HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/09/2015 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingJennifer Carpenter, Chair City Council Chambers
Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair City Hall West
Jeff Hansen 300 Laporte Avenue
Gerald Hart Fort Collins, Colorado
Emily Heinz
Michael Hobbs Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Jeffrey Schneider on the Comcast cable system
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
Regular Hearing
April 9, 2015
• ROLL CALL
• AGENDA REVIEW
• CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (30 minutes total for non-agenda and pending application topics)
• CONSENT AGENDA
1. March 12, 2015, Draft P&Z Minutes
The purpose of this item is to review and approve the March 12, 2015, Draft Planning and Zoning
Board minutes.
• DISCUSSION AGENDA
2. Young Peoples Learning Center Project Development Plan with Addition of a Permitted Use
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for approval of a Project Development Plan (PDP) with Addition
of a Permitted Use (APU) for the expansion of the Young Peoples Learning
Center. The project is located at 209 E. Plum St., Fort Collins, CO 80524. The
property is split over two zone districts – the Neighborhood Conservation
Medium Density (NCM) district on the eastern lot and the Neighborhood
Conservation Buffer (NCB) district on the western lot.
The project proposes to add approximately 1721 square feet to the second story
of the existing building. Some of the new space would continue to be used for
child care purposes, with the rest of the space dedicated to office use. Child care
is permitted in both the NCM and NCB districts, subject to basic development
Planning and Zoning
Board Agenda
Planning and Zoning Board Page 1 April 9, 2015
1
review. The new use, professional office, is permitted in the NCB district, subject
to Planning and Zoning Board review. Professional offices are not permitted in
the NCM district, and so would require an Addition of Permitted Use (APU).
Additional site and building improvements are proposed to comply with current
standards, including the addition of a trash/recycling enclosure, covered bicycle
parking, upgrades to the building’s exterior, and the relocation of a fence that
currently extends beyond the property line. No additional vehicle parking spaces
are proposed, and a Modification of Standard to the off-street parking
requirements is requested. Twenty (20) bicycle parking spaces are proposed.
APPLICANT: Heather Griffith
Young Peoples Learning Center
209 East Plum Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
City of Fort Collins Page 2
2
Agenda Item
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY April 9, 2015
Planning and Zoning Board
STAFF
Cindy Cosmas, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT
March 12, 2015, Draft P&Z Minutes
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to review and approve the March 12, 2015, Draft Planning and Zoning Board
minutes.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft March 12, 2015, P&Z Minutes (DOC)
Item # Page 1
3
Jennifer Carpenter, Chair City Council Chambers
Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair City Hall West
Jeff Hansen 300 Laporte Avenue
Gerald Hart Fort Collins, Colorado
Emily Heinz
Michael Hobbs Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Jeffrey Schneider on the Comcast cable system
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special
communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
Regular Hearing
March 12, 2015
Chair Carpenter called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Kirkpatrick, Hansen, Hart, Heinz, Hobbs and Schneider
Absent: None
Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Gloss, Beals, Ex, Sharton, Everette, Wray, Mounce, Shepard,
Mapes, Virata, Wilkinson, Sizemore, and Cosmas
Agenda Review
Chair Carpenter provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the
order of business. She described the following processes:
• While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration,
citizen input is valued and appreciated.
• The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for
each item.
• Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with
city Land Use Code.
• Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will
be allowed for that as well.
• This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure
that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard.
Planning and Zoning
Board Minutes
4
Planning & Zoning Board
March 12, 2015
Page 2
Director Kadrich reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, and she explained the
process for each.
Public Input on Items Not on the Agenda:
None.
Consent Agenda:
1. Draft Minutes from February 12, 2015, P&Z Hearing
2. Laporte Solar Array, FDP 150005
3. East Ridge, Final Plan Extension of Vested Rights #33-98
Eric Sutherland requested that the Laporte Solar Array be pulled from the Consent agenda.
Public Input on Consent Agenda:
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, raised some questions about the inclusion of the Site Plan
Advisory Review process within the Land Use Code. He stated that he could not identify any other cities
that do this, although the language in the code is similar to what counties use. He also commented on
the concept of using Hearing Officers for Type I reviews, which he does not feel represents the legislative
intent of the land use code.
Member Hart made a motion to postpone the 201 E. Elizabeth Street Minor Amendment 140133 to
the next Planning and Zoning Board hearing on April 9, 2015. Member Heinz seconded. Vote:
7:0.
Member Heinz made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the March 12, 2015,
Consent agenda, including the minutes from the February 12, 2015, Planning and Zoning Board
hearing and East Ridge, Final Plan Extension of Vested Right #33-98. Member Hobbs seconded.
Vote: 7:0.
Discussion Agenda:
4. 201 E. Elizabeth Street MA140133 (postponed to the April 9th hearing)
5. Poudre Valley Hospital A-Wing Replacement PDP 140019
6. Landmark Residences on Mountain Avenue
7. Nature in the City Strategic Plan – Adoption Recommendation
8. West Central Area Plan – Adoption Recommendation
Member Hobbs recused himself at 6:11pm due to a conflict of interest.
5
Planning & Zoning Board
March 12, 2015
Page 3
Project: Poudre Valley Hospital A-Wing Replacement PDP 140019
Project Description: This is a request to demolish the A-wing of the Poudre Valley Hospital and
construct a new two-story building containing 111,000 square feet. The first floor would be for a new
emergency department including a separate ambulance-only access from Lemay Avenue protected by a
canopy. The second floor would be for patient beds and general hospital services. The existing
helicopter landing pad would be relocated to the roof of the new building. A new lab would be located in
the basement. The building would be constructed to allow two additional stories to be added in the
future. In addition, a larger parking lot is proposed on the north side of Doctors Lane to serve the new
building.
Recommendation: Approval
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Chief Planner Shepard gave an overview of the project. Kevin Unger, CEO of Poudre Valley Hospital,
gave a brief description of the project, focusing on how it will enhance patient care overall by improving
orthopedic care and neonatal intensive care. Roger Sherman, a Consultant with B.H.A. Design, gave an
in-depth presentation of the proposed development. He detailed the proposed improvements to
emergency access, the relocation of the helipad, the new Express labs, and the new and improved
parking lot. He showed vicinity maps, aerial views, and pedestrian views of the project, including the
ambulance canopy views with landscaping and signage. He also confirmed the project’s compliance
with the Land Use Code.
Public Input
Yvonne Myers, 3236 Red Mountain Drive, supports this project because she is concerned with the ability
of Fort Collins to provide medical care for an aging community.
Mike Sanders, 1800 Westview, supports the project and feels that PVH has been a good neighbor in the
community.
Brian Hahn, 1019 Garfield Street, is opposed to this project, because he is concerned that not enough
has been done to mitigate the demolition/construction noise.
Joyce Hahn, 1019 Garfield Street, is also opposed because of the helicopter pad (and associated noise)
being so close to their home. She also mentioned the traffic issues due to both trains and autos.
Ian Wood, 2233 Forecastle, supports the project, because he feels there has been considerable thought
put into the noise concerns. He stated that the growing Fort Collins population needs this expansion to
provide future care. He feels that the many benefits overshadow any negatives.
Staff/Applicant Response to Citizen Concerns
Mr. Sherman responded to the citizen’s concerns over traffic, saying there will be ambulance signals and
new signage installed to address traffic flow. Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Operations, also responded that
the City has no jurisdiction over train schedules but that the hospital will still try to avoid potential train-
related congestion. There is a study underway to address that, and they will also be implementing a
6
Planning & Zoning Board
March 12, 2015
Page 4
traffic response system that will clear out traffic more quickly after a train passes. Matt Bowker, PVH
Project Manager, stated that the demolition of the original building will occur over a two-month period.
He also indicated that there will be limited hours of demolition, which should start in May or June and
should end in the fall of 2016.
Board Questions and Staff Response
There was some discussion regarding the changes to the flight patterns of the helicopters, and Russ
Wooley, with PVH, responded that, based on weather conditions and destination, pilots try to avoid flying
over residential areas whenever possible. Options for signage were also discusses, including striping on
the street.
Board Deliberation
Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Poudre Valley
Hospital A-Wing Replacement PDP140019, based upon the findings of facts and conclusion in the
staff report. Vice Chair Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. Members made comments in favor of the
project, complimenting the design and considerations. Vote: 6:0.
Member Hobbs rejoined the hearing at 6:46pm.
Members Hansen and Heinz recused themselves at 6:50pm due to conflicts of interest.
Project: Landmark Residences on Mountain Avenue
Project Description: This Project Development Plan would remove the existing convenience
store/gas station at the northeast corner of Mountain Avenue and Shields Street, and construct a new
mixed use building with 6 townhouse units and 1 commercial unit planned for a coffee shop, studio,
professional office, or similar tenant. The residential portion of the proposed building has2-story and
2½- story units. The commercial portion is one story and has both ground floor and rooftop patio
spaces. Each townhouse unit has a single-car detached garage. 15 total parking spaces are proposed.
The parcel size is 27,058 square feet, or .62 acres.
Recommendation: Approval
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Planner Mapes gave a brief overview. Stephanie Van Dyken, Architect with Ripley Associates, Inc.,
gave a full presentation, including photos, history of the site, and shared concerns over recent crime
rates. Based on requests from neighboring residents in 2012, Richard Oneslager, the owner, agreed to
alter the purpose of the property. She discussed the problems they encountered and the goals of the
new property (reduction of traffic, crime, and loitering and creating a neighborhood transition). This plan
will serve both commercial and residential uses. She listed the positive impacts with this plan: less
traffic, mitigation of safety concerns, saving trees, reduction of crime, safety for pedestrians, and
appropriate transition for neighborhood.
7
Planning & Zoning Board
March 12, 2015
Page 5
The applicant is requesting two modifications:
• The setbacks need to be increased by 5 feet, and
• An additional dwelling unit (increasing request to 6 homes).
She discussed mitigation efforts to ensure prices of homes were compatible with the neighborhood and
acceptable for the owner. Architectural details of other homes in the neighborhood were studied, and
this project has also been reviewed by the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) on several
occasions. Once the roof heights, materials, and colors were revised in order to create a consistent
design, the project was approved by the LPC.
Public Input
Gina Jannett, 730 West Oak, opposes the modification of density from 5 to 6 units, because she feels
this design will not be compatible with the neighborhood due to building heights and historic setbacks.
She also mentioned that the problems that arose with the existing gas station occurred when it became a
24-hour store.
Mark Moore, 1014 W. Mountain Avenue, supports the project, and was involved with submitting the
original petition in support of this project. Based on the economic issues in Old Town Fort Collins, he
feels that the safety and traffic uses will be decreased as a result.
Mollie Simpson, 335 West Street, also supports this project.
Staff/Applicant Response to Citizen Concerns
Richard Oneslager, owner of property and business, gave some history of how this project evolved. He
addressed some of the issues brought up by citizens, including crime events, and reiterated his goal to
create a commercial shop that would promote neighborhood gatherings.
Board Questions and Staff Response
There was some discussion about the building heights and their compliance with City standards. There
were also questions about the overstatement of traffic counts, and Martina explained how she estimated
the trip generations, which are based on national standards and averages for a particular use. Planner
Mapes summarized the parking available versus requirements for mixed use: residential use requires 11
spaces, while zero spaces are required for commercial use – a total of 15 spaces will be provided on-
site, with one space being handicapped as required. There will be no parking available on Mountain or
Shields, and the owner of Beavers is not interested in providing parking overflow.
Board Deliberation
Board Members stated their satisfaction with the building meeting code requirements, its compatibility
with the neighborhood, and the fact that the neighbors are generally in support of the project, since this
project was first proposed by citizens.
Member Hart made a motion to approve the modification to standard subsection 3.8.19(B) related
to the setbacks, finding that this modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and it
meets the requirements of Section 2.82 (H)(1) and (4) and that the proposed plan will promote the
general purpose of the standard equally well or better than a plan which complies with the
standard, because of the varied setbacks along the building frontage are consistent and
compatible with the existing neighborhood pattern, and the 18.5-foot setbacks for two units is
8
Planning & Zoning Board
March 12, 2015
Page 6
compensated by greater setbacks for the other units, including a setback for the easternmost
unit that is 5.6 feet greater than the setback of the abutting existing house. For the same
reasons, the difference between the proposed plan and a plan complying with the standard is
nominal and inconsequential, when considered from the perspective of the whole plan, and will
continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code. Member Schneider seconded the
motion. Vote: 5:0.
Member Hart made a motion to approve the modification to standard subsection 4.5(D)(1)(b) to
allow a gross density of 10.7 dwelling units per acre, saying it would not be detrimental to the
public good and meets the applicable requirements of Sections 2.8.2(H)(1) and (4). This is
because the proposed plan will promote the general purpose of the standard equally well or
better than a plan which complies with the standard, since a plan with five units can be virtually
identical to a six-unit project with the same building size, parking configuration, and level of
activity; and because the difference between the proposed plan and a plan complying with the
standard is nominal and inconsequential, with the 6th unit having little or no noticeable effect on
the design or neighborhood impacts when considered from the perspective of the whole plan.
Thus, the plan will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code. Member Schneider
seconded the motion. Vote: 5:0.
Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Landmark
Residences on Mountain Avenue preliminary development plan 140011 and the modification to
standards as previously discussed and based on the findings of facts and conclusions in the
staff report. Member Schneider seconded the motion. Vote: 5:0.
Board members took a 10-minute break, then reconvened at 7:45pm.
Project: Nature in the City Strategic Plan – Adoption Recommendation
Project Description: Nature is a defining characteristic of Fort Collins; the community has an over 40-
year history of protecting nature in our city and region. Nature in the City is a long-term planning effort
that capitalizes on these efforts to protect and integrate nature into the community’s fabric through a
variety of regulatory, policy, outreach and collaborative solutions.
The vision of Nature in the City is “to provide a connected open space network accessible to the entire
community that provides a variety of experiences and functional habitat for people, plants and wildlife.”
To achieve the vision and goals outlined, 28 policies are detailed in the Plan and are arranged into five
policy areas:
• Connectivity;
• Land Use and Development;
• City Practices and Policy Coordination;
• Long-term Monitoring; and
• Funding and Incentives.
Staff has worked collaboratively with 17 City Departments; four Departments within Colorado State
University; an external Citizens Advisory Committee including stakeholders from environmental, social,
and economic perspectives; seven City Boards and Commissions and over 1,000 residents to arrive at
the Strategic Plan being presented to the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff requests that the Planning
9
Planning & Zoning Board
March 12, 2015
Page 7
and Zoning Board make a recommendation to City Council on whether the Plan should be formally
adopted.
Recommendation: Recommendation to City Council for adoption
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Lindsay Ex gave a brief overview of the plan, including its connectivity, land use and development, City
practices and policy coordination, long-term monitoring, and funding incentives. There will be specific
plan topics that will be coming before the P&Z Board at a later time.
Public Input
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposes the plan, saying that the City has not demonstrated the
appropriate level of commitment to urban agriculture and preservation of natural areas within the City.
He cited the Boxelder project as an example of this.
Staff/Applicant Response to Citizen Concerns
None.
Board Questions and Staff Response
For clarification, Planner Ex stated that the Living Wall will be installed at the NW corner of Oak and
Montezuma Fuller Alley. Members stated their support of this plan and its benefit to the community.
Board Deliberation
Member Hart made a motion to recommend to Fort Collins City Council the adoption of the
Nature in the City Strategic Plan. Hansen seconded the motion. Members commented on the
extensive amount of community outreach and their satisfaction with the partnering with other
departments, CSU, Larimer County, Poudre School District, and the Audubon Society. They stated that
it is an excellent plan for this size of city, and it will be important for future generations. While there has
been a push to increase inner-City density, this plan shows the responsible development and protection
of our natural areas. Vote: 7:0.
Project: West Central Area Plan – Adoption Recommendation
Project Description: The West Central Area Plan (WCAP) provides an updated vision and policy
guidance for the neighborhoods south and west of the CSU Main Campus. Recommendations in the
plan relate to three primary topic areas: Land Use & Neighborhood Character, Transportation &
Mobility, and Open Space Networks. The project also includes new conceptual designs for Prospect
Road and Lake Street (from Shields Street to College Avenue), which are intended to improve the
safety and comfort for pedestrians, bicycles, buses, and cars on both roadways.
10
Planning & Zoning Board
March 12, 2015
Page 8
Staff has worked collaboratively with a consultant team to develop the Plan over the past year with
extensive outreach to the neighborhoods, stakeholder groups, CSU and other partner organizations,
and City leadership. The Planning and Zoning Board is asked to make a recommendation to City
Council on whether the Plan should be formally adopted.
Recommendation: Recommendation to City Council for adoption
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Chief Planner Shepard gave a brief overview of WCAP project, including the 3 action item categories:
land use and neighborhood character, open space networks, and transportation and mobility. Planner
Everette continued by explaining how the action items have been organized: immediate action (within
120 days of adoption), short-term action (2015-2016), mid-term action (2017-2024), and ongoing
enhancements. She detailed the key action items for the project and presented a Shields Corridor
Analysis, which considers options for crossing, roadway realignments, over/underpasses, and updating
cross-sections. Also included in the implementation discussion were the CSU stadium considerations
related to the WCAP.
Board Questions and Staff Response
Members had questions about the involvement of the retail areas and business owners. The primary
zoning is CC (commercial), and this will stay in place along with the current height allowance. The new
TOD parking ratios will be enforced. While there is no grand plan to makeover commercial properties,
there will be opportunities for individual property owners to make personal property investments (i.e. with
streetscaping, sidewalks, etc.).
Public Input
Chris Marshall, 926 W. Mountain, stated two concerns: he believes the plan to “sell” the stadium used
inaccurate funding projections in order to promote the stadium. He also feels that landlord licensing
should be segregated from this process altogether and shouldn’t be applied to this project alone.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, asked whether extra money is available now for the purpose of
taking care of pedestrian and other infrastructure needs and whether we are coordinating our revenue
needs with finance.
Secretary Cosmas has received some citizen emails and letters since the work session, pertaining to
sidewalks, parking, neighborhood appearance, and safety. She also read a letter from a citizen who
supports the majority of the WCAP plan but does not support landlord licensing or the registration
program, due to concerns over increased costs to property owners and tenants, the potential need to
fund additional City staff for enforcement and administration, and privacy issues or abuse of the collected
registry data.
Staff/Applicant Response to Citizen Concerns
Chief Planner Shepard responded to the concerns over landlord licensing, saying that, while he is aware
of these concerns, he can only acknowledge them at this time. Implementation is still being worked out.
He continued by saying that, as is customary, funding will continue with appropriate budgeting of funds
overseen by City Council.
11
Planning & Zoning Board
March 12, 2015
Page 9
Board Deliberation
Chair Carpenter inquired as to why the landlord licensing appears to be only connected to WCAP and if it
will be explored City-wide. Director Kadrich responded that this is indeed a city-wide focus; however,
because it is an action item requested by WCAP stakeholders, it was purposely included in this
document. Information is still being collected in order to review options for consideration, but there is
currently no timeline or action plan in place. Member Hart acknowledged the amount of City staff time
that was invested into developing this plan, and he feels that also gives the City time to deal with
expansion of CSU. He also believes this plan is critical in dealing with community changes, although he
did not see any indication of stadium support in this plan. Member Hansen agreed by reiterating that this
is still in the planning phase with no set implementation yet. Chair Carpenter commended the City
planners on the work put into this plan.
Member Heinz made a motion to recommend approval of the West Central Area Plan as proposed
to the City Council. Member Hobbs seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0.
Member Hansen recused himself at 8:40pm due to a conflict of interest.
Project: Laporte Solar Array, FDP 150005
Project Description: This is a request for consideration of a consolidated Project Development
Plan/Final Plan to construct a medium-scale solar energy system capable of generating nearly 1
megawatt of electricity. The solar energy system, comprised of rows of ground-mounted solar panels, is
contained within a fenced area approximately 3.79 acres in size on a 13.63 acre parcel in the Low
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) Zone District. The project proposes a new crossing over the
Larimer County Canal No. 2 providing emergency and maintenance access to the solar energy system,
as well as landscape plantings around the solar array perimeter for screening.
Recommendation: Approval
Public Input
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated his issues with the inclusion of an administrative
interpretation that redefines what is written in the LUC regarding use by right in this zoning area. He
doesn’t believe there is support for this in the LUC and that the administrative interpretation is very
strained and contrived in terms of reallocation of law and is inconsistent with the planned use fund. His
suggestion is that the P&Z Board shouldn’t approve a development proposal that includes a use by right
that is in an area where it is prohibited, rather than changing the land use code.
Staff/Applicant Response to Citizen Concerns
Planner Mounce responded to the citizen’s concern by saying that new codes were added to the LUC
covering solar energy systems, and this use was added to all zone districts excluding the transition zone
district. It was added to the Low-Density Mixed-Use neighborhood (L-M-N) zone district, which is the
district within which this project is proposed. Within that zone district, industrial use shall be within 500
feet of East Vine Drive. Planner Mounce submitted an administrative interpretation, and it was
concluded that the code did not intend for the L-M-N zone district to be limited within 500 feet, based on
the overall intent when those land use changes went into effect last year. The L-M-N is the only zone
12
Planning & Zoning Board
March 12, 2015
Page 10
with this restriction for the entire industrial category rather than specific to individual uses. Planning
Manager Gloss also stated that the authority to grant a land use code interpretation is provided in
Division 1.4 of the LUC, which allows the Director to provide those interpretations. He was the principal
author of the LUC in question, and the design of solar facilities in residential districts would be Type II
use. He acknowledged that this came to staff’s attention during the course of this review that there was
an error in the way that the code had been drafted. There was never any intention for there to be a
restriction of this use on Vine Drive alone.
Board Questions and Staff Response
Member Hobbs asked about the specific reference to Vine Drive, to which Planner Manager Gloss
responded that this was a specific restriction within the zone district for industrial uses. Deputy City
Attorney Eckman confirmed that the LUC is updated several time each year for the purpose of correcting
errors.
Member Hart made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the project
development plan and final development plan for the Laporte Solar Array, FDP150005. Vice Chair
Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0.
Member Hansen rejoined the hearing at 8:50pm.
Other Business
Member Hart expressed his disappointment with the postponement of 201 E. Elizabeth and asked if
there is a better way to avoid receiving so much written citizen input just before the hearing. Director
Kadrich responded that this has been an ongoing issue, and the Board can decide how to address this at
the next work session. Member Schneider inquired as to what the protocol should be in reviewing such
items. Director Kadrich responded that this process will be reviewed and a protocol determined.
Member Heinz also requested, to be included in the April work session, a policy discussion regarding the
SPAR review process and a review of the citizen’s comments regarding the Boxelder project
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 pm.
Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director Jennifer Carpenter, Chair
13
Agenda Item 2
STAFF REPORT April 9, 2015
Planning and Zoning Board
PROJECT NAME
YOUNG PEOPLES LEARNING CENTER PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH ADDITION OF A
PERMITTED USE
STAFF
Rebecca Everette, Associate Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for approval of a Project Development Plan (PDP) with Addition
of a Permitted Use (APU) for the expansion of the Young Peoples Learning
Center. The project is located at 209 E. Plum St., Fort Collins, CO 80524. The
property is split over two zone districts – the Neighborhood Conservation
Medium Density (NCM) district on the eastern lot and the Neighborhood
Conservation Buffer (NCB) district on the western lot.
The project proposes to add approximately 1721 square feet to the second story
of the existing building. Some of the new space would continue to be used for
child care purposes, with the rest of the space dedicated to office use. Child care
is permitted in both the NCM and NCB districts, subject to basic development
review. The new use, professional office, is permitted in the NCB district, subject
to Planning and Zoning Board review. Professional offices are not permitted in
the NCM district, and so would require an Addition of Permitted Use (APU).
Additional site and building improvements are proposed to comply with current
standards, including the addition of a trash/recycling enclosure, covered bicycle
parking, upgrades to the building’s exterior, and the relocation of a fence that
currently extends beyond the property line. No additional vehicle parking spaces
are proposed, and a Modification of Standard to the off-street parking
requirements is requested. Twenty (20) bicycle parking spaces are proposed.
APPLICANT: Heather Griffith
Young Peoples Learning Center
209 East Plum Street
Fort Collins, CO 80524
OWNER: Dennis & Janice Griffith
4217 Braidwood Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Young Peoples Learning Center PDP with
Addition of Permitted Use, PDP #140012 with Conditions.
Item # 2 Page 1
14
Agenda Item 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Young Peoples Learning Center PDP with APU complies with the applicable requirements
of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically:
A. The request to add the professional office use to the portion of the site located within
the NCM zone district complies with the applicable requirements in Section 1.3.4 –
Addition of Permitted Uses.
B. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(h) that is proposed with this PDP
meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the
Modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and the plan will not diverge
from the standards except in a nominal and inconsequential way. This is because
the existing parking serving the daycare has proven to satisfy the existing needs of
the use and the use is not expanding to a substantial degree.
C. The PDP complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development
Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.
D. The PDP complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.8, Neighborhood
Conservation Medium Density District (NCM) of Article 4 – Districts.
E. The PDP complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.9, Neighborhood
Conservation Buffer District (NCB) of Article 4 – Districts.
F. The PDP complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General
Development Standards, provided that the Modification of Standard to Section
3.2.2(K)(1)(h) is approved.
Item # 2 Page 2
15
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 Page 3
16
Agenda Item 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The subject property is part of the original Fort Collins town site, as shown on the 1873 Map of
the Town of Fort Collins. The existing building on the site was constructed as a residence in
1898, with various remodels and additions over time. The property was converted to a child
care center in the 1960s, and has been continuously used as a child care center. The building
is located on two parcels, each approximately 7000 square feet in size. The eastern lot is
located in the Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) district, while the western lot
is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) district.
The property is located within the Laurel School National Register Historic District (established
in 1980), though the existing building has been determined ineligible for historic designation.
The property is also located within the plan area for the Eastside Neighborhood Plan, adopted
in 1986.
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses/Owners
North
Neighborhood Conservation
Medium Density (NCM) Fraternity (Phi Delta Theta)
Neighborhood Conservation
Buffer (NCB)
Single-family residence (Donna and Victor
Van Wyhe)
South
Neighborhood Conservation
Medium Density (NCM)
Single-family residence (Darrell and James
Call)
Neighborhood Conservation
Buffer (NCB)
Single-family residence (Gene and Kathy
Watkinson)
East Neighborhood Conservation
Medium Density (NCM) Single-family residence (Janet Scott)
West Neighborhood Conservation
Buffer (NCB) Single-family residence (John Miller)
2. Compliance with Section 1.3.4 of the Land Use Code – Addition of Permitted Uses:
The project complies with the requirements of Section 1.3.4 – Addition of Permitted Uses as
follows:
Item # 2 Page 4
17
Agenda Item 2
A. Section 1.3.4(A) – Purpose
The majority (approximately 74 percent) of the proposed professional office use is
located in the NCB district, with the remaining 26 percent located in the NCM district.
Because the proposed inclusion of professional offices within the existing child care
center does not comply with the permitted uses of the Neighborhood Conservation
Medium Density (NCM) district, so the Addition of a Permitted Use would be required.
The proposed professional office use represents an emerging trend in child care
provision, where therapy services are provided to children on-site, that is unforeseen in
the Land Use Code.
B. Section 1.3.4(B) – Applicability
The proposed Addition of a Permitted Use is applicable under Section 1.3.4(B)(2), based
on the unique attributes of this particular site and development plan.
C. Section 1.3.4(C) – Required Findings
The proposed Addition of a Permitted Use (professional office) conforms to the
conditions of Section 1.3.4(C). Because the property straddles two zone districts (NCM
and NCB), it serves as a transition between the two districts. Professional offices are
permitted in the NCB district. The proposed use would support the existing child care
business, rather than standing alone as a separate use. Because it would be similar in
nature and intensity to the existing child care center, it would generally be compatible
with the other permitted uses in the zone district. The proposed use is not expected to
generate substantially greater adverse impacts on the neighborhood than are already
created by the child care center.
Two neighborhood meetings have been held regarding the PDP and Addition of a
Permitted Use, as described in section 5 below. Concerns were expressed at the
neighborhood meeting and other public comments that the addition of the professional
office use could result in a greater intensity of use on the property sometime in the
future. Some felt that higher intensity office uses, beyond uses that complement the
existing day care business, would be inappropriate within the neighborhood. In response,
the Applicant described that they would expect no more than 40 percent of the visits to
the professional offices to be made by clients that are not currently enrolled at Young
Peoples Learning Center (See Attachment 1, Page 4). In addition, no more than 12 total
staff, including the tenants of the professional office spaces, would be present on the site
at one time (See Attachment 1, Page 3).
D. Section 1.3.4(F) – Conditions
In order to ensure consistency with the purpose of the NCM zone district and
compatibility of the proposed professional office use with the surrounding neighborhood,
staff recommends the following conditions:
Item # 2 Page 5
18
Agenda Item 2
a. Services provided by the new professional offices shall include no more than
40 percent of weekly appointments occurring for customers/patients other than
children enrolled in the day care and associated staff.
b. The number of staff and professional office tenants shall not exceed 12
persons at any one time.
c. The professional office use shall be limited to hours of operation between 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
3. Compliance with Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code – Modification of
Standards:
Modification Description:
The Applicant requests a Modification to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(h) – Schools, Places of
Worship or Assembly and Child Care Centers (off-street parking requirements) to
eliminate the need to provide the off-street parking spaces required for a child care
center.
Land Use Code Standard Proposed to be Modified (areas underlined for
emphasis):
LUC 3.2.2(K)(1):
(h) Schools, Places of Worship or Assembly and Child Care Centers:
For each school, place of worship or assembly and child care center, there shall be one
(1) parking space per four (4) seats in the auditorium or place of worship or assembly, or
two (2) parking spaces per three (3) employees, or one (1) parking space per one
thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area, whichever requires the greatest number of
parking spaces. In the event that a school, place of worship or assembly, or child care
center is located adjacent to uses such as retail, office, employment or industrial uses,
and the mix of uses creates staggered peak periods of parking demand, and the
adjacent landowners have entered into a shared parking agreement, then the maximum
number of parking spaces allowed for a place of worship or assembly shall be one (1)
parking space per four (4) seats in the auditorium or place of worship or assembly, and
the maximum number of parking spaces allowed for a school or child care center shall
be three (3) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area. When staggered
peak periods of parking demand do not exist with adjacent uses such as retail, office,
employment or industrial uses, then the maximum number of parking spaces allowed for
a place of worship or assembly shall be one (1) parking space per three (3) seats in the
auditorium or place of worship or assembly, and the maximum number of parking spaces
allowed for a school or child care center shall be four (4) spaces per one thousand
(1,000) square feet of floor area.
Item # 2 Page 6
19
Agenda Item 2
Land Use Code Modification Criteria:
“The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the
granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that:
(1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the
modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with
the standard for which a modification is requested; or
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would,
without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an
existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a
substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would
substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined
and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or
resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render
the project practically infeasible; or
(3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such
as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which
hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the
standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical
difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided
that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant;
or
(4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that
are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way
when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue
to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by
specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and
criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4).
Summary of Applicant’s Justification:
The Applicant requests that the modification be approved and provides the following
justification based upon Criterion 2 (addresses important community need) and Criterion
4 (diverges in a nominal or inconsequential Way):
Item # 2 Page 7
20
Agenda Item 2
Applicant’s Justification for Criterion 2:
• The City of Fort Collins has a specific community need for high-quality child care
space. Providing a large playground area supports the provision of high-quality
care. Providing the required amount of off-street parking on the site would require
the elimination of at least 30 percent of the existing playground area.
• City policies and reports specify that the provision of high-quality child care is a
priority for the community, particularly within neighborhoods and near
employment centers.
Applicant’s Justification for Criterion 4:
• The property has been continuously used as a child care center without off-street
parking since 1962.
• There have been no documented complaints to the City’s Parking Services
department regarding parking availability near the site.
• Young Peoples Learning Center has rarely experienced a need for parking
beyond the block in which it is located. The Applicant has conducted an informal
parking study that demonstrates that parking is generally available near the child
care center at all times of the day.
• Approximately six parking spaces in front of the child care center are currently
marked as a Loading Zone, which is used for child pick-up, drop-off, and the
center’s operations.
• Due to the unique circumstances of the site, the impact to the neighborhood of not
providing off-street parking will be minimal.
Staff Finding:
Staff finds that the request for a Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(h) is
justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H)(4).
A. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good and;
B. The project design satisfies Criterion 4 (2.8.2(H)(4): The plan as submitted will not
diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division
to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the
perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the
purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.
Staff finds that the modification to the parking standard is nominal and
inconsequential when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan
because there have been no documented problems related to parking availability
since the property began operating as a child care center. Based on the Applicant’s
informal parking study and staff’s site assessments, it appears that on-street parking
is consistently available near the center. The existing loading zone in front of the
center will continue to mitigate the impacts of child pick-up and drop-off activities. Any
Item # 2 Page 8
21
Agenda Item 2
additional traffic generated by the development proposal could be potentially
attributed to the new professional office use, which does not trigger additional parking
requirements, so the impact of not providing the required child care center parking
would be nominal and inconsequential. To ensure that parking demands from the
office use are adequately managed over the long-term, the staff is recommending
three conditions of approval related to the office use.
The plan continues to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in
Section 1.2.2 including:
• 1.2.2 (J) improving the design, quality and character of new development.
• 1.2.2 (M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character
of existing neighborhoods.
4. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code – Neighborhood Conservation
Medium Density (NCM) and Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB):
The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows:
A. Section 4.8(A) and 4.9(A) – Purpose
The continuation of child care and proposed office use (in support of the child care
business) is consistent with the purpose of the Neighborhood Conservation Medium
Density (NCM) District, as it remains similar in character to the predominantly single-
family and low- to medium-density multi-family housing in the area. The existing and
proposed uses provide a transition between the residential area to the east and the
higher intensity commercial area along College Avenue to the west.
B. Section 4.8(B)(3)(c) and 4.9(B)(3)(c)– Permitted Uses
The existing and proposed land uses are consistent with the permitted uses in the NCB
District. The proposed professional office use is a Type Two use in the NCB district,
subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. However, professional offices are not a
permitted use in the NCM district, so the Addition of Permitted Use is required per
Section 1.3.4.
C. Section 4.8(D) and 4.9(D)– Land Use Standards
The proposed building addition complies with Section 4.8(D)(2), 4.8(D)(3), and 4.9(D)(5),
which specify that the allowable floor area for uses other than single-family dwellings
shall not exceed 40 percent of the lot area and 33 percent of the rear half of the lot.
Item # 2 Page 9
22
Agenda Item 2
D. Section 4.8(E) and 4.9(D)(6) – Dimensional Standards
The proposed PDP complies with all minimum lot width, setback, and building height
standards specified in Sections 4.8(E) and 4.9(D)(6).
E. Section 4.8(F) and 4.9(E) – Development Standards
The proposed building addition complies with the requirements in Sections 4.8(F)(1) and
4.9(E)(1) – Building Design, including the provision of Front and Side Façade Character
features. The front of the building features a covered porch, and the sides of the building
do not exceed 40 feet in width. In addition, the proposal satisfies the requirements of
Sections 4.8(F) and 4.9(E) – Bulk and Massing and Section 4.9(E)(4) –
Landscape/Hardscape Material.
5. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code – General Development
Standards:
The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards; with the following
relevant comments provided:
A. Division 3.2 – Site Planning and Design Standards
1) 3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection:
• The site currently meets the standards for tree planting, tree protection, and
landscaping. A number of mature trees exist on the site, including street trees
along the building’s frontage, and no additional trees are proposed. No trees
will be removed during the construction of the building addition.
2) 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking:
• Sidewalk connections already exist on-site.
• A total of 20 covered bicycle parking spaces will be provided on-site, all of
which will be located near the building entrance. This exceeds the
requirements for child care centers (minimum of 4 spaces).
• Six vehicle parking spaces would be required to serve the child care use.
However, the applicant requests a modification to the standard in Section
3.2.2(K) for off-street vehicle parking spaces, as previously described in this
staff report.
• There is no minimum parking requirement for the professional office use. Note
that this project was submitted for review prior to the recent adoption of new
non-residential parking standards.
Item # 2 Page 10
23
Agenda Item 2
3) 3.2.5 Trash and Recycling Enclosures:
• A new trash and recycling enclosure is proposed on the southern (rear) end of
the site, which meets the size, design, and accessibility standards specified in
Section 3.2.5.
B. Division 3.4 – Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource
Protection Standards
1) 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources:
While the Young Peoples Learning Center building was determined to be ineligible for
historic designation, the site is located within the Laurel School National Register
Historic District.
• Section 3.4.7(B) specifies that the development plan shall be compatible with
the historic character of adjacent properties and district as a whole. By
preserving the existing building, the development proposal seeks to retain
features that could contribute to the surrounding historic district, such as the
gambrel (barn-style) roof of the original building.
• In compliance with Section 3.4.7(D)(1), the proposal seeks to upgrade the
existing building while including historic details. The Applicant met with a local
architect through the Historic Preservation departments’ Design Assistance
Program. Based on the recommendations from the architect, a number of
changes were made to the proposed building design. The building will be
painted in a more neutral shade of blue to better reflect the colors found in the
surrounding neighborhood (see Attachment 6). Additional door and window
trim, as well as new porch and entry elements, will better reflect the
surrounding historic character. Existing wall and roofing materials will be
upgraded to provide energy efficiency improvements.
C. Division 3.5 – Building Standards
1) 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility
• The proposed building addition utilizes similar rooflines, trim, and entry
features to those in the surrounding area. The proposed building design has
been improved based on suggestions from a local architect (through the
Design Assistance Program).
• The buildings on both side of the site are two stories in height, as is proposed
for this site. The existing building has approximately twice as much street
Item # 2 Page 11
24
Agenda Item 2
frontage as many of the nearby single-family residences, which is mitigated by
the use of multiple entry features and façade articulation in the building.
• Windows and doors are limited on the east and west sides of the building to
protect the privacy of the adjacent houses.
• The proposed building materials (stucco and composite room shingles) can
found on other buildings in the immediate area. Additional window and door
trim will provide a break in color and materials and add visual interest. The
proposed building color is more similar to colors found in the surrounding
neighborhood than the existing building color (See Attachment 6).
D. Section 3.8.4 – Child Care Center Regulations
• The development proposal exceeds the standards for outdoor play areas
specified in Section 3.8.4.
6. Neighborhood Meetings
Two neighborhood meetings were held for the proposed project: the first on July 15, 2014 and
the second on August 25, 2014. The first meeting had six attendees; five people attended the
second neighborhood meeting. Attendees spoke both in support of and in opposition to the
project. Concerns were expressed related to: the addition of a new commercial use into the
neighborhood, the potential intensity of the new use (as proposed, and into the future), existing
parking issues, the potential increase in parking demand, visibility related to Young Peoples
Learning Center’s vans parked in the street, the number of clients that would be served by the
new medical offices, and the overall intensity of the new use. Support was expressed for
maintaining the child care center within the neighborhood, as it directly serves neighborhood
residents, and support for an increased range of support services provided by the professional
office use. Additional public comments were received throughout the review process. Detailed
summaries of both neighborhood meetings and all additional public comments are included in
Attachment 7.
7. Findings of Fact/Conclusion
In evaluating the request for the Young Peoples Learning Center PDP with APU and a
modification of standards to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(h), staff makes the following findings of fact:
A. The request to add the professional office use to the portion of the site located within
the NCM zone district complies with the applicable requirements in Section 1.3.4 –
Addition of Permitted Uses.
B. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(h) that is proposed with this PDP
meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the
Modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and the plan will not diverge
Item # 2 Page 12
25
Agenda Item 2
from the standards except in a nominal and inconsequential way. This is because
the existing parking serving the daycare has proven to satisfy the existing needs of
the use and the use is not expanding to a substantial degree.
C. The PDP complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development
Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.
D. The PDP complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.8, Neighborhood
Conservation Medium Density District (NCM) of Article 4 – Districts.
E. The PDP complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.9, Neighborhood
Conservation Buffer District (NCB) of Article 4 – Districts.
F. The PDP complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 – General
Development Standards, provided that the Modification of Standard to Section
3.2.2(K)(1)(h) is approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Young Peoples Learning
Center PDP with Addition of a Permitted Use and a modification of standard to Section
3.2.2(K)(1)(h), PDP #140012, with the following motion:
1. Approve the request to add the professional office use based on the findings of fact,
subject to the conditions that the Applicant ensure that:
a. Services provided by the new professional offices shall include no more than
40 percent of weekly appointments occurring for customers/patients other than
children enrolled in the day care and associated staff.
b. The number of staff and professional office tenants shall not exceed 12
persons at any one time.
c. The professional office use shall be limited to hours of operation between 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
2. Approve the Modification of Standard to Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(h) based on the findings
of fact; and
3. Approve the Project Development Plan based on the findings of fact.
Item # 2 Page 13
26
Agenda Item 2
ATTACHMENTS
1. Statement of Planning Objectives (PDF)
2. Combined Site and Landscape Plan (PDF)
3. Building Elevations (PDF)
4. Building Floor Plans (PDF)
5. Request for Modification of Standard (PDF)
6. Building Color Sample (PDF)
7. Neighborhood Meeting Notes & Additional Public Comments (PDF)
Item # 2 Page 14
27
1
209 E. Plum Street
Young Peoples Learning Center
Planning Objectives
We are Young Peoples Learning Center and we are seeking approval for a project
which will do great things for children and families in Fort Collins, particularly in the
downtown and university districts.
We would like to add a second story on top of what has been a flat roof for many years.
The addition of space will allow us to provide onsite professional services which will
greatly add to the quality of care we offer. This addition will also improve the visual
presentation of the site for the neighborhood.
We are presenting a lot of material in this overview and have a lot of support for our
program both in information to share from community member, our own expertise,
research and documents from the field of Early Childhood Education as well as letters
from local stakeholders and experts.
Getting kids ready for school needs to be a priority of the Fort Collins community. Doing
well in school is critical to success in life and adding these services to our program is
one way to maximize the success of young children. Accomplishing these goals has
been our focus since 1978.
The project is presented in this document according to the following outline:
- Scope of the project
- Neighborhood support for the project
- City support for the project
- Community support for the project
- Conceptual Review Letter
- Answers to questions presented at Conceptual Review
- Answers to questions presented at the neighborhood meeting
- Improvements that go above and beyond city requirements
28
2
Scope of the Project
Adding the full additional second story to our building improves aesthetics, energy
efficiencies and maintenance demands for the school. Because we are developing the
space, we would like to use it to improve the quality of care for the children in our
program.
At this time, we bring in speech and language therapists, behavioral and family
therapists and occupational therapists to screen our children, provide services to our
families and train and coach our teachers.
When services are brought in, they currently meet with children and families in
administrative work spaces and storage areas. These environments are not the most
effective places for these service providers to do their work. We have spoken with the
service providers we work with about what kind of spaces they would need in order to
provide services on our site. The feedback we received led us to design the space.
We do anticipate that service providers would want and be able to meet with clients who
were not current families of Young Peoples Learning Center. However, we have
analyzed this ratio and believe that about 60 to 80% of the appointments each week
would be YPLC clients. This is based on the percentage of children needing
intervention to avoid risk factors and the load we believe the providers could carry. The
number of clients receiving services may be even higher simply because the services
are readily available to Young Peoples’ families. We have not put this practice into
effect, and it could be significantly more or less, but we believe an additional 10 – 20
appointments may be generated each week for non-YPLC families – two to four per
day.
We are here to provide early childhood education services to children and families
specifically because we believe in the power of the change we can make on our
community by doing this well. We know that providing these services catches children
and families at a critical time in their development. When children are provided services
early, they need far fewer interventions in school or as adults and parents themselves.
We want to do the best for our children and we want to create a model that works for
community child care centers. We do not rely on funds from government or
foundations, we accept low-income clients receiving state assistance and we work with
community organizations whenever possible.
29
3
Current Business Profile
Young Peoples Learning Center is a well-established business with no record of
violations or complaints
In business since 1978 and the only child care center in the Downtown Business
District
At Plum Street location since 1994.
Oldest privately owned child care center in Fort Collins and have been committed to
quality care for kids throughout that time.
The 209 E. Plum Street location has been a child care center since 1962.
*We acknowledge and hope to help any neighbors feel good about our presence,
but feel strongly that more families have purchased their houses in the neighborhood
BECAUSE our services are close by and that anyone who has purchased their
home after 1962, were already aware these services existed in the area and chose
to be a part of this neighborhood
The City does not have any record of zoning complaints or violations for this
property. Ever.
We are very invested in our community and doing what we can to improve both our
neighborhood and Fort Collins as a community.
o Attend Downtown Business Association meetings
o Work with the Climatewise program
o Our Executive Director is the President of the Board of the Early Childhood
Council of Larimer County.
o Our owner is part of the board of the Colorado Early Childhood Education
Association.
Numbers
Before Remodel After Remodel
Number of children served at this location 95 120
Number of Children on grounds at one time
during the busiest time of day
65 67
Number of Families Served at all locations 260 275
Number of Staff employed at this location 17 17
Number of staff on grounds at one time,
during the busiest time of day 8
– 10 10 – 12
Note that we can help an additional 25 families who are at the greatest risk of
developmental or other delays with very little change in the amount of traffic or parking
impact on the neighborhood.
30
4
Traffic Services deemed that this project did not meet the
minimum threshold for a traffic study. We are in agreement
of this assessment. The percentage increase of people on
grounds at one time we believe will be about a 4% increase.
We are basing this on several factors. According to the
latest findings of the Health and Well-Being of Children
Chartbook, 40% of children aged 4 months to 5 years are
at risk of developmental delay. With an average of 80 clients
at Young Peoples on Plum and 25 clients at Young Peoples
on Mathews, that would be 42 clients from two Young
Peoples locations. Based on our experience, we assume
about 1/3 of these clients would refuse services for one
reason or another. We also assume the offices combined
would see about 10 clients per day. We believe 30 of the 50
available appointments would be Young Peoples clients with just about 20 spaces
available for additional clients.
The goal of adding these services is to serve our children better and we believe the best
model for doing so is to bring in services who would be able to dictate their own
practice. This means allowing them to see other clients. However, we believe these
additional guests to our site would not be a majority of the work happening in the
service providers’ offices.
We have spoken with potential service providers whom we hope to work with in order to
design spaces specifically around their needs.
The Speech and Language service offices are small and do not include space for
a desk or file storage. They are designed as satellite offices for an agency to run
“sessions” with clients only. (Please note the plans submitted with this review
show only one office – that space should be divided in half to provide two smaller
offices)
The Behavior and Family services offices are designed to give clients and
providers space to meet, but there are no spaces for receptionists or assistants.
We have had interest from therapists in renting this as a very part time space as
a second job for a therapist or for therapists to rent on an hourly basis to
accommodate clients very part time.
The Occupational or Physical therapist’s office is the only office we anticipate
having a full-time therapist in its space. The tools used by this therapist are
difficult to bring from one place to another and it is unlikely they will choose to
31
5
travel. This is the only office designed with specific and sufficient office or desk
space.
Neighborhood Support for the Project
Hi Heather - just returned from a month of travels and hope things are going forward for
your plans. I worked on faculty at UNC and was director of Children's Speech and
Reading from 1999 - 2006. I have been working as an SLP in the Early Childhood
Program (developmental preschool, Headstart and other community based settings) in
Cheyenne since then. We do a lot of family education as well as direct evaluation /
support embedded in the classroom / childcare setting. I agree that on-site services in
a natural setting is best practice for young children. Keep me posted on your plans - I
am not looking at doing private practice, but enjoy being involved more locally. Can't
get more local than 1 block from my house! My phone is 970 690-6612.
Best of luck - Debra Dunn
We are residents of the neighborhood near Young People's Learning Center (805
Locust St.) and both of our children have been enrolled at YPLC. As a family that values
our neighborhood and community, we try to use local services whenever possible. We
believe that the additional services planned for YPLC will be of great value to our kids
and our neighborhood.
Roze Hentschell & Tom Cram
I was thrilled to learn that YPLC would be adding therapy services to their already
phenomenal programs. We are a YPLC family and live in the neighborhood as well. We
are quite lucky to have them in our community!
Taylor
I live in the neighborhood near Young People's Learning Center and my 9yr old son has
attended their preschool and camps since he was three. I think that having occupational
and physical therapists, speech and language pathologists, and family and behavioral
therapists will be a great addition to the services they offer, and that the families will
benefit greatly from having them offered.
Abby Hartley
I live in the neighborhood & my son currently attends Young Peoples Learning Center. I
am excited that this addition & remodel is creating room for more valuable resources for
not only my son but the community
-Bevin Parker
32
6
My son attends Young People's on Plum and loves it. To have increased services, such
as physical therapy or behavioral health therapists at the place that he already feels
comfortable would be an incredible asset to not only his health, but the neighborhood
families that the school serves.
Laurel
To whom it may concern:
My name is Nicole Stafford and I reside near Young People’s Learning Center located
on Plum Street between Remington and Matthews. I am writing in support of the
proposed construction project that will add office space above the current building
where zoning allows.
Knowing the diversity of families that Young People’s serves, as well as the abundance
of families in our neighborhood, I believe it would be a benefit to our children and
families to provide such services as speech pathology and family therapy. There are
many barriers that keep parents from seeking and obtaining these services for their
children when they are needed such as time, money, fear and denial. I believe these
services, when located in a familiar place and convenient location, will be better utilized.
Best, Nicole T Stafford
33
7
City Support for the Project
The City of Fort Collins published a report in December of 2011 entitled “Snapshot
Report Sustainable Community Development: Early Childhood Care and Education”
The following points are from THAT REPORT. Please feel free to follow this link to the
full report: http://www.fcgov.com/socialsustainability/pdf/childcare-report.pdf
Points from the Report Project Specific Comments
75% of families report a lack of child care options for
their children with special needs
Providing these additional services
allows us to serve additional special
needs children.
Generally, current demand for child care space
exceeds capacity reported by child care facilities.
Enrollment rates are projected to increase and will
exceed the 2010 capacity in future years; a 22.5%
enrollment increase is projected by 2020.
Child care should be part of economic development
policy.
A lack of affordable, quality, convenient child care
reduces worker productivity.
YPLC is located just blocks from CSU,
the largest employer in Fort Collins, and
near the downtown area, one of the most
essential business employment areas of
town. Quality care options need to be
available in this area.
Businesses’ ability to attract and retain workers is hurt
by lack of quality child care.
Lack of transportation for lower income parents
continues to be a significant problem;
YPLC is located a half block from the
Transit-Oriented Development Overlay
Zone. We are one of only 3 Child Care
Centers located within walking distance
of the Max transit system. We are also
open more a greater majority of the day
than most Child Care Centers (6:30 am
to 6:15 pm, many care options are only
available from 7:30 am to 5:30 pm.
Transfort hours do not begin early enough or go late
enough for many jobs; lack of Sunday service; and,
often requires multiple transfers that results in parents
who need to rely on public transit are unable to first
drop off children and then get to work on time
Most zone districts in the City allow child care
centers, and most require a development review
process, with neighborhood participation.
We realize that our project request does
not include creating a new location, but
many of the requirements we are subject
to for this review are creating the same
burden on our system of care.
A new child care center that is a change of use
triggers building code and fire department regulations
34
8
(in addition to the zoning regulations). This can be
costly for opening new child care centers in existing
development, for instance in the Downtown area.
Children who have received high quality child care
score higher on tests of both cognitive and social
skills in their early teens than children in low quality
care. (Source: Rhode Island KIDS Count [2005])
High quality child care is very important
to the future of the children and families
of Fort Collins. Making a difference in
the lives of children is why we are in this
Research has clearly shown that early childhood care business.
and education benefits the community (Source: Early
Childhood Education for All, recommendations from a
conference sponsored by Legal Momentum Family
Initiative and the MIT Workplace Center, 2005). Some
key findings include:
Every dollar invested in quality early childhood
care and education saves taxpayers up to thirteen
dollars in future costs.
The Perry Preschool Study followed participants in
a high-quality program for more than 40 years and
found that, as adults, they were less likely to be
arrested, more likely to own a home, and more
likely to be employed (Schweinhart et al, 2005).
Quality early childhood care and education
prepares young children to succeed in school and
become better citizens; they earn more, pay more
taxes, and commit fewer crimes.
Accessible, affordable, and quality child care
benefits the social and financial needs of parents
and the educational and development needs of
children.
The location and availability of child care supports
other community development principles and
policies including community and neighborhood
livability, sustainability, and transportation mobility.
PSD offers prenatal, infant and toddler services (birth
to age three), including prenatal parent education
support; home visits; educational, hearing and vision
screenings; socialization opportunities; and,
partnerships with local child care centers. PSD also
provides developmentally appropriate early child
We believe PSD does a great job at
serving children. However, they do not
have the capacity to serve all children all
day. We would like to develop this
model as a way to create quality
programs in the community.
35
9
education; family services; referrals; and, parenting
education classes.
The Community and Neighborhood Livability Chapter
directly mentions child care as a “supporting use” in
all neighborhoods, including: Urban Estate
Neighborhoods (LIV 27.3, page 78), Low Density
Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LIV 28.2, page 79); and,
Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods (LIV
29.2, page 80). Child care as a “supporting use” is
mentioned in all of the “Districts”, including:
Downtown District (LIV 33.6, page 86); General
Commercial Districts (LIV 34.2, page 87); Community
Commercial Districts (LIV 35.2, page 88);
Neighborhood Commercial Districts (LIV 36.1, page
89); Employment District (LIV 38.1, page 91); and,
the Industrial District (LIV 39.1, page 92).
These provisions in the city codes speak
to the City’s acknowledgement that child
care services ought to be part of the
city’s planning for neighborhoods. We
recognize that the few concerns
expressed by the community speak not
to the changes happening, but to current
operations and that the city has
demonstrated through these policies that
they are in support of our current
operations.
Having early childhood education
services in neighborhood creates
neighborhoods that encourage parents
to walk and bike to services.
It seems to us that the neighbors
expressing the concern have alternatives
to mitigate their concerns during our
drop off and pick up times that do not
negatively impact our work with children
or put undo stress on those neighbors.
Child care is also indirectly addressed in the policies
for neighborhood schools in regard to coordinating
with the school districts in the use of schools by
“providing opportunities such
as…neighborhood…services” (LIV 24.2, page 76).
The topic of early childhood care and education is
directly addressed in the Safety and Wellness
Chapter, including: “background” section (page 102),
as follows: “Access to community services, including
education and early care, can have a positive impact
on the economic vitality of the community through
increased workforce productivity and well-being, as
well as providing benefits to the community as a
whole.”
Early childhood care is indirectly mentioned under the
umbrella of human services in the policy –
“Coordinate with Health and Human Service
Providers” (SW2.5, page 105) as follows: “Rely on
health and human service organizations to provide
community health and human services, and focus on
improved communication, education, accessibility,
and collaboration in order to enhance overall physical
10
and mental health, safety, and wellness of the
community. Allocate funds to the Human Services
Program to assist local human service providers.”
And, “Consider the location of and Transportation to
Health and Human Services” (SW2.6, page 105), as
follows: “Encourage health and human service
providers to carefully consider locations of new
facilities and transportation implications, provide
transportation to services, and coordinate with the
public transportation system.
Also in the report was a list of how other communities had made changes which impacted
providing quality early childhood education services
Watsonville, CA, integrated child care facilities into its
downtown bus station. This enables parents to
efficiently drop off their children via public
transportation.
Again, we are one of the only Child Care
Centers located within walking distance
of the Max and the downtown area.
Delano, CA, requires a child care needs assessment
for new development projects.
White Plains, NY, expanded the number of zone
districts allowing child care facilities.
Riverside, CA, has expedited fast-track permitting of
child care centers.
Some cities have worked with affordable housing and
private developers to incorporate child care facilities
into development plans.
San Mateo County, CA includes onsite child care as
one of many traffic mitigation measures available to
large development projects.
This speaks to the fact that having
childcare in neighborhoods is actually a
traffic saving and preferred aspect of a
Encouraging retention of existing and development of community.
new child care facilities in neighborhoods (City of Los
Angeles, CA).
Incorporating child care and social services into
affordable housing (City of Fairfield, CA)
The City/County of Denver recently announced
READY KIDS DENVER, which calls on the City to
take a leadership position and act as a focal point for
a public/private effort on early childhood care and
education, looking at what services already exist, the
37
11
gaps, and how to direct existing resources to better
meet the needs.
Kern County, CA eliminated its building permit fee for
child care facilities
The report came up with the following conclusions and recommendations – we believe
those listed below apply to this project.
The biggest barriers are state regulations.
City partnerships are important to overcome challenges of improving the local child care system.
Site child care facilities near employment centers, homes, schools, community centers, etc.
Encourage retention of existing and development of new child care facilities in neighborhoods
Incorporate child care and social services into affordable housing, activity centers, and
transportation hubs
Remove any potential barriers to the construction or new centers in the Land Use Code; in
particular explore barriers resulting from the City’s “change of use” regulations.
Create incentives for construction of new child care centers (particularly those serving low
income families) such as currently provided for affordable housing projects, including priority
processing, impact fee delay, development review fee waiver, administrative construction
fee waiver, etc.
Create new Land Use Code regulations and/or incentives for siting facilities such as near
transit and major employment centers.
Promote child care facilities in the City’s Transit Oriented Development overlay zone and in the
new planned unit development regulations
Remove Barriers in Land Use Code: Explore removing potential barriers to the construction or
new centers in the Land Use Code; for example, explore barriers resulting from the City’s
“change of use” regulations
Create Incentives in the Development Review Process: Explore creating incentives for
construction of new child care centers (particularly those serving low income families) such as
currently provided for affordable housing projects, including priority processing, impact fee delay,
development review fee waiver, administrative construction fee waiver, etc.. Encourage Child
Care Facilities in the TOD Overlay Zone and new PUD regulations. Explore promoting child care
facilities in the City’s Transit Oriented Development overlay zone and in the new planned unit
development regulations.
Amend Land Use Code: Review Procedures for new Child Care facilities: Explore amendments
to the Land Use Code such as adding child care centers to the list of permitted uses in the
Neighborhood Conservation Low Density zone district subject to administrative review; and, in all
four of the zone districts which permit child care centers subject to review by the Planning and
Zoning Board, make them subject to administrative review
38
12
Young Peoples,
209 E. Plum Street
39
13
Community Support for the Project
It is very important to Young Peoples Learning Center that we are a part of the overall
Early Childhood community both in our neighborhoods, in the city of Fort Collins, in
Larimer County, in Colorado and beyond. Being connected in this way allows us to stay
up on trends, research and best practices for what is good for kids. It also means that
there are many experts and stakeholders in the community who are aware of our project
and wanted to express their support for this project.
Please take some time to read the following letters of support:
Bev Thurber, Executive Director, Early Childhood Council of Larimer County
Carolyn Martin, Director of Early Childhood Education, Poudre School District
Katheryn Hammerbeck, Executive Director of Colorado Early Childhood
Education Association
John Kefalas, State Senator, Senate District 14
Lisa Sadar, Quality Support Services Coordinator, Early Childhood Council of
Larimer County
Regina Hariri, Early Childhood Therapist
Kathy Mason, Executive Director Children’s Speech and Reading Center
Aaron Oberndorf, local practicing Occupational Therapist
Elizabeth Lake, BSN, RN, CPN, CCRN
40
14
Early Childhood Program
--Poudre School District--
Carolyn Martin, Director
Poudre School District, Early Childhood Education
Fullana Early Learning Center
220 North Grant Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
carolynm@psdschools.org
970.490.3195
July 28, 2014
Dear City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board;
I’ve been asked by Young People’s Learning Center to write you with information about co-locating such services as
family and behavioral therapy, occupational/physical therapy, and speech and language pathology in their child care
center.
Within the early childhood field, reducing barriers to services for infants and children with identified needs is a best
practice. Locating intervention services within a program or site reduces barriers.
Co-location of services can help child care providers support the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
requirement that from birth, children with disabilities receive appropriate early intervention services to "prepare them
for further education, employment, and independent living.”
If you have further questions for me, please contact me.
Thank you,
Carolyn Martin
Fullana Learning Center
220 North Grant Avenue * Fort Collins, CO 80521 * www.psdschools.org/department/early-childhood
41
15
June 17, 2014
To Whom It May Concern,
Research demonstrates that the best services for young children support the “whole child”, including
social emotional, physical, motor and cognitive development. Best practices in early care and education
programs (a.k.a. child care) include supports for all aspects of child development.
Experts are increasingly focused on the specific need for early childhood mental health support. For
young children, this is structured differently than the stereotypical “one hour session” approach that is
used for adults. Early Childhood mental health specialists work in the child’s natural environment by
observing the child and supporting the adults (e.g., parents, child care workers) in modifying their
interactions to meet the child’s needs. Although the mental health provider may also provide direct
services with the family, this early childhood mental health consultation model is a promising practice
being adopted across the country.
Co-location of mental health and child care services supports the ability of programs to best support
children’s development. Best practice suggests that close collaborations among professionals and
integration of services are necessary for optimal service delivery (Shonkoff & Meisels, 2000).
Sincerely,
Beverly Wood Thurber, MSW, MPA
Executive Director
42
16
43
17
44
18
State Senator Vice Chair:
JOHN KEFALAS Local Government Committee
Colorado State Capitol Member:
200 E. Colfax Ave, Room 338 Health and Human Services
Committee
Denver, CO 80203 Member:
Capitol: 303-866-4841 Business, Labor and Technology
Committee
COLORADO
State Senate
State Capitol
Denver
June 19, 2014
City of Fort Collins Building Services
Attn: Rebecca Everette, Cameron Gloss, Peter Barnes
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Rebecca, Cameron & Peter:
It has come to my attention that Young Peoples Learning Center (YPLC) has begun remodeling their
preschool and child care center to include space for additional professionals who provide therapy
intervention services for young children. On-site screening, support, consultation and direct family services
will enhance their early childhood development programs. YPLC is seeking a zoning variance from the City
and has made the case that these services are integral to a holistic model of child care. I wish to express my
support for their efforts because from a policy and service-delivery perspective I agree with such a model, and
anything we can do to streamline the approval process will help YPLC, a critical non-profit in our
community.
One of my top-priority policy areas concerns expanding economic opportunity and reducing poverty, and
quality early childhood education is essential to achieving these goals. Children who are in high-quality
programs that provide comprehensive child care services, including therapeutic and health services when
needed, are children who thrive and are better prepared to succeed in school. Investing in early child
development is wise and ultimately is one of the best ways for addressing child and family poverty.
45
19
As the Fort Collins State Senator (SD-14), it is important to me that our community has the best and most
effective services that help create opportunities for all residents, especially our children. As a member of the
Health and Human Services; Local Government; and Business, Labor and Technology Committees, I
connect the dots, and early childhood development is the foundation. Helping YPLC to succeed in serving
our kids makes sense. Thank you for your consideration of my support, and feel free to contact me if need
be.
Sincerely,
John M. Kefalas
State Senator, Fort Collins (District 14)
46
20
June 17, 2014
To Whom It May Concern,
Research demonstrates that the best services for young children support the “whole child”, including
social emotional, physical, motor and cognitive development. Best practices in early care and education
programs (a.k.a. child care) include supports for all aspects of child development.
Experts are increasingly focused on the specific need for early childhood mental health support. For
young children, this is structured differently than the stereotypical “one hour session” approach that is
used for adults. Early Childhood mental health specialists work in the child’s natural environment by
observing the child and supporting the adults (e.g., parents, child care workers) in modifying their
interactions to meet the child’s needs. Although the mental health provider may also provide direct
services with the family, this early childhood mental health consultation model is a promising practice
being adopted across the country.
Co-location of mental health and child care services supports the ability of programs to best support
children’s development. Best practice suggests that close collaborations among professionals and
integration of services are necessary for optimal service delivery (Shonkoff & Meisels, 2000).
Sincerely,
Beverly Wood Thurber, MSW, MPA
Executive Director
July 29, 2014
To Whom It May Concern,
This letter is provided in support for co-location of professional services and child care programs such as
that proposed by Young People’s Learning Center. These services have the greatest success when
provided to children in their natural environment.
Previously services were provided to children on a ‘pull out’ basis meaning children went to the
professionals office and received services at that location. More recently higher success rates for children
have been noted when children receive services in the environment in which they naturally spend time.
For many children this may be in their home setting but for a significant number of children whose
parents work this environment is in an early care and education setting (a.k.a. child care).
Benefits are greater in these natural settings because children learn to use the skills being taught in
environments where it has meaning to them. They can then continue to practice skills doing the normal
activities they do all day long and can receive immediate response about their success from adults to peers
in the process. Practice opportunities provided all day far exceed the results from short sessions with
professionals. Ideally, the supports provided involve and allow the classroom adults to better understand
the goals for individual children and support them in meeting their goals. Other children in the classroom
are provided opportunities to support their peers and even pick up skills alongside them. When one child
is learning to use socially acceptable skills instead of challenging behaviors other children are involved
and everyone learns and can practice these skills. In this case, the individual child is better supported by
the professional and the classroom teachers AND peer support is greater, empathy is greater and all
children have the potential to benefit.
Research demonstrates that the best services for young children support the “whole child”, including
social emotional, physical, motor and cognitive development. Best practices in early care and education
programs include supports for all aspects of child development.
Co-location of professional services for young children along with and child care services supports the
ability of programs to best support children’s development. Best practice suggests that close
collaborations among professionals and integration of services are necessary for optimal service delivery
(Shonkoff & Meisels, 2000).
Lisa Sadar
Quality Support Services Coordinator
47
21
City of Fort Collins
RE: Young People’s Learning Center
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing this letter in support of the additional services that Young People’s Learning Center is
attempting to develop on Plum. As an Early Childhood Therapist, I see the importance and value in
providing services which are comprehensive for families in a one site community location. Many high
risk families have difficulty with transportation, keeping appointments at a variety of locations, and
accessing the type of services that their young children need to in order to be successful. This time in a
child’s life is crucial and is often over looked leaving many children behind which has a long term impact
on their ability to grow to be successful member of our community. Instead there is a high cost to the
community and state a large. I have read much recently about the need for more comprehensive
programs such as these within our community and applaud Young People’s desire to meet this need.
Providing these services within an early learning center is taking this concept to the next level meeting
the needs of the families in a setting which they trust. It is common for families to feel intimidated
when reaching out to additional programs in the community. Providing this type of wrap around
services increases success for the whole family. I have had the opportunity to visit a site much like this
in another community and am excited about the possibility that our community would be open to such a
model.
Thank you for your consideration,
Regina Hariri, M.S., CAC III
Early Childhood Therapist
48
22
July 28, 2014
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express our need in interest in office space that will be available at the Young People's
Learning Center. We are a not for profit pediatric speech-language therapy center and has grown
substantially in the last few years (more than 20% each year). We lease space on the south side of Fort
Collins and are at a point where our physical space is limiting our capacity to serve the children of
Northern Colorado.
Speech-language skills are critical for a child to be prepared to enter school, develop strong literacy skills
and succeed developmentally, socially and academically. Our outreach efforts focus on helping families
understand that the time to access therapy for a child with a communication delay or disorder is well
before they enter school. And because of our ability as a 501(c)(3) to offer a sliding scale, there are not
financial barriers to accessing that care.
I have spoken with Heather Griffin about the possibility of using space at their facility part time. It would
not only provide much needed availability and access on the north end of town, but would provide
additional space to serve more children. Because of the nature of our work, we need private rooms to
work one-on-one with our clients. There are days and time slots during which all four of our therapy
rooms are occupied…when we are max'd out.
Sincerely,
Kathy Mason
Executive Director
49
23
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to let you know that I believe in bringing services to the clients that Occupational
Therapists serve. I am a Registered Occupational Therapist working at Columbine Health
Services. I have been a resident of Fort Collins and Larimer County Since 1998. Clients that use
Occupational Therapy (OT) services are often better served when the therapist comes to where
they are. This is meeting the client where they are so they can work on the treatment plan with
the most efficiency. Occupational Therapy brings meaning and purpose to the way that clients
occupy their time. When we add OT services to our community we are bringing meaning and
purpose to the activities the clients are already doing in real world settings. This allows for
In order to increase efficiency of services both in results and cost we need to remove barriers.
Transportation is often a barrier for clients that are seeking services. In Fort Collins the public
transportation system can take up to two hours to reach a destination. This can be a burden for
people that are receiving services. When we bring the services to the places people already are
such as child care centers, we are providing accessibility and efficiency in receiving services.
It is well documented that early intervention promotes enhanced learning and development in
children. Early intervention allows the child to catch up to peers faster and provides a
framework for what to expect when the child enters the public school system. Occupational
Therapists can then support teachers and other school personnel by coaching them on techniques
to use with children and families.
I believe that binging services to kids and families is important for treatment follow through,
support, and outcomes. Placing rehabilitative services in the community such as at Young
Peoples Learning Center will be a great addition to our community, and its overall functioning.
Thank You,
Aaron Oberndorf, MS OTR
3416 Killarney Ct.
Laporte CO 80535
(970) 420-5143
50
24
July 29th
, 2014
To Whom It May Concern:
I'm writing to give my support to Heather Griffith's efforts to increase access to testing
and services for some of our most vulnerable children. As a Registered Nurse,
specializing in pediatrics, I know that access is one of the biggest barriers to young
children getting the testing and services they need. I work at a large hospital, with a
variety of specialties and services that kids can obtain. However, often their parents
aren't able to get them to the building. Either because of limited transportation or the
distance. When that happens we often simply don't see the child who needs us. At
sometimes great detriment to the child and their future.
The other reason I greatly support the work Heather Griffith is working to do is that even
when we do see a child for testing or services it is a very different environment for them.
Children thrive on consistency and being comfortable in their environment. It is very
difficult for them to learn something new in a new environment. Especially for a therapy
service it is very important that they are comfortable and confident in that environment.
So often the first few visits are just getting to know the child and making them
comfortable. This time would be greatly reduced if they were in a place the child was
already comfortable, like a preschool or day care center, a place set up for kids just like
them. In that kind of environment they will be much quicker to learn a new skill or even
test more accurately.
It is so important that we get early testing for kids who might need services. And when
those kids need a service they need easy and frequent assess to competent and
professional services. Certainly a fantastic way to accomplish that goal is to put those
services in a place that parents and children already are. I applaud Heather Griffith's
efforts to serve our smallest kids.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Lake BSN, RN, CPN, CCRN
51
25
Research Support for the Project
It is a long held standard in early childhood and education services in general that
whenever possible we do not take kids to services, but rather bring services to kids.
Providing services on site has a three-fold positive effect that has nothing to do with
bottom lines and everything to do with children, families and teachers. These services
are certainly effective off-site as well, but there are three specific areas where being on
site provides a dramatic increase in effectiveness.
The first area is in obvious comfort level of the children being provided these services.
Children who are in need of these services can be anxious, resistive and uncomfortable
with new places and spaces. If a child attends Young Peoples already, these children
do not have to transition to a new space at all and if a child is not already attending
Young Peoples, when they pull up in front of our site, they are not confronted with an
office building, but rather with a school where they can see other children, playgrounds
and a child friendly environment immediately. In addition, when parents are in an
appointment or when older or younger siblings need to be on site during a visit, there
are spaces for children to be supervised, engaged and safe.
The second benefit of onsite services is an ease for parents to access services. We
bring in services and refer parents and families to services constantly, at a rate of three
to five students per month – some for screening, some for observation and some for
additional services. We can bring in the professionals for screenings and observations,
but when it comes time for families to connect with the services, traveling off-site is a
challenge. The additional site is sometimes difficult for parents because they must take
public transportation, the additional site is sometimes difficult for parents because they
feel too stressed and busy, and the additional site is sometimes difficult for parents for
just the same reasons it is difficult for children – a strange and unfamiliar environment
can make us anxious and uncomfortable. In addition, parents are able to save time
when they do not need to travel to services.
The third large effect of on-site services is one I think many outside of the field have a
hard time recognizing, but is one of the areas that makes the biggest impact on the
environments in our classrooms. When there are other service providers around, the
teachers in the classroom automatically receive coaching and training from these
professionals. Currently, we call these providers and schedule times for them to come,
observe and then speak with teachers separately. When we want teachers to learn
about additional methods and ways of working with children, we hold trainings with
these experts. Though appointments will still be scheduled and trainings will continue to
happen, when service providers are on site, these conversations can happen during
52
26
several observations throughout the day, they can happen in conference rooms and as
follow up to trainings. It not only changes the way we interact with the children involved,
but it also changes the way a teacher interacts with their classroom and their job when
they have additional professional onsite support.
As requested during Conceptual Review Meeting on June 16th
, 2014, here are more
research resources on the best practices in child care programs and early childhood
health services. They demonstrate how and why mental and physical health services
are provided on-site at Early Childhood Education Centers to enhance the services
being provided.
The source of each article is listed first, followed by the name of the article, quotes from
the article and then a link to the full article.
We are always available for further questions. We would also invite you to contact the
Early Childhood Council of Larimer County for experts and information on best practices
in Early Childhood (970-377-3388) and Regina Hariri at Touchstone Health Partners on
Early Childhood Mental Health Services (970-492-4212)
THE CENTER ON THE SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL FOUNDATIONS FOR EARLY LEARNING
EARLY CHILDHOOD MENTAL HEALTH CONSULTATION
“The former and more traditional type of consultation aims to address the needs of an
individual child who is exhibiting challenging behaviors or whose social and emotional
well-being may be at risk due to a family crisis (e.g., death in the family, divorce).
Typically, child- or family-centered consultation is provided to the child’s teacher(s) and
parents, and is focused on helping these adults support children more effectively. In
contrast, programmatic consultation takes a more systemic approach, focusing on
“improving the overall quality of the program and/or assisting the program to solve a
specific issue that affects more than one child, staff member, and/or family” (Cohen &
Kaufmann, p. 8).”
“Unlike traditional one-on-one therapeutic mental health services, ECMHC is primarily
an indirect approach. Early childhood mental health consultants (MHCs) strive to
improve children’s social and emotional well-being by building the capacity of ECE staff,
parents, and other caregivers to promote healthy child development and manage
challenging behaviors. Consultants educate, train, and “coach” caregivers so that they
develop the skills and confidence to effectively address children’s social and emotional
needs whether it be the needs of one child or an entire classroom of children. Although
the consultant may provide some direct services (e.g., observing children, conducting
53
27
individual assessments, modeling effective practices), these activities are ultimately
designed to enhance caregiver competence. In sum, ECMHC is both a problem- solving
and capacity-building intervention. Another hallmark of early childhood mental health
consultation is the strong emphasis on collaboration. ECMHC’s approach acknowledges
that in order to understand and address a child’s challenging behavior, one must look
holistically at the environments in which the child functions (e.g., home, classroom,
community settings). This holistic or “ecological systems perspective” (Brack, Jones,
Smith, White, & Brack, 1993) in ECMHC necessitates that the consultant partners with
ECE staff and families to jointly assess the challenge, determine appropriate
intervention, and implement a coordinated plan of action across all settings. These
collaborative relationships are essential to effective consultation and have become a
special research interest in the field.”
“To broaden the impact of mental health consultation, provisions need to be made to
widen access to mental health consultation in home-based care and education settings
(i.e., licensed family child care homes and unlicensed family/friend/neighbor
arrangements), and to expand the focus to include promotion and prevention activities
that benefit all children as part of the array of consultation services. Ideally, ECMHC
would be available to all early care and education settings and subsidized or
reimbursable through a variety of sources. In a clustered randomized control study of
Chicago School Readiness Program classrooms, outside observers found that teachers
receiving ECMHC had significant improvements in teacher sensitivity and enhanced
classroom management skills, compared with teachers in classrooms without
consultation (Raver et al., 2008). Observers also found that the classroom climates
improved after consultation, with more positive interactions between teachers and
children and fewer negative exchanges, in contrast to classrooms where no consultation
was present. Staff members also rated themselves as significantly more able to manage
children’s difficult behavior after consultation in 9 of 11 studies reviewed by Brennan et
al. (in press; see, for example, Alkon, Ramler, & MacLennan, 2003; James Bowman
Associates & Kagan, 2003; Olmos & Grimmer, 2004). Finally, teachers have also
generally reported lower levels of job stress after they receive consultation services
(Green et al., 2006; Langkamp, 2003; Olmos & Grimmer, 2004).”
“Teachers in classrooms with ECMHC services reported that children had fewer
problem behaviors after these services were implemented (Bleecker & Sherwood, 2004;
Gilliam, 2007; Perry, Dunne, McFadden, & Campbell, 2008; Upshur, Wenz-Gross, &
Reed, 2008)…. Finally, there is evidence that when mental health consultation is
available in early childhood programs, the rate of expulsion of children with difficult or
challenging behavior decreases Research suggests that consultants who are
integrated into program functioning, whom program staff view as “part of the team,” and
54
28
who are accessible and available to program staff and families are more effective
(Gilliam, 2005; Green et al., 2006; Yoshikawa & Knitzer, 1997)”
http://csefel.vanderbilt.edu/documents/rs_ecmhc.pdf
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
TEN STANDARDS FOR BEST PRACTICES IN EARLY CHILDHOOD MENTAL HEALTH
“Location, length and time of sessions provided by early childhood specialists will vary;
therefore clinicians need flexibility and small caseloads at any one time. Services and
interventions should be provided in the most appropriate environment including in real
time and natural settings such as childcare, pediatric clinics and homes.
What does science tell us? The evidence based or best practice strategies are designed
for implementation either with parents or childcare providers. This means early
childhood clinicians are often on-site in different settings, delivering services. The
amount of time for each service does not neatly fit into a 50-minute session. Travel time
and the ability to adjust intensity of services to the needs of the families must be
factored in when considering appropriate caseloads. Often parents have their own
mental health or substance abuse issues, which also impacts the complexity of
interventions.”
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheadername1=Content-
Disposition&blobheadername2=Content-
Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B+filename%3D%22Early+Childhood+Best+Practice
s+2012.pdf%22&blobheadervalue2=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoB
lobs&blobwhere=1251795239109&ssbinary=true
THE SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST
EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE IN INFANT AND EARLY CHILDHOOD PSYCHOLOGY
“An additional competency vital to early childhood practice is collaboration with other
professionals is necessary to appropriately serve children of all ages; such partnerships
are particularly important in working with young children. Service delivery for young
children and their families is often complex, involving many discipline-specific specialists
(e.g., physicians, educators, speech-language pathologists, physical and occupational
therapists, behavioral consultants) in addition to a school psychologist. Best practice
55
29
suggests that close collaborations among professionals and integration of services are
necessary for optimal service delivery (Shonkoff & Meisels, 2000). Linkages between
early childhood providers permit opportunities for mutual planning and feedback and
tend to create holistic and contextual understandings of young children (Hepburn,
Kaufmann, Perry, Allen, Brennan, & Green, 2007). Whether psychologists work within a
team structure (e.g., multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary) or
collaborate with individual early- childhood professionals, partnering with other experts
requires learning about their work, good communication skills, and trust in the abilities of
these professionals (McLean & Crais, 2000) as well as consultation/collaboration skills
(Rubinson, 2009). Therefore, psychologists working with young children need a unique
set of skills for working effectively with other service providers treating young children.”
http://www.apadivisions.org/division-16/publications/newsletters/school-
psychologist/2011/04/evidence-based-practice.aspx
RESEARCH AND TRAINING CENTER FOR CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH, REGIONAL RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK, PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY
PROMISING PRACTICES IN EARLY CHILDHOOD MENTAL HEALTH
“Comprehensive. Service arrays include a variety of interventions that take account of
the developmental, health, and mental health needs of families and the potentials for
preventive as well as therapeutic interventions. All parents need support to raise their
children well. When providers focus on the health and well-being of the entire family,
they consider services such as providing transportation and child care for siblings and
supporting parents’ goals to complete the Graduate Equivalency Degree or obtain
employment along with services such as parenting classes or individual therapy.
Supportive relationships with service providers, and particularly with other parents, can
make a significant difference for parents”
http://cecp.air.org/Portland_Monograph.pdf
56
42
57
43
Improvements that go above and beyond city requirements
Our Current Building
The buildings to the West have two stories
The buildings to the East have two stories
The building across the street has 3 stories
58
44
The changes we are making to our building structure will bring us inline with the
standards currently being set in the neighborhood. The Laurel Street District has been
undergoing lots of upgrades and we are looking for our school to fit in with the gentrified
sections of the area.
Once the second story is created, our building will have a similar structure to the
buildings around it, all of which have second stories.
We will be wrapping the building in a stucco, which will be easier to maintain and
much more aesthetically pleasing
The upgrade in windows, doors and outdoor lighting fixtures will all help the look of
the building
We will be relocating the fence to create a better walking path in the front of the
building
Our new front entrance porch will bring a continuity and unity to the building
The covered bike parking will include aspects that make it appear to be its own small
school house.
The open bike parking will be artistically designed bike racks by the welding
department of FRCC and will invite and encourage neighborhood biking
Once the new roofline is created, new roofing materials will be installed, replacing
the current shingles which is both aesthetically and constructionally important.
The “curb appeal” upgrade to the building is sorely needed and this project will allow
this to be done in a complete way.
Young Peoples Learning Center is committed to quality care for kids and to being a
positive part of our neighborhood. For many reasons, we have gone above and beyond
city requirements in many ways.
Requirement How we are exceeding them
Child care centers are required to have a
playground that is 4,182 square feet
Our playground back playground is approximately
5000 square feet with an additional 600 square feet on
our front playground, providing more and better
spaces for children to learn and grow!
We are required to replace toilets which
are being removed with low-flush toilets
Replacing ALL toilets, not just those effected, with new
low-flow options
No requirements on water flow Replace all children’s faucets with automatic faucets
to reduce water usage
No requirements on energy usage
mitigation
Installing solar panels
No requirements for lighting upgrades Installation of all LED lighting
Provide 4 bike parking spaces We will be providing 5 – 10 uncovered spots and
approximately 10 covered spaces.
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
PROJECT: Young Peoples Learning Center Expansion
DATE: July 15, 2014
APPLICANTS: Dennis, Janice & Heather Griffith
PROJECT PLANNER: Rebecca Everette
Project Planner Presentation Summary:
The proposal is for a second-floor expansion of the Young Peoples Learning Center for additional office
space. The site is located on two separate zone districts, the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone
District and the Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density Zone District. Child care centers are a
permitted use in both zone districts, but only the buffer zone permits office/medical use.
The project will be subject to Planning & Zoning Board Review. The applicants have already come in for
a conceptual review to share preliminary ideas with the City, and they are completing the required next
step in the development process tonight by having their neighborhood meeting, where questions,
concerns and feedback can be shared.
Applicants Presentation Summary:
The Young Peoples Learning Center was started in 1978 at 405 Matthews Street. At the time, we were
taking care of up to 45 children. Eventually the Plum Street site, then the Jack & Jill Child Development
Center, was purchased in the mid-1990s for our facility. We have served over 2,000 children and 1,500
families over the years.
We need to improve the Plum Street Site and offer up-to-date amenities. When we started, we were
one of five centers in Fort Collins; there are now around 30. Over the years, standards have grown
substantially, with additional regulations and changes in the industry. Physical changes are needed, such
as upgrading our kitchen – we need 5 sinks to provide the necessary food for the children. Classrooms
are also being altered so children do not have to leave the rooms for access to a restroom. We are also
increasing the energy efficiency of the overall building, and will be refinishing the outside of the
building. We believe this will add to our and the neighborhood’s property values and bring the highest
standards short of new construction.
In looking at other child care centers, they are doing even more. One of the best practices is
collaboration between services, to help catch kids and families early when they need services. We have
partnered with Touchstone Health partners and the Children’s Hearing and Speech center where they
can come in and meet with families and for screening. We would like to offer these medical/office
services but there is not current capacity at our location. With the proposed addition, we will be able to
offer these types of services and address current physical shortfalls at our site, such as limited meeting
space for parent/teacher conferences.
72
Young Peoples Learning Center Expansion – Neighborhood Meeting July 15, 2014
Questions, Comments & Responses:
Comment (Citizen): The existing business is a nuisance at an increasing rate. As a lawyer, I will do
research on this as a public nuisance. The nuisance is the volume of traffic; it is dangerous to get down
Plum Street due to the volume of people backing out. My concerns are also the impacts on the
neighborhood. There is a top-notch Children’s program on Lemay Avenue. If parents are concerned
about the best interests and care of their children, they should take them to this high quality facility.
This zone is not appropriate to meet your needs.
I am against this to the point where I intend to research suing you and your business as an existing
nuisance. It is not appropriate if you think it is okay to continue increasing the traffic and adversely
impacting my neighborhood. I have seen the deterioration increase over time. The size of your vans
block the ability to see and the increasing traffic affects the safety of the neighborhood. I am totally
against this project and I will research shutting down your business because it is a nuisance.
Comment (Citizen): I thought the office space will only be in the western half?
Response (City): The latest information we have seen is that the new expansion, the child care offices
and those parts of the existing operation will be housed on the eastern side of the lot in the NCM zone,
while the new general office space will be on the western half of the building in the NCB zone.
Response (Applicants): Our administrative offices and conference room spaces – these are to be in the
zone districts with our existing use.
Comment (Citizen): I want it to be very clear about where the zone districts are and where each use is to
be located. I am very opposed to the creep into the neighborhood of these commercial uses. I also
wonder once this is all in one building, how easy it will be for the City to say the use is now allowed in
the overall building, and then the next buildings further east could say – well, you gave the use in this
building, why can’t I be an office use? This could lead to commercial creep into the neighborhood. I am
very supportive of the lines we have and opposed to any potential for creep. It is going to be difficult to
review and enforce this since it is all in one building.
Comment (Citizen): The City Council is too arbitrary and capricious allowing these uses and variances in
one spot and allowing it to creep over; City Council is extraordinary. One example is at Whedbee and
Laurel where staff and City Council allowed the subdivision of a lot even though it was illegal under the
ordinance.
Comment (Citizen): I am in support of the project, my child goes to the toddler center, but will soon go
to the Plum Street center. I live in Old Town, and I understand the unique properties of the
neighborhood and variables, but I want to make sure my support is registered.
Question (Citizen): How many kids do you have at the facility every day?
Response (Applicants): We are licensed for 76, and we have about 60 on site currently.
Question (Citizen): And that will expand?
Response (Applicants): I think our licensing number will go up, but I don’t anticipate the number of
children increasing.
Question (Citizen): How many need social services or psychotherapy?
Response (Applicants): I call in Touchstone Health Partners – I connect maybe 5 families a month.
Comment (Citizen): If they are close enough to be in the facility on Plum, they are close enough to use
the facility on Lemay Ave.
2
73
Young Peoples Learning Center Expansion – Neighborhood Meeting July 15, 2014
Response (Applicants): The therapists are looking for and trying to watch the kids in a comfortable
environment.
Question (Citizen): 5 per month, over 12 months, in every year -- does that mean you connect all your
kids with these services?
Response (Applicants): Not all families stay, some I reconnect multiple times. I try to get everyone
screened with speech pathologist – probably 80% get screened. There are some that need additional
screening.
Comment (Citizen): I count 9 offices -- that seem like a medical office.
Response (Applicants): There are 4 behavior/family specialist offices, 2 speech/language offices, and 1
occupational therapist/physical therapist office.
Comment (Citizen): It kinds of looks like a medical office building that will be rented to medical
providers that they will run their own patients through. I understand the economics of the business, but
that is an office building that you are adding with medical people, that will increase the traffic load
because people will be in there every hour.
Response (Applicants): I don’t anticipate that being rented in the manner you’re speaking. That is not
my goal.
Comment (Citizen): This gets back to our concern about traffic. I come home from my work that way, as
soon as you turn on Plum you have people backing out, and I have nearly been rear ended many times.
With more people coming and going for offices, that exponentially increases the traffic and safety issue.
Question (Citizen): With the offices being in the Buffer Zone, are they applying for a variance?
Response (City): Offices are subject to review by the Planning & Zoning Board – it is a permitted use in
the NCB zoning district.
Question (Citizen): How would you ever police it, they could move into the other part of the building
without anyone knowing.
Response (Applicants): To help enforce it, there could be a note on the site plan, or language in the
development agreement. It could also be a zoning violation if reported.
Comment (Citizen): Parking the last few years has gotten a lot worse as CSU increases their number of
students. I don’t know how you could get one more person parked on your street.
Comment (Citizen): This is a big issue for those who live on Matthews Street.
Response (Applicants): We don’t want parking to become a bigger problem for our clients either. With
regards to even if the center wasn’t there, you would have the street full of students regardless,
because we know how prevalent it is. That part of the problem isn’t going to change I don’t think. The
real expectation on our side is that between the hours of 10 and 4, there is not much use in front of the
center, and those would be the hours the doctors and therapists would schedule someone– and they
don’t want to schedule someone and have them unable to find parking either. We don’t want extra
problems during these peak times before 10 and after 4. During the middle of the day, there isn’t much
of a problem.
Question (Citizen): What is the parking posted as now?
Response (Applicants): It is posted as a loading zone.
Question (Citizen): The whole street?
Response (Applicants): Several of the spots in front of the existing center.
Comment (Applicants): This isn’t a situation where a student is parked there all day, it may be open
when not being used by parents not picking up and dropping off. This isn’t theoretical; this is our
experience from being here over the years. The studies I have seen that talk about the value of seeing
3
74
Young Peoples Learning Center Expansion – Neighborhood Meeting July 15, 2014
children in real-life situations to observe, that is a significant value. This is state-of-the-art for child care
and enhances the value for the kids, and I don’t want to say that all children or children at our center
need these services. For those that do, it would be an enhanced level of care.
Comment (Applicants): We have already had conversations with the Bees Knees Salon about potential
parking for our staff, and I have also heard your concerns about the vans and their obstructions about
blocking the view – I’d like to help find a way to park these elsewhere to clear up the view issue.
It used to be parallel parking in front of Matthews. We would love to give this more thought for when
parents are backing out. If its drop off times and our vans in the way that are the issues, I would love to
help solve find a way to solve this. We do have many parents who are supportive of our being in the
neighborhood. There are not many centers on this side of town. We have looked into a new building
and where would it make sense for our families. They want us to be in the neighborhood and look
forward to that. We checked out areas for a new building but that did not seem like the best option, not
at the level I would like to be for connecting families to these services. We don’t want to be a nuisance
to the neighborhood, but there isn’t enough care in north Fort Collins.
Comment (Citizen): As a former parent of a child at the center, I appreciated you being in the
neighborhood. My husband worked a few blocks away; it was very important to us to be a couple blocks
away from the center and our child while we were at work.
Question (Citizen): Would you also make use of 7 professional offices for medical care? You personally?
Response (Citizen): My child and our family don’t need those services personally, but if we did, I would
take advantage of the services. It’s hard for me to put myself in someone’s shoes such as a single
mother who needs that convenience – I can’t anticipate that, but I do appreciate their dedication and
the love for the business they have. They want to bring goodness to the community.
Comment (Citizen): I would like to add that my child doesn’t need psychotherapy care right now, but
could fall into that category. We have a friend who has their child in speech pathology, but the
convenience is a factor in where we wanted to go to daycare, not having to drive to south of Harmony,
and getting to a doctor’s office. It makes life more convenient. If you offer speech pathology, and my
child needs that service that is a tremendous asset to a day care that we choose to go to.
Comment (Citizen): There’s a disconnect between what you say you need and what you’re doing. This
looks like a medical office building. It looks like 7 offices where they aren’t coming in to just meet the
kids then go away.
Response (Applicants): I don’t want them to go away, we want those services there on a longer-term
basis, for things such as the observation.
Response (Citizen): You don’t have enough kids to support all those professionals, so they will have to
have others come in to support their practices.
Response (Applicants): This is different than a professional having an office and scheduling someone to
come in every 11 minutes for an appointment.
Comment (Citizen): What I’m hearing is illogical. If you’re looking for a place or business, to see the van,
I can see that it’s helpful to advertise where the business is.
Response (Applicants): I am with you on the van; I think I can find a place to move the vans. I was trying
to express I didn’t realize it was a concern of the community.
Comment (Citizen): For me, I still have concerns about the volume of people coming and going. As you
say, we’re in a neighborhood with pets and kids out and about, and that coming and going increases the
safety risk and hazards. I hear what you’re saying and the parking, but the increased flow is also a
concern.
4
75
Young Peoples Learning Center Expansion – Neighborhood Meeting July 15, 2014
Response (Applicants): There are also a lot of students using these spaces that are coming and going for
classes.
Response (Citizen): Yes, but from what I see in front of my house, I see the coming and going and the
students aren’t coming and going every hour. They are parking for half the day, or even the full day.
Response (Applicants): In our experience, we’re seeing a significant amount of come-and-go as we leave
with the van and come back, a space that wasn’t open is now open or vice versa. We’re still talking
about a low traffic time, that 10 to 4 period – to me that doesn’t seem like every 10 minutes someone is
coming and going and that there will be a significant problem at a significant time.
Response (Citizen): You don’t seem to comprehend that if you have professionals seeing patients, they
are seeing those patients on a 50 minute basis or 1hr basis that is an increase to have a patient or client
seeing a medical professional. Can you explain to me how you don’t see the increased flow of traffic, I’d
be happy to understand your analysis, but to me you’re being completely illogical.
Response (Applicants): I agree there would be people coming and going, but it is during the time of the
day where there isn’t much traffic to begin with. I’m not saying there wouldn’t be more people, just that
it wouldn’t be that big of a problem if they come during these non-significant times of the day.
Response (Citizen): But you admit that is an increased volume of traffic?
Response (Applicants): During a time of the day where it is not often used, yes.
Response (Citizen): That is a matter of your perspective.
Response (Applicants): I also feel this would be occurring by students anyway if we were to go away.
Response (Citizen): Your analysis is that our traffic would be replaced by student traffic, so that is
acceptable?
Comment (City): I’m hearing strong concerns that there would be additional traffic coming throughout
the day due to the expansion. There are loading zone spots that are not open to students right now, but
maybe would be if the center were not there; but overall an increase in traffic as a result of the medical
professionals being there.
Question (Citizen): Is there a parking requirement for a medical office building?
Response (City): For medical office buildings, the Land Use Code does not require a minimum amount of
parking, but Child Care centers do require a minimum amount parking. This facility would need to be
brought up to current code standards as part of a development. This would mean increasing the number
of spaces they currently offer. Their plan is for a shared parking agreement with a nearby facility.
Question (Citizen): Would the employees of the medical offices be treated as employees of the child
care center for the purposes of calculating their minimum parking requirements?
Response (City): No, they would be different, classified as a medical office professional.
Comment (Citizen): You’re adding more and more demand for parking. You think it’s bad now, just wait
until they add 5,000 additional students at CSU in the next few years.
Comment (Citizen): The city does not require enough off-street parking for any purpose in the city in my
opinion.
Response (Applicant): It would not offend me if those office workers also got to use the parking
agreement I have paid for.
Question (Citizen): Which businesses are you working with for the shared parking?
Response (Applicant): The Bees Knees, the hair salon on Locust. If you come out that parking lot, you’re
half a block away. Their parking spaces out front of the east side of the building. If instead you walk out
to the alleyway, you are half a block away from our facility.
Question (Citizen): It’s mid-block? You can rent out enough parking spaces?
Response (Applicants): I can rent out more than enough to meet the city requirements.
Response (City): The code requires 2 parking spaces for every 3 employees or it is based off square
footage, whichever is higher.
5
76
Young Peoples Learning Center Expansion – Neighborhood Meeting July 15, 2014
Comment/Question (Citizen): Someone said something that in addition to the health care provider,
there is also the support staff to support them?
Response (Applicants): None of these offices are set up for support staff to exist; there is no reception
desk for instance. The officers are very small – 10’ x 10’ offices.
Comment (Citizen): To summarize, the day care is already increasing the volume of traffic and parking in
the neighborhood. The medical professionals exacerbate the adverse impact the business is already
having on the neighborhood in an exponential fashion.
Comment (Applicants): With regards to already increasing impacts – that building has been a child care
center since you’ve lived there. When you talk about already increasing, I don’t understand that.
Response (Citizen): As we have described, the traffic as a result of the day care center, as you drive onto
Plum, people have almost been rear-ended; I personally have almost been backed into by one of your
customers on many occasions, that is already an existing problem. To add additional traffic to what is
already a difficult situation increases the volume of hazard to the neighborhood, to other motorists who
travel on Plum. Every time someone arrives or departs, it’s a hazardous time for anyone, whether a
motorist proceeding on Plum or a pedestrian or a bicyclist. The number of customers that the business
services has increased, you are not at capacity, so it has been an increasing issue for me in the years I
have lived in the neighborhood. The problem has been compounded by the blockage of site by the size
of the vans. I hope my position is very clear.
Comment (City): At any time in this process, you can submit additional comments and feedback to me --
please send your thoughts at any point. In the neighborhood meeting letter notice that went out to
you, there is also information to contact Sarah Burnett, the City’s Development Review Liaison who is
also a good resource for information and feedback. There will be other opportunities for involvement
and meetings throughout the development review process as well. We’re always open to receiving
comment throughout the process and working with the applicants and neighbors to address concerns.
6
77
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
PROJECT: Young Peoples Learning Center (2nd Neighborhood Meeting)
DATE: August 25, 2014
PLANNER: Rebecca Everette
APPLICANTS: Heather Griffith, Dennis Griffith, Janice Griffith
Planner & Applicant Presentation:
The meeting began with a synopsis of the process completed thus far by the project, including holding a
conceptual review meeting with the City, an earlier neighborhood meeting in July and one round of staff
review following a formal development application submittal. The applicants then gave brief overview of
the project:
• We are proposing to add a second story to the existing building. As a child care center, we
already bring in screeners, speech pathologists, occupational therapists, etc. The additional
space would be used by these providers to meet in a formal space at the building to offer these
services to children and improve their lives.
• We have received many letters of support from the neighborhood and community. At the last
neighborhood meeting there were questions and concerned raised about parking. We want to
study the parking issue but have held off until CSU classes were back in session. We believe
there is no parking problem, but want to work with those concerned about the issue to
complete a parking study. This morning we did an inventory of open parking spaces and at 9am,
there were 28 open spots.
• Another concern we’ve heard form one neighbor and the City are the kinds of uses and services
that will be offered, and whether this is really legitimately child care. There are concerns about
office creep, but to have these speech and language pathologists there is a part of best-practice
child care. It is a relatively new concept, but it is being done in other, high-quality child care
facilities and it’s what we’re striving for. We are the closest facility that will be providing these
services to the MAX.
Questions, Comments & Responses:
Question (Citizen): Since the last meeting, has anything happened?
Response (City): The project has been submitted and gone through one round of review internally with
staff.
Question (Citizen): Were there any recommendations or issues from staff?
Response (City): Poudre Fire Authority wanted appropriate emergency access. There were several
comments from Planning about design of the building because it’s located in a historic district; the
78
building itself is not designated or eligible for designation. There were also comments about trash
enclosures and other site issues that need to be brought up to code. If there are specific questions about
these comments we can go into further detail tonight.
Question (Citizen): Are the people in the neighborhood concerned about parking? People that live
nearby?
Response (Applicant): Yes, those down the street on Matthews.
Comment (Citizen): Our house is maybe a block away, and our son attends the facility and I am in and
out of the area all day long and I always see parking available. Everyone drops their children off then
leaves, they don’t come and park and stay. I haven’t observed an issue with parking and I don’t see
these services changing that. I remember people coming in for isolated circumstances at the facility in
the past, and I didn’t see any change in parking when that occurred either.
Comment (Citizen): I agree, and I think parking is always going to be an issue as the City grows. Every
neighborhood is going through these types of discussions. Some businesses are excellent for a
neighborhood and I believe this is one of them. I don’t think adding extra professionals are going to be
intimidating to the neighborhood or draw other businesses.
Comment (Citizen): My name is Buddy Osbourne. I have been driving in the area for many years and
occasionally have to stop at the center, and I’ve never had a problem finding a parking place in all this
time. There’s always parking there and across the street, even with the storage bins because of current
construction, there’s a lot of parking there.
Comment (Applicant): Today I walked around the corner to take pictures of all the spaces that were
open throughout the day. It ranged from 28 to 38 open spaces, even with the construction that is
occurring and blocking some of the normally available spaces.
Question (Applicant): Where is the farthest you’ve had to go to park?
Response (Applicant): I always go to the eastern spot on Mathews Street, it always seems to be open.
Question (Citizen): What are those signs in front of the building?
Response (Applicant): That is a loading zone, but it’s not a protected loading zone.
Response (City): We checked with Parking Services if they were aware of the loading zone; they were
not. They have not had any complaints about the loading zone or general area and there are no current
plans to remove the loading zone.
Comment (Applicant): It seems there is definitely more of a parking problem on the 700 block of
Remington versus the 800 Remington block, which is where those who have concerns may live.
Comment (Citizen): Where I live, we are often impacted by students parking in the street and I often
think to myself I may need to go and park near Young Peoples because they always have parking spaces
open.
Comment (City): Other comments from the last meeting included concerns about parking, comments
about the vans in the street and that there can be poor visibility when backing out. There were
comments about the use of the building. We also received an email about building materials and
ensuring high quality building materials are used in the expansion.
79
Question (Citizen): The van parking issue, how relevant is that to this project?
Comment (Citizen): I was also thinking that, the vans have been there a long time; you’ve been in
business a long time.
Response (Applicant): We’ve been there 20 years and when we bought it there were 2 longer vans that
the previous operators were using. They were there for 20 or 30 years before us. The center has been
there a long time.
Comment (Citizen): I would think that the improvement of the facility and the outward appearance is
better for the community than worrying about vans that have been parking there for ages.
Response (City): There is no land use code regulation about who can park in public parking. The parking
issues for this project primarily relate to the provision of off-street parking. Child care centers are
required to provide off-street parking for their employees at a defined ratio. They do not currently
provide any off-street parking. Young Peoples Learning Center may request a modification of standard
to this parking requirement given that they feel there is adequate parking and don’t anticipate
increasing parking demand significantly. A modification of standard needs to be approved by the
decision maker, in this case, the Planning & Zoning Board.
Question (Citizen): Would you suggest they prepare for their argument based on how long they’ve been
doing this without a particular issue?
Response (City): Applicants can use whatever reasoning in support of their project. Being established in
the neighborhood is something that a decision maker may weigh. Fundamentally when I’m reviewing
the project we’re reviewing it against the standards from the Land Use Code. The Board will be looking
at my staff report, public comments as well as the applicant’s presentation and their own interpretation.
Comment (Citizen): My son goes to Young Peoples, at the other center. I know people shouldn’t get
hung up on the van issue, but it sounds like you’re trying to be sensitive to the issue. I know it can get
difficult to back-up and not hit someone – if there’s a way to alleviate some of that, I think it helps in
addressing the concerns and as a general observation.
Response (Applicant): We looked into a couple options, such as renting parking spaces about a block
away. It didn’t seem to make sense since we would need an administrator to go retrieve the vans when
needed and it didn’t seem the best fit in terms of service for the children. We also looked for signs that
children are nearby and to be careful when backing out. We’re also going to make sure our vans are
parked across the street during drop-off and pick-up times. The vans are only in front of the center when
we’re loading or unloading, rather than trying to walk the kids across a street.
Comment (Citizen): I’m more concerned with my child walking a distance to get to the vans. I’m vigilant
there not because of the vans, but because of those coming off Remington going way too fast.
Response (Applicant): We have also experienced that, with people speeding through the area.
Comment (Citizen): Remington has gotten so busy, and everyone is so busy in life with their cell phones
and they come off so fast and fly through. You have to be watchful in the area, but I don’t see the vans
increasing the hazard in the area.
Response (Applicant): One reason we’re parking the vans where we are is that we’ve always had
permission to park our vans in that location with the adjacent owner.
Response (Applicant): We also considered moving our van parking to Mathews Street; I thought that
might be a little wider street, but the City let us know it is the same width as Plum Street.
Comment (Citizen): As a parent with a home in the area, it’s such a valuable service, and I hope the City
would look at not putting too many restrictions on affecting the center and those of us using the
services.
Response (Applicant): One of the important parts to this project review is the need for on-site parking,
which would require taking out playground space in the back. We would need to remove approximately
80
a third of our playground area for parking. It would break our heart to have to remove this amount of
space. We’re going to have to give up some for the trash enclosure, but not as much as if we had to
provide on-site parking. Because of the space available it doesn’t seem the best option.
Comment (Citizen): I would anticipate the parking issue may come up at the hearing given the concerns
raised at the first neighborhood meeting; it would be good to have a full assessment of the parking
situation so it can be addressed at the hearing.
Response (Applicant): We expect to do a 4-time-a-day study, but it didn’t make sense to look at this
until CSU students were back in session. There’s so much parking on Mathews street right now, and
that’s with Locust being blocked off. Right now there’s just not a significant parking issue.
Response (Applicant): It is a less populous street than between Plum and Locust. It’s conceivable we
could park the vans there, but seeing as we have permission to keep them parked where they currently
are and have been for 20 years, it doesn’t make sense.
Comment (Citizen): I think you should leave well-enough alone.
Response (Applicant): We are going to put a note in the vans that your right front tire should touch the
curb so there is as much room as possible. That might help get in an extra foot of visibility.
Comment (Citizen): I thought from reading the notice letter, the issue, potentially, was the building. I
didn’t have any idea parking could be an issue. I would hope the parking could be waived. I’ve read in
the paper how some of these big buildings have been put up in the City with no parking, like The
Summit.
Response (City): There are different requirements in the code for different uses, it is also based on
location with the City.
Response (City): On the topic of use, the way the City is processing this is as a secondary primary use for
office in the building, in addition to child care. This is because outside clients could be seen at the
building. The property is split over two zone districts (Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density and
Neighborhood Conservation Buffer), one of which does not permit an office use. Taking a conservative
reading of the code, this will be processed as an addition of a permitted use, to add the office use
district to the zone that does not permit the use; this would be adding the use specific to this project
and site only.
Question (Applicant): Is there anyone here opposed or concerned about the office space?
Response (Citizen): I came to the last meeting and I’m in full support of this project.
Response (Citizen): I am also in support of the project.
Comment (Applicant): When you look at the 2nd floor, it’s an odd configuration and something should
be added to it and you ask what you should put up there. The code seems to suggest care of children,
so do you increase the centers’ number of children, or do you rent it out and make an apartment? To
me it makes sense to have services like these – what else would you put up there?
Response (Citizen): When you said that is what you were planning, I thought it made so much sense. I
think it is a big convenience to have it. You’re not driving all over, increasing pollution, increasing
vehicles on the road. It’s a one-stop shop.
Response (Applicant): The idea that the therapist can observe the child in the natural, fun environment
is a big advantage for them and the kids. I also think it improves the quality of the teacher through
increased collaboration, with experts on site and more input and more advice available sooner. We call
these professionals already to come out to the facility, but maybe several days later; it isn’t immediate.
Having them on grounds and having those conversations would be a great facilitator to improving
outcomes.
81
Question (Citizen): What’s the next step?
Response (City): Based on comments staff gave at the first review meeting, we’ve requested another
round of review. Young Peoples Learning Center will revise their submittal documents and resubmit.
From there, staff will determine if further review is required; if not, the project would move to the
Planning & Zoning Board. Another letter will go out 2 weeks ahead of time prior to the public hearing. At
the hearing, they will take public comment and make a decision.
Question (Citizen): If the next round of review goes well, how soon will the next meeting happen?
Response (City): It depends on timing, there is only one P&Z haring a month. It also depends on when
the next round or review is submitted and if additional items are needed prior to the hearing.
Response (Applicant): If we got everything resubmitted by September 3rd, could get on for the October
meeting?
Response (City): There is potential if everyone at staff review is ready to proceed to hearing.
Question (Citizen): It sounds like there were really only several people with concerns about parking?
Response (Applicant): There was a couple and an individual.
Question (Citizen): Does the City look at all the people that don’t come to the meeting as a positive
thing? If I get a letter and don’t have a problem, I generally don’t go to the meeting. Does the City look
at this issue?
Response (City): To some extent, the volume of comments and attendance can be looked at. The P&Z
members take great interest in the comments at neighborhood meetings and try to be responsive to
public input. They also look at the content of the comments, not necessarily the quantity of the
comments.
82
Comments on Young Peoples Learning Center proposal, received 9/17/14 (anonymous)
• Parent who previously had children enrolled in programs at the center
• The parking is already horrible at the center, especially with the Jacobs Center, fraternity, and
YPLC employee parking. This would increase traffic and parking. As a parent dropping off their
child in the past, sometimes had to walk 2-3 blocks with a toddler, sometimes in the snow, due
to lack of parking. The drop off spaces in front of the center fill up quickly and aren’t enforceable
by the city. Thinks the neighbors would be mad about this.
• As a parent, would not want businesses above the daycare with people coming in and out of the
building. Random adults and children coming into a child care setting is weird and
uncomfortable.
• In the past, there have been issues with illegal dumping in the dumpsters, people trashing the
playground over the weekend, and other issues that might get worse.
• There needs to be a sound proof barrier between the classrooms on the first floor and the
offices on the second floor. Nap time is between 1-3pm, and there is already a lot of noise in the
neighborhood. The noise from the new offices needs to be addressed.
Comments from Paige Lunberg, received July 2014:
• Not happy with how Young Peoples Learning Center did work on their property on Mathews
Street. Scared about the quality of work they would do on this new project – afraid they would
use the cheapest possible materials. No upgrades or painting has been done over the years.
• Concerned about the quality of work and maintenance, especially after construction occurs.
• Lives next to another one of their properties.
83
From: Rebecca Everette
To: Sarah Burnett
Subject: Comments on YPLC project
Date: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 2:48:24 PM
Sarah,
See below for notes from a phone call with a neighborhood resident concerned about the Young
Peoples Learning Center Expansion proposal. She lives in the neighborhood, but not within the
notification boundary. She noticed the development proposal sign while driving by the property.
She chose to submit her comments anonymously:
· There is not enough parking for it to be an office building
· There is already parking pressure in the area due to the fraternity, CSU students use the
area because there is no 2-hr parking limit, and the employees for the daycare center also
need parking
· The new offices would create a greater need for parking and more traffic associated with
appointments, more parents needing parking
· It would be dangerous for children walking outside the building with more people coming
and going to the building, concerned that it’s a safety issue
· Foresees this being a big headache for the neighbors, CSU students, and the fraternity
I will include these notes with other public comments, but I wanted to keep you in the loop.
Thanks,
Rebecca Everette, AICP
City Planner
City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com
970.416.2625 direct
84
From: Sarah Burnett
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: FW: 209 E Plum
Date: Thursday, August 14, 2014 8:47:53 AM
Hi Rebecca,
I’ll respond to the writer, unless you’d prefer to. Do I need to encourage him (probably Bob) to
provide his name? Or is an email address adequate for a comment to be included in the packet
given to P&Z?
Sarah
From: bobkomives [mailto:bobkomives@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 4:55 PM
To: Sarah Burnett
Subject: 209 E Plum
I like our zoning. I want to see a renaissance on Remington St. These uses fit there rather than
around the corner on Plum. Let's let the Eastside Neighborhood Plan work. The existing
childcare is a reasonable transition use whereas the professional offices would be an
encroachment on Plum and dissipation of opportunities for Remington. I oppose the intended
use of the proposed second story.
85
From: Rebecca Everette
To: "Paige E. Lunberry"
Cc: Sarah Burnett
Subject: RE: Young Peoples Learing Center Expansion
Date: Friday, July 25, 2014 9:34:34 AM
Mr. Lunberry,
Thank you for your email, as well as your recent phone call. I have requested that the applicant
document the type and color of materials that would be used, as well as their plan for long-term
maintenance, as part of their submittal. Prior to the neighborhood meeting, I informed the Young
Peoples Learning Center of your concerns and received the following response:
“It is VERY important to Young Peoples that we are able to maintain the building and have very
deliberately planned materials so that there is less maintenance. At the end of the project, the
outside of the building will be covered in stucco for specifically that purpose. In addition, we are
hoping to install fencing and roofing materials that also take less maintenance. We think this will
enhance the look of the property for the neighborhood for the long term and agree with anyone who
thinks it is currently not up to par! He is welcome to contact us directly as well.” – Heather Griffith,
Young Peoples Learning Center, info@youngpeopleslc.com, (970) 691-0487
Please let me know if you have additional questions or comments at any point during the
development review process. I appreciate your interest in this project and in making your
neighborhood a better place to live.
Regards,
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com
970.416.2625 direct
From: Paige E. Lunberry [mailto:plunberry@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 9:10 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Cc: Sarah Burnett
Subject: Young Peoples Learing Center Expansion
Dear Rebecca Everette and Sarah Burnett,
I have major concerns about the proposed expansion of the Young Peoples Learning Center
(YPLC) expansion for the 209 E. Plum St. location. We have 3 properties within a couple of
blocks of this proposal and received the notices.
Although I have not reviewed the proposed plans, I would be opposed to any additions at the
Plum site for the following reason: I own the house next door to the YPLC located at 405
86
Mathews St. Several years ago, the existing, dilapidated second story addition had new siding
and trim installed using the least expensive products available. That siding and trim has never
been painted or maintained since its installation. The areas that were not covered up with
replacement siding have serious paint peeling.
My major concern is that any new addition to the Plum St. site would be also be cheaply done
and poorly maintained. The property next to my house at 409 Mathews St. is not being
properly maintained to City standards. I have owned or managed (when my father was alive)
the 405 Mathews St. house for over 25 years and have never been contacted or met the
owner of the YPLC.
Respectfully,
Paige E. Lunberry
1805 Rainbow Dr.
Fort Collins, CO 80524
970-218-3775
87
State Senator Vice Chair:
JOHN KEFALAS Local Government Committee
Colorado State Capitol Member:
200 E. Colfax Ave, Room 338 Health and Human Services Committee
Denver, CO 80203 Member:
Capitol: 303-866-4841 Business, Labor and Technology Committee
COLORADO
State Senate
State Capitol
Denver
June 19, 2014
City of Fort Collins Building Services
Attn: Rebecca Everette, Cameron Gloss, Peter Barnes
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Rebecca, Cameron & Peter:
It has come to my attention that Young Peoples Learning Center (YPLC) has begun remodeling their
preschool and child care center to include space for additional professionals who provide therapy intervention
services for young children. On-site screening, support, consultation and direct family services will enhance
their early childhood development programs. YPLC is seeking a zoning variance from the City and has made
the case that these services are integral to a holistic model of child care. I wish to express my support for their
efforts because from a policy and service-delivery perspective I agree with such a model, and anything we can
do to streamline the approval process will help YPLC, a critical non-profit in our community.
One of my top-priority policy areas concerns expanding economic opportunity and reducing poverty, and
quality early childhood education is essential to achieving these goals. Children who are in high-quality
programs that provide comprehensive child care services, including therapeutic and health services when
needed, are children who thrive and are better prepared to succeed in school. Investing in early child
development is wise and ultimately is one of the best ways for addressing child and family poverty.
As the Fort Collins State Senator (SD-14), it is important to me that our community has the best and most
effective services that help create opportunities for all residents, especially our children. As a member of the
Health and Human Services; Local Government; and Business, Labor and Technology Committees, I connect
the dots, and early childhood development is the foundation. Helping YPLC to succeed in serving our kids
makes sense. Thank you for your consideration of my support, and feel free to contact me if need be.
Sincerely,
John M. Kefalas
State Senator, Fort Collins (District 14)
88
June 17, 2014
To Whom It May Concern,
Research demonstrates that the best services for young children support the “whole child”, including
social emotional, physical, motor and cognitive development. Best practices in early care and education
programs (a.k.a. child care) include supports for all aspects of child development.
Experts are increasingly focused on the specific need for early childhood mental health support. For
young children, this is structured differently than the stereotypical “one hour session” approach that is
used for adults. Early Childhood mental health specialists work in the child’s natural environment by
observing the child and supporting the adults (e.g., parents, child care workers) in modifying their
interactions to meet the child’s needs. Although the mental health provider may also provide direct
services with the family, this early childhood mental health consultation model is a promising practice
being adopted across the country.
Co-location of mental health and child care services supports the ability of programs to best support
children’s development. Best practice suggests that close collaborations among professionals and
integration of services are necessary for optimal service delivery (Shonkoff & Meisels, 2000).
Sincerely,
Beverly Wood Thurber, MSW, MPA
Executive Director
89
C
ity Ft.
Collins,
of
Ft.
Collins
CO
Planning
Department
D
ear I
June
am
writing
19,
Fort
2014
Collins
this
letter
Planning
on
behalf
Department:
of
Dennis
Griffith
and
the
Young
Peoples
Learning
Center. organization administration
The
Early
dedicated
of
Childhood
child
care
to
providing
centers.
Education
support
We
Association
were
and
established
guidance
of
Colorado
in
in
1985
the
is
management
a
comes also
for
to
their
the
mental,
parents.
emotional
and
psychological
needs
of
children,
and
ultimately
Not wholeheartedly care
only
enter.
I,
but
I
hope
I
am
support
you
confident
will
such
approve
all
an
Board
effort
this
to
Members
effort,
bring
too.
these
of
Please
our
services
Association,
feel
free
on-‐site
to
would
contact
to
any
child
me
if
you
wish
further
201 East Elizabeth Street Proposal
The Planning and Zoning Board will not be hearing the 201 East Elizabeth Street
proposal at the April 9
th
, 2015, hearing. After the last Planning and Zoning Board
hearing on March 12
th
, 2015, city Staff studied the review process of the proposal and
presented conclusions to the Planning and Zoning Board at their work session on April
3
rd
, 2015. As a result, it was determined that the initial submittal was incorrectly
processed as a Minor Amendment, and we do apologize for this mistake.
The Land Use Code allows for the re-occupancy of the Fraternity use at 201 E Elizabeth
Street without a public hearing. The decision to issue a change of use permit is typically
made by Laurie Kadrich, the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood
Services. The public can offer comments and concerns to city Staff through emails,
phone calls or by appointment. City Staff have received emails on this subject, and they,
along with the Director, will be available to hear public comments immediately following
the Planning and Zoning Board hearing on Thursday, April 9
th
, 2015.
The Director will be issuing a decision by the end of the day on Tuesday, April 14
th
,
2015.
92
conformation
about
my
belief
in
this
on-‐site
service.
B
est
regards
Kathryn
Hammerbeck
Executive
Director
.
91
and
non-‐
have profit
become
and
the licensed Director
second
child
of
largest
ECEA,
care
the
child
centers,
Griffith’s
care
preschools,
association
have
asked
and
in
me
the
school-‐
to
nation.
give age
my
We
programs.
opinion
represent
about
As
over
Executive
the
400
appropriateness Language center.
Therapist,
of
having
and
a
such
Behavior
staff
and
as
an
a
Family
Occupational
Therapist
Therapist,
on-‐site
a
at
Speech
a
child
and
care
A
lthough have
them
it
on-‐
is
true site
is
that
a
wonderful
all
children
advantage.
do
not
need
The
such
children
services,
can
for
be
assessed
those
that
in
do,
a
to
treatment setting and diagnosis. for
maximum
direct
they
Then
is
communication
feel
the
effectiveness.
treatments
comfortable
best
approach
with
can
There
in.
possible.
be
the
That
tried
are
child
assessment
many
and
in
this
proved
studies
setting,
can
with
that
be
allowing
done
little
show
both
delay.
how
for
by
this
This
a
observation
very
type
provides
reliable
of
I
n lower
addition,
income
on-‐
homes, site
services
or
who
are
are
financially
otherwise
economical.
disadvantaged,
Statistically,
are
most
children
commonly
from
in
need services
of
these
available
services.
on-‐site
By
is
no
a
great
means
financial
is
this
exclusive
benefit
to
to
anyone
them,
but
who
having
can
use
these
them.
offered This that
at
concept
this
comprehensive
point
is
relatively
have
considered
services
new
to
to
our
such
the
profession.
children
services;
they
There
however,
serve
are
Head
for
few
40
child
Start
years.
care
programs
If
centers
the
have
Griffith’s will over
be
25
seeking
years
are
successful
ago,
the
I
value
have
in
of
seen
this
their
thousands
endeavor,
experience.
there
of
changes
Since
will
starting
be
in
other
standards
my
centers
own
and
child
in
requirements.
Colorado
care
center
who
There emotional
is
more
health.
focus
This
on
kind
caring
of
for
approach
the
whole
is
the
child
newest
including
and
most
physical
innovative
and
social-‐
when
it
90
36