the line on the Intergovernmental
Agreement, but that there should be other areas in the County outside the
Corridor suitable for rural, non -farm development.
Smith:
Replied that he would not be able to initiate a study of that nature and
suggested that staff draft a letter from the P & Z Board to the County
Planning Commission and the County Commissioners, requesting they ask for
such a study. Said he would try to have the letter by Monday night.
Clarke:
Said he liked the phrase, "peripheral, large -lot development", because
there is definitely a need for it around the Urban Growth Area and he
would like to see the Board work toward that end.
Smith:
Pointed out that at this point the Board does not have a recommendation on
this item as it had only denied a recommendation for approval.
Clarke:
Moved recommendation for denial of the North Ridge Country Estates
Subdivision.
Georg: Second.
Vote: Georg: yes; Haase: yes; Napheys: yes; Ross: yes; Stoner: no; Gilfillan: no;
Clarke: yes.
Motion carried, 5 - 2.
Napheys: Said he assumed their comments would be passed on, and said he would like
to have the Board's letter go along with their recommendation to the County.
Smith: Replied he would try to have it ready in a week.
23. #131-80 Gordon Exemption
A request for a two -lot exemption, located at the southeast corner of
the intersection of Shields Street and Fossil Creek Drive.
Applicant: Lee and Sherry Gordon, 718 Cambridge Drive, Fort Collins,
CO 80525
Albertson -Clark: Gave staff report, recommending approval with two conditions: 1)
a 20' right-of-way along Shields be shown on the plat to be dedicated
to the City upon request; 2) access to Tract B, the northernmost parcel,
be limited to Fossil Creek Drive.
Ross: Asked if the applicant wished to speak.
Audience: Replied he had no comment.
Smith: Said for clarification on the condition, that dedication of the right-
of-way should probably be requested with this exemption rather than at
some future date. Suggested it could be dedicated to the County so that
adequate right-of-way would be provided.
Ross: Asked if the applicant understood the conditions staff was recommending.
P & Z Board Minutes
11/24/80
Page 22
oug Konkel: Representing the applicants. Said they were amenable to dedicating
the additional 20' right-of-way along Shields and also to limiting
access to Parcel B to Fossil Creek Drive.
Ross: Asked if anyone wished to speak against the proposal.
Lee Gordon: Said he was not in opposition, but said he had no problem with either
of the requirements. Said he would be happy to answer any questions.
Napheys: Moved recommendation of approval to the County subject to the conditions
that a 20' right-of-way along Shields Street be dedicated to the County
at the time the exemption is approved, and that access to Tract B be from
Fossil Creek Drive only.
Stoner: Second.
'Jote: Motion carried, 7 0.
Ross: Adjourned meeting at about 9:45 p.m.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
WORK SESSIONS
Date: November 14, 1980
Time: 12:00 noon
Place: Council Information Center, City Hall
Agenda: Land Development Guidance System
Board Present: John Clarke, Dennis Georg, Carolyn Haase, Ben Napheys, Gary Ross,
Ed Stoner
Date: November 21, 1980
Time: 12:00 noon
Place: Council Information Center, City Hall
Agenda: Regular P & Z Meeting of November 24 Agenda
Board Present: John Clarke, Dennis Georg, Dave Gilfillan,
Gary.Ross, Ed Stoner, Alan Apt
Date: November 24, 1980
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Place: Council Information Center, City Hall
,agenda: Land Development Guidance System
Board Present: John Clarke, Dennis Georg, Dave Gilfillan,
Gary Ross, Ed Stoner, Alan Apt
Carolyn Haase, Ben Napheys,
Carolyn Haase, Ben Napheys,