Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutYOUNG PEOPLES LEARNING CENTER - PDP W/ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE - PDP140012 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS (12)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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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 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) 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 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 organization administration Center.  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  conformation  about  my  belief  in  this  on-­‐site  service. B  est  regards Kathryn  Hammerbeck Executive  Director .  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 setting and diagnosis. for treatment  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. This that offered  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