HomeMy WebLinkAbout0465
"
"
,
..
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 465
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE AMENDMENT
OF DIVISION 5, PART 7, CHAPTER 2,
ARTICLE IX OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL
CODE BY ADDING TO TITLE 1 THEREOF A
NEW SECTION 9275.1.27 ESTABLISHING AND
INCLUDING NURSERY SCHOOLS AS A SPECIAL
USE, BY ADDING THERETO A NEW TITLE 3
ENTITLED "SPECIAL REGULATIONS - NURSERY
SCHOOLS" , BY ADDING THERETO A NEW
TITLE 4 ENTITLED "SPECIAL REGULATIONS
- CUSTOM DRESSING", RENUMBERING SECTIONS
9275.2.1 and 9275.2.2 AS 9275.4 AND
9275.4.1 RESPECTIVELY AND ASSIGNING SUCH
RENUMBERED SECTIONS TO SAID TITLE 4,
AMENDING THE TITLE OF TITLE 2 TO READ
"PROCEDURE", REVISING THE TITLE OF SECTION
9275.2 AND ADDING TO SAID TITLE 2 A NEW
SECTION 9275.2.1 ENTITLED "REVOCATION".
.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Division 3 of Part 9 of Chapter 2
of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code, the City Planning Com-
mission of the City of Arcadia did, on August 28, 1962, pass, approve
and adopt its certain Resolution No. 457 instituting proceedings
for the purpose of considering and making recommendations concerning
the amendment of Title 1 of Division 5 of Part 7 of Chapter 2 of
Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code by establishing and includ-
ing nursery schools, day nurseries, pre-school nurseries, child care
centers and day care centers as a special use, by adding to said
Division 5 a new Title 3 establishing regulations concerning such
.
special use, and by creating a new Title 2 of said Division 5 and
renumbering and assigning thereto Sections 9275.2.1 and 9275.2.2,
pursuant to which notice was duly published and given and a publiC
hearing duly held on the 25th day of September, 1962, which hearing
was duly continued to November 13, 1962, at which times all inter-
ested persons were given a full opportunity to be heard and to pre-
sent evidence relative to such proposed amendment of the Zoning
Ordinance; and,
-1-
465
!,
.'
-.
-
.
.
.
WHEREAS, said Planning Commission has fully reviewed and
considered the subject generally;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE AND
RECOMMEND AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the public necessity, convenience and
general welfare require, and this Commission hereby recommends to
the City Council of the City of Arcadia that a new Section 9275.1.27
be added to Title 1 of Division 5 of Part 7 of Chapter 2 of Article
IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code, the same to read as follows:
9275.1.27. SAME. Nursery schools, day nurseries, pre-
school nurseries, child care centers and day care centers.
.
SECTION 2. That the public necessity, convenience and
general welfare require and this Commission hereby recommends to
the City Council of the City of Arcadia as follows: That to Divi-
sion 5 of Part 7 of Chapter 2 of Article IX of the Arcadia Munici-
pal Code be added a new Title 3 entitled "Special Regulations -
Nursery Schools", containing Sections 9275.3 to 9275.3.9, the same
to read as follows:
ARTICLE IX.
CHAPTER 2.
PART 7.
DIVISION 5.
TITLE 3.
DIVISION AND USE OF LAND
ZONING REGULATIONS
OVERLAY AND SPECIAL ZONES
SPECIAL USES
SPECIAL REGULATIONS - NURSERY SCHOOLS
9275.3. SCOPE. The following special regulations shall
apply to all uses specified in Section 9275.1.27.
9275.3.1. STATE APPROVAL. At the time application is
.. made for a special use permit, written proof shall be submitted
from the State Department of Social Welfare verifying its approval
of site, the use of structures on the site and maximum number of
children for which a license will be issued. Such proof shall also
be submitted for all subsequent annual license renewals.
-2-
465
~
.
.
.
.
.
9275.3.2. INITIAL AND ANNUAL INSPECTION. The original
conditions of approval shall be established from an on-site inspec-
tion by the Building and Safety Division, the Fire Department, the
Health Department and the Planning Department. Re-inspection of
the premises shall be made at least once a year by each of said
departments, and any unfavorable report by any of said departments
shall be grounds for revocation of any such special use permit.
9275.3.3. PLAY AREAS. There shall be no less than seventy-
five (75) square feet of outdoor play area and no less than thirty-
five (35) square feet of indoor play area for each child. All such
play areas and all structures on property abutting outside play
areas shall be accurately delineated on the plot plan. All outdoor
recreation and play areas shall be confined to the rear yard. All
outdoor play areas shall be enclosed with a six (6) foot solid
masonry wall; provided, however, that any such play area abutting
a portion of a lot that is unused for any purpose other than agri-
cultural purposes may be separated therefrom by a six (6) foot chain
link fence. In the event such abutting property is otherwise used
after the issuance of a special use permit, within three (3) months
after such other use a six (6) foot solid masonry wall shall be
constructed and maintained along that portion of the play area
abutting the property thus used. No structures, and no play equip-
ment in excess of five (5) feet in height, shall be located within
five (5) feet of any chain link fence required hereby or within
three (3) feet of any solid masonry wall required hereby.
9275.3.4. BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE. Prior to initial use
of the premises under any Buch special use permit, all buildings and
structures shall comply with the Arcadia Building Code.
9275.3.5. FRONT YARD. A front yard shall be provided as
required for property in the zone in which the premises are located.
Such front yard shall be developed and maintained with planting and
landscaping compatible with other front yards in the same block.
-3- 465
a.
..
.
.
9275.3.6. PROHIBITED ZONE. No use specified in Section
9275.1.27 shall be permitted in Zones C-M, M-l or M-2.
9275.3.7. OFF-STREET PARKING. Off-street parking spaces
shall be provided at the location and in the amount specified in the
granting of the special use permit. In no event shall less than one
(1) orf-street parking space be provided for each employee regularly
employed upon the premises. If any structure on the premises is
used in whole or in part for residential purposes, additional off-
street covered parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling
unit as required by Section 9284.11. All driveways and parking areas
shall be improved as required by Division 4 of Part 8 of this Chapter.
9275.3.8. LOADING FACILITIES. Adequate facilities shall
be provided for the safe loading and unloading of children either by
tt a circular driveway or a driveway terminating in the area designated
for off-street parking.
9275.3.9. SIGNS. No more than one (1) unl1ghtedsign
containing a maximum of four (4) square feet in area shall be per-
mitted.
SECTION 3. That the title of Title 2 be amended to read
"Procedure". That the Title of Section 9275.2 be changed to read
"Authorization". That a new Section 9275.2.1 be added to said Title
2, the same to read as follows:
9275.2.1. REVOCATION. Any special use permit granted
under this Division may be revoked by the City Council at a public
hearing held after at least five (5) days written notice to the
I-
I
permittee, if the Council finds upon evidence presented at such
hearing that any condition of such special use permit or any valid
regulation of a proper supervisory agency, including the City, has
been violated without justifiable excuse.
That a new Title 4 entitled "Special Regulations - Custom Dressing"
-4-
465
.. '.. ,.
..
.
.
be created, that former Sections 9275.2.1 and 9275.2.2 be renumbered
9275.4 and 9275.4.1 respectively and assigned to said Title 4.
SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of
this resolution and shall cause a copy of the same to be forwarded
to the City Council of the City of Arcadia.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was adopted
at a regular meeting of the City Planning Commission held on the 27th
day of November
, 1962, by the following vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Ferguson, Golisch, Parker and
Forman
NOES:
Commissioner Kuyper
.
ABSENT:
Comm1,"oner, Norton~
~
- Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary
.
-5-
465
11-26-62
.
9:20 a.m.
Mrs. Schmitz of the Arc. Parent Par-
ticipation Nursery School has a question
~fences. She has a copy of the pro-
~sed changes and says that the suggestec
requirements of the Planning Commission,
page 2 - II-C Buffer requirements give
them a choice of type of fence whereas
the proposed Resolution, page 3 -
9275.3.3 Play Areas -- the last sen-
tence -- does not. She would like to
discuss this with you.
Gi 8-2077.
otherwise, she likes the changes.
Joyce
~
,
.
.
"-' ."
.
November 13, 1962
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUGGESTED STANDARDS FOR NURSERY SCHOOLS
I. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
I'.... A. The applicant shall submit proof from the Department of Social Welfare verifying:
I. Approval of the site and use of structures an the site.
2. The maximum number of children for which the license will be issued.
I /B. T~is evidence shall be submitted at the time the applicant files an application for the
original special use permit.
;2.. -- C. The original conditions of approval sholl be established from on "on site" inspection
of the nursery by the Building and Safety Division the Fire Department, the Health
. Department and the evaluation of the plot plan by the Planning Deportment.
;2..- D.
Similar inspections of the nursery school shall be made annually. In the event that
an unfavorable report is received from the above departments the special use permit
sha II be revoked,
{... E.
The nursery school shall submit to the Building and Safety Division a copy of its State
License and all subsequent annual renewals,
5.... F.
All the activity areas on the site and on the adjacent abutting property sholl be
accurately del ineated on the plot plan.
3_G.
tf.... H.
Recreation and play areas shall be confined to the rear yard of the site.
Front yard setbacks shall be maintained as required by the .zoning ordinance regulations
applicable to the district where the nursery school is located.
r~
I. All buildings and structures sholl comply with the Arcadio Building Code.
//
..J
J. Nursery schools shall not be permitted in any industrially zoned or ' industrially used areas.
.
I.
h;:J
-. " .AI
.
.
.
II. "ON SITE" REQUIREMENTS
(p./ A.
/\ /B.
Density - one child per 75 square feet of outdoor play area and 35 square feet of
Indoor play area. These oreas shall be accurately delineated on the plot plan
Fence - whenever a site is adjacent and obutting developed property the rear portion
of the site shall be enclosed with a six foot solid fence. In the case where the
adjacent abutting property is ~.a~u.)'~l!gev~~ or in agricultural or pasture
use a six foot chain link fencemey be permitted until the property becomes developed.
After development of the adjacent property a six foot solid fence shall be installed,
cU C. Buffer - a buffer strip from three (3) feet to five (5) feet in depth parallel to the fence
\J shall be maintained. The amount of buffer area shall be determined by the type of fence.
~-
q/ D.
.
,(Ire/E.
!
\\ ~ F.
G.
p,~
.
WP:ma
,
,
i
I. Concrete block wall - 3 ft. buffer
2. Wood - 5 ft. buffer
'.
Play yard equipment in excess of 5 feet in height shall not be
located within these designated buffer areas. ~
(
Off Street Parking - one off street parking space sholl be provided fo employees, If
the structure is also used for residentiol purposes, two additional 0 f s reet parking
spaces shall be provided.
I. Additional off street parking may be required whenever circumstances
indicate more is needed.
2. All driveway and parking areas shall be improved with pavement in
accordanc:e with the Arcadia Municipal Code
Loading Areas - adequate facilities shall be provided to permit children to be safely loaded
and unloaded.
These facili,t'ies shall be either of the following:
I, A circular driveway
2. A driveway terminating in the area designated for off street park'ir:lg.
.-.....,.
-t,o< . ...;..t....-1::.-.11~
Signs -(one unlighted sign four square feet in area shall be permitted.
Landscaping - the landscape development of the nursery school front yards shall be
developed and maintained in d manner similar to and compatible with existing
properties in the immediate neighborhood.
d/~~
WILLIAM PHELPS,
Planning Director
.
.
.
November 7, 1962
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION
:FROM:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE
MODIFICATION COMMITTEE - 41 ALTA STREET
M 62-60 -
The application seeks a modification of the driveway requirements to permit
the projection of an eave 24" inches into the driveway at a height of 8 '- feet.
This application was considered by the Modification Committee of the Planniqg
Commission on October ~ 1962, and was denied by unanimous action.
l
The basis for denial was two-fold. The Arcadia Municipal Code clearly
states that driveways shall be totally unobstructed from the driveway upward
with the following exception. If the eave is more than 13 feet above the
driveway it may overhang the driveway a distance of not more than 3 feet.
.
The violation was first detected by the Building Department while the
building was in the framing stage. At that time and subsequently the
contractor was notified to remove the eave or apply immediately for a
modification. The eave was not removed and the modification was not
applied for until the building was completed.
The Planning Department believing that the removal of that portion of the
eave in violation will not materiallYal.ffect the esthetic looks of the building,
therefore, recommends that the decision of the Modification Committee of the
Planning Commission be upheld.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM!PHELPS - Director
~:z:.;
Planning Technician
WP:EM:pc
,
I.
I
~. ..... .J
.
.
.
"
.
.
November 7, 1962
TO,
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: VARIANCE APPLICATION V-62-] J
PACIFIC TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY
APPLlCA TlON:
The Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Com pony owners of tne R-3 property known as Lots
7,8, Block 1, Tract 101 (15 Alice Street) and the optionees on the property known as
Lot 9, Block 1, Tract 101 (15 Alice Street) request a zone variance to permit:
A. Second story expansion of an existing building
originally constructed under a variance.
B. Building height to exceed 2 story 35' height limit
by 2 feet.
C. Development and use of parking spaces required
by such expansion on Lot 9.
Pacific Telephone has provided service from their facility at 15 Alice Street since 1945 and
there has been no neighborhood objection to the use of the subject praperty for telephone
service; purposes; Pacific Telephone know finds it necessary to augment this facility with
additional space and equipment in order to meet demands of the publ ic for additional
telephone service in Arcadia.
The Planning Department calsiders this variance reque~t to permit expansion of existing
telephone facilities at 15 Alice Street to be in the best interests of residents of the City
of Arcadia and recommends that the appl ication be approved subject to the following
conditions:
(I) The vori_cnce not to be operative and no building
permits be issued until complete plot plans, building
plans and landscape plans have been submitted and
approved by all interested Arcadia City Departments.
(2) That grading and drainage plans for the parking
areas be submitted and approved by the Department
of Publ ic Works prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
(3) That all parking lot and building illumination be
directed away from adjoining properties and sholl meet
with the approval of the Department of Public Works.
h
.'
.
.
,
\
.'
.. WP: EM: bc
.
.
(4) That a 5 foot high solid wall be constructed con,_
currently with: the ,building addition along the entire
east property I ine of lot '9 to separate the parking
area from the adjacent residentially zoned and
developed property.
(5) Thot all existing structures be removed from lot 9
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
WilLIAM PHELPS - Director
By t .J/M~, n _
ERNEST MAYER,'JR..~
PlaMing, Technician
'.
.
.
. November 15, 1962
TO: CITY A HORNEY
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: VARIANCE APPLICATION V-62-11
PACIFIC TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO.
NOTE:
The following items constitute additions to be made to the conditions listed in the
report of Planning Department to the Planning Commission on November 13, 1962, in
the preparation of the Resolution:
Condition (4) shall read as follows:
"That a 5 foot high solid wall be constructed concurrently with the building addition
along the east property I ine of Lot No.9 to a point 15 feet south of the north property
line. from that point the wall shall be 3 feet in height and shall terminate at the
north property I ine of Lot 9. "
. Condition (5) shall read as follows:
"That all existing structures on Lot 9 be removed within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of building construction permits".
NOTE:
Condition (6) Re: Alley paving to rear of Lot 9 will be prepared for you by Frank
Forbes - Publ ic Works Department.
EM:ma
r GJ/ W(~~
ERNEST MAYER, Jr.
Planning Department
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, The Pacific Telephone ond Telegr"ph Company, the owners of the real
pr!)perty located within the City of Arcadio, California, and hereinafter ';escribeC: :,US file.,
with the Planning Comm ission of the City of Arcadia, 0 petition requesting <:I Loning varionce
as follows:
Lots 7, l:., 9, Bloci< 1, Troct 10]
The opplicant requests a .:one variance to permit:
A. Second story expansion of an existing building originally
constructed under a variance.
B. Building height to exceed 2 story - 35' height limit by 2 feet.
C. Development ond use of par:dng spaces required by such
expansion on lot 9.
NOW, THEREFORE, NOTICE IS HEREBY given that on Tuesday, November 13, 1962,
at the hour af &:00 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 240 West Huntington
Drive, Arcadia, California, said Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the question
of said proposed variance, and an opportunity will be afforded to persons particularly interested,
and the public generally, to be heard on all matters concerning variance.
Doted: November 1, 1962
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA,
~~~
WILLIAM PHELPS
Secretary of Arcad ia
Planning Commission
WP:bc
CIt.,. ;/"""1(ier
Public ',,0"" lJeporrnent
BLllu11\i .epOl'tment
TO ... I .. I I
-.,.w 011 .~cri~ .u"",.,
SUBJEd,tIomIIy', SWce
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA
leER-OFFICE MEMORANDe
p"llce,.,),. DATE
.
~ Llunse /
F' t FROM
IIU . 'v;#-.tIlutu.1 "
C-ct. 26,
19_
-.2
.
PU\NNINC ;)[P,\RT::.ENT
NUIl<;ERY !'::HCC5
The :>1<lMlnw lJepurtm..'" \/Iou!'; optlr",bte Q crltlcol review and c:c;n.1HlIIb ~urdin-C; tile
attacl1eJ SuW.ted St\Jll{,lurds for Nunery ~)c.hools , Frlor to the P!QI1I11ns Cor.1rllllllon
PvI;.Uc HearIng SC!leUut.d on tills wbiset ~ Nt.Vfmber 13, i!.'b2.
lit_II stoodQr.:!l, If oaoptea, wills.,.,. QI a (juice ttl nunery school dev.ICIClIl1ent In
Arc:;..dlo CII Q Ipecloll..'M.
COPIES 10:
SIGNED
Pl.i\NNII'!C DEPJ-.RTMENT
V:Ii.LJ ~!\ P:i[;!.~ :.llr.cta
bY 1!~:.Ttlfar' JR. ,~
Pir~ T.d~
\~a': Er...:mtl
TIne
{,""chmoo'
.
.
.
.
.
October 24, 1962
Droft No.2
STUDY PURPOSES ONLY
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT - CITY OF ARCADIA
SUGGESTED STANDARDS FOR NURSERY SCHOOLS
I. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. The opplicont sholl submit proof from the Department of Social Welfare verifying:
I. Approvol of the site and use of structures on the site
2. Approval of the personnel proposed ta operate and/or be employed
by the school
3. The maximum number of children for which the license will be issued
B. This evidence shall be submitted at the time the applicant files an application for the
original special use permit.
C. This same ev idence or 0 photo static copy of the current state I icense shall be
resubmitted on an annual basis as part of the application for the required
business license. Prior to the issuance of a business license an "on site"
inspection of the facilities shall be made by the Building and Safety
Division of the Department of Public Works and the Fire Department. The
original conditions of approvol established by the Planning Commission and
for City Council shall also be verified as to full continued compliance by
the nur3ery school. In the event that an unfavorable report is received from
the abcve departments a business I icense shall not be issued.
COMMENTARY
The purpose of this section is to insure that permitted nursery schools are inspected on an annual
basis.
It is intended that the original special use permit, business license and subsequent business license
renewals will only be granted provided the school has fully complied with the original conditions
of approval as well as the current state standards.
In the past the basic control by the City was aCID mplished by specifying the number of children
permitted, and limiting the liFe of the variance.
The control exercised by the City has been limited to cOfl)pliance with the conditions of approval
at the time of initial occupancy of the school and on a complaint basis thereafter. The annual
investigation and report as suggested provides a better degreeof,control, rather than complete
reliance on complaints or the impending expiration of the variance.
I.
v
.
.
.
From the nursery school viewpoint there have been and are some practical difficulties which arise
whenever a variance time limit is specified. One of these difficulties is the amortization of the
capital investment required to establish and operate a nursery school. land and buildings must
be purchased, as well as providing specialized equipment scaled in miniature specifically for
young chi Idren; therefore, a nursery school becomes very special ized in use as well as in design
with the latter making it impractical to convert the building for any other use. Some of these items
such as plumbing appurtenances, tables, chairs, etc., are expensive and to limit their economic
life to a stipulated time period substantially less than their physical life provides an unrealistic
amortization schedule. Because of this paradox nursery school managers lose any incentive to
install more expensive improvements which otherwise would be installed to the advantage of the
children, the school and the general public.
Again, I think it shauld be pointed out that these standards are so designed to provide adequate
safeguards precluding the necessity of limiting the life of a special use permit to a specified time.
If the annual investigation reveals that these standards are not complied with a business license would
NOT be issued and the special use permit REVOKED.
D. All the activity areas on the site and on the adjacent abutting property shall be
accurately delineated on the plot plan.
COMMENTARY
.
This requirement provides the basic information es~ential to the proper evaluation of the proposed
nursery school activites as related to the actIvities on the adjacent property. Points of conflict
and discord could be easily identified and appropriate conditions of approval formulated to
minimize or eliminate their undesirable effects.
The Arcadia Municipal Code provides that a plot plan shall be submitted as port of the application
for a Special Use Permit.
E. Recreation and play areas shall be confined to the rear yard of the site.
F. Front yard setbacks shall be maintained as required by the zoning ordinance
regulations applicable to the district where the nursery school is located.
COMMENTARY
The purpose of the last two requirements is fairly obvious with the former designed to keep the
outdoor activity areas to the rear portion of the lot and the latter to provide that the front yard
setbacks appl icable to the general area should also apply to the nursery school.
G. All buildings and structures shall comply with the Arcadia Building Code.
COMMENTARY
This requirement would insure that prior to occupancy the building will meet all the applicable
building code regulations.
.
2.
.
.
H. Nursery schools sholl not be permitted in ony commercially or industrially zoned
or used oreas.
.
COMMENTARY
Zone Location of Nurseries and Day-Care Centers. V
There seems to be no question that ch i1dren 's nurseries belong in residential zones. Nursery schools
and day care centers are members of that group of institutions (along with schools, churches, and
hospitals) which have an intimate connection with home life. They all need open space and sunlight
and air. They all need quiet localities and freedom from heavy motor traffic; and they all need
to be reasonably close to dwellings.
The need for a residential environment for schools, churches, and hospitals has been demonstrated
many times, has long been reflected in most zoning ordinances, and has been supported by
numerous court decisions. With nurseries - a new comer to this group of home-associated
institutions - the need for a sympathetic environment is obviously even greater.
Few cases deal ing with day core institutions have reached the appellate courts. Whether or not
litigation wi II increase with the probable increase in number of nursery schools within the next
ten or fifteen years remains to be seen. The proboble course of any future decisions, however, is
olready marked out.
.
In Bryan v. Darlington, 207 S. W. 2d 681 Tex. App., San Antonio, October 8, 1947;
Rehearing Denied December 10, 1947, January 14, 1948, the court held that where the Village
of Arcadia excluded stores, shops or permanent offices or any business from a certain district
(presumably residential), the operation of a children's nursery and day school in a private home
in such district would not be enjoined as an unlawful use.
.
In Livingston et 01., v. David et 01., Supreme Court of lowo, December 13, 1951,
50 N. W. 2d 592 (4 ZD 68) the court interpreted the ordinance enumeration of schools as including
nursery schools. This suit was brought to enjoin defendants from operating a nursery school in a Class
A residence district in Iowa City. It was contended that the school violated the zoning ordinance
and also that it was 0 nL,isance. In a Class A residence district, the following uses are permitted:
"(e) Public schools, colleges, university buildings and uses, and private elementary schools,
toking only children up to and not exceeding the age of 14." Were defendants operating such
a private elementary school as the ordinance permits? In a fairly lengthy opinion, there is Q
description of the nature of the school operated. There were a maximum of 50 children; there
was a full-time registered nurse; there were four teachers. The trial court held, and the supreme
court agreed that defendants are operating such a private elementary school as the zoning ordinance
permits in a Class A residential district. Plaintiffs contended that because defendants make a
charge for children attending their school, it is a business, and therefore not permitted in a Class
A residence district. The court said: "If the use defendants make of their property is permitted
by subsection (e) of the ordinance it is not material whether they are engaged in a business."
The court pointed out further that quite a number of business uses are permitted in a residence A
district, such as municipally-owned utilities, concessions incident to publicly-owned country
clubs, farming, truck-gardening and nurseries, accessory uses, etc. The court said: "It does
not seem reasonable that this zoning ordinonce was intended to restrict such a use as defendants
make of their property to an industrial district." That would have been the necessary result if
plaintiffs' argument should be accepted.
3.
.
.
.
.
.
Most zoning ordinances in effect throughout the country da not specifically mention nursery schools
or day-care centers. As the data in Table 4 indicate, more and more ordinances comprehensively
revised or adopted in recent years reflect the prevalence of child-care centers and specifically
provide for them. In communities where nursery schools are not thus particularly named, it is
assumed thot child-care centers for pre-school children wauld be classified os schools.
The meaning of scope of the term "schools", however, has often been subject to litigation. More
often than not, the courts have refused to restrict the term and have declared invalid an ordinance
which prohibits private or parochial schools while permitting public schools. In general, judicial
opinion has held that such discrimination was not related to the public health, safety, morals,
comfort, and public welfare. (See, for example, City of Miami Beach v. State ex rei Lear et 01.,
Supreme Court of Florida, June 1937, 175 S. 536; Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. Kingery,
Supreme Court of Illinois, April, 1939, 20 N. E. 2d 583, Fox Hollow School v Town of Lenox, ,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Land Court, September, 1943, unreported; ond Yanow et 01.,
v Seven Oaks Pork, Su erior Court of New Jersey, Chancer Division, March 14, 1952, 87 A.
2d 454 4 ZD 117 .)
A further example of judicial liberality toword the comprehensiveness of "school" was shown in
Long bein et al., v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Milford et al., Supreme Court of
Errors of Connecticut, June 14, 1949, 67 A. 2d 5 ( I ZD 101) in Moy, 1947, a man named Borman
appl ied for a certificote of occupancy for the use of a parcel of property wh ich he intended to use
os 0 summer day school under the name of Bertcroft. The application was granted by the building
inspector. The adjoining property owners appeoled to the board of zoning appeals of Milford, which
dismissed the oppeal in June of that year. An appeal was taken to the Court of Common Pleas,
which also dismissed the appeal. The property is in a residential zone. The zoning ordinance
provides that in a residence zone, property may be used for dwellings, schools,public libraries,
public museums, churches, church buildings, parks and playgrounds. The owner of the property
in his prospectus stated that it would be 0 school far boys and girls between the ages of 5 and 14
years, and that the activities would be devoted to the teaching of swimming, arts and crafts,
boating. hiking, basketball, softball, tetherball, volley ball, badminton, horseshoes, story
telling, photography, croquet, fishing and free play. At an earlier date, this had been described
as a summer camp. The question was whether the operation was a schoal, or within the intent of
the zoning ordinance. In finding that it was a schoal, the court said: "The name by which the
institution is designated or called is not of controlling importance. The question is to be determined
by the activities or character of business or service, and not by the name, since the facts affort
a difference of opinion as to which category it belongs," ' A residence zone is intended for residentiol
purposes but many buildings and uses have been held suitable for such a zone which are
not strictly residential. Thus, in the ordinance under consideration, the first permitted use is
for dwellings but this is followed by 'schools, public libraries, public museums, churches and
church buildings, club, philanthropic institutions, parks, playgrounds, farms, private garages,
boathouses, and uses accessory thereto. This partial list indicates that uses of the types named
are not ordinarily considered detrimental to the character of a zone primarily intended for residence.
Specifically, the fact that the ordinance permits playgrounds in a residence zone indicates that
it would not be hostile to the spirit of the ordinance to construe the word "school" as used therein
to include an institution which instructs its pupils largely by the method of organized play. Bertcroft's
activities are not entirely confined to physicol education but they do emphasize that feature.
Health instruction and physical education are required subjects in Connecticut Public schaols.
4.
..
.
.
Whereas there seems ta be no question thot nurseries belong in residential zones, there is some
question on which residential zane they shauld be located in. Of the faurteen ardinances
examined, the sub-district designatians are nearly evely distributian among any R zone, RO, R-I
(first permitted); any R zone as a special exceptian; R-2 zone (first permitted); and multi-family
zone (first permitted). This distribution has no statistical meaning, af caurse, but it daes show
that there is no general agreement on sub-district location af nursery schools.
Two main points of difference show up here. One relates to the policy division between the
schaol af planning thought which holds that all or most uses should be permitted or prohibited
outright, with objective requirements specified; and the school which believes in a liberal
allowance of special uses, with determination by the planning commission or the zoning board
tliat the use is in harmony with the general plan and is not detrimental to surrounding uses. The
second point of difference reflects a basic belief either that nursery schools belong in any residentiol
district (including single-family) or that they should be restricted to twa ar even multi-family
districts.
The first point of difference - explicit requirements v. speciol uses - is so firmly enmeshed in
the structure of any porticular ordinance that it cannot be removed from the context for evaluation
insofar as nurseries are concerned. However, some persons who affirm the value of the device
of the special exception for other kinds of activities still might hold that the nursery school
should be allowed as a principal use.
.
An interesting compramise between the nursery school as a special exception, permitted in
accordance with rather unprecise but comprehensive principles, and the nursery schoal as an outright,
permitted use, regulated by standards set forth in the ordinance, is seen in the zoning regulations 'of.
District of Columbia (1953). Here nursery schools are permitted in any residential district as
a special exception and are subject to certain objective standards as well. The board of zoning
adjustment may permit in a residential district, a college, a university or a private school, and
in the "A", "B", "C" and "0" area districts a kindergarten or pre-school group, if:
(a) its operaticn would be impaired by location on a business street,
(b) it has no article of commerce for sale, and
(e) it is not likely to become objectionable in a residential district because of noise,
traffic, and number of students,
.
The board may permit 0 kindergarten or a pre-school group in the "A" Restricted,
"A" Semi~restrict, and "B" Restricted Area District, (The restricted area districts (residential)
contain the same minimum dimensions of yards and courts and the same maximum percentage
of lot occupancy as the regular area districts (residential). Uses, however, are generally
restricted to dwelling purposes, except that schools of different sorts ore permitted, as
provided in the section quoted.) subject to the conditions above, and provided
further; that there shall be provided on the same lot with such use not less than
100 square feet of play area for each child; that the activities to be conducted in
the proposed establ ishment shall be so located with respect to adjoining and nearby
property as not to create undue noise or otherwise objectionable conditions; and the board
shall find the use to be reasonably necessary or convenient to the neighborhood in
which located.
5.
.
.
I.
The second point of difference - whether nurseries should be permitted in all residential zones
or only in zones of greater density - also is likely to reflect basic community attitudes on the
distinguishing characteristics of residential districts. Communities which permit nurseries in
any residential district, along with schools, Ii braries, churches, and other institutions vested
with a community or publ ic nature presumably feel that there is no essential difference between
them insofar as their effect on dwellings is concerned. Or, they may adopt special provisions for
different non-residentiol uses so that any intrisic features capable of causing discomfort to nearby
residents may be mitigated.
Other localities permit schools, libraries, churches, etc., as principal uses in a single-family
district, but allow nurseries in two-family and subsequent districts only as a special exception.
Although it is hard to see the rationale for this distinction, it may be explained by the fact that
the nursery institution is relatively new, takes several different forms, is not always regulated by
standards and licenses, and is not yet understood by the public as 0 whole.
A few localities have attempted to establish objective standards for nl,lrsery location within
its permitted zone. These deal with the nu rrber of children per lot area and certain "buffer"
devices. It is believed by PLANNING ADVISORY SERVICE that wider and perhaps more extensive
requirements of this sort will lessen the annoyance features of group care institutions,
and at the same time encourage the location of these institutions in districts most suited to
their purpose and needs.
.
1/ Source: P.A.S. Information Report No. 55
Nurseries and Day Care Centers
October, 1953
6,
.
.
.
.
.
.
11. "ON SITE" REQUIREMENTS
A. Density - one child per 75 square feet of out door play area and 35 square feet of
indoor play area. These areas shall be accurately delineated on the plot plan.
COMMENTARY
As a result of the meetings with the nursery school operators and a more thorough review of state
standards it now seems apparent that the state standards are well thought out. It is understood
that state inspection is frequent and unscheduled.
In the case where a state inspector finds deficiencies the school is required to take immediate
corrective action.
B. Fence - whenever a site is adjacent and abutting developed property the rear
-portion of the site shall be enclosed with a solid fence. In the case where
the adjacent abutting property is substantially undeveloped or in agricultural
or pasture use a solid fence may not be required until the property becomes
developed.
C. Buffer - a buffer strip from three (3) to five (5) feet in depth parallel to the fence
-Shall be maintained. The amount af buffer area shall be determined by the
type of fence.
I. Concrete block wall - 3 ft. buffer
2. Wood - 5 ft. buffer
Play yard equipment in excess af 5 feet in height shall not be
located within these designated buffer areas.
COMMENTARY
Both of these requirements are provided to insure the privacy af the abutting praperties and to
minimize noise or any other disturbing activity.
.
Buffer Devices and Noise
A few cammunities have attempted to modify the possible undesirable effects of large groups af
children by requiring fences or hedges around play lots and by establishing 0 minimum distance
between nursery buildings and residential lot lines. Thus, lexington and Fayette County, Kentucky,
and Muskegon, Michigan, both require that play lots be "suitably fenced and screened.
Montgomery County, Ohio, and Des Moines, Iowa, say a "completely fenced and screened play
lot". And in Park Forest, Illinois, it is required that outdoor play areas be fenced and screened
from view from any adjoining lot in any R district.
7.
.
.
.
There is r. 0 consistent pattern regarding distance of nursery buildings from lot I ines. In Prince
George's County, Moryland, where nursery structures must be on a lot having an area of at least
three acres, no part of any building shall be less than 100 feet from any bounding lot or street
line. In Montgomery County, Ohio, and Des Moines, Iowa, buildings must be at least 20 feet
from any other lot in any residential district. And in Anchorage, Alaska, where nurseries are
first permitted in the multiple-family district, only 15 feet need separate any portion af the
structure and any adjacent residential lot.
Soundproofing of structures is recommended in both of the recently published manuals on day care
centers, but this recommendation has not been encountered in any of the ordinances examined so far.
Although the purpose of soundproofing from the standpoint of nursery administrators probably is to
create a less noisy and exciting interior environment, it is suggested that soundproofing may also
be used to minimize the disturbance to neighbors.
According to Hole J. Sabine in a paper presented at the Third Ann~al Noise Abatement Symposium,
October 10, 1952, entitled "The Use of Acoustical Materials in the Control of Industrial Noise",
noise striking the ear of any person in a room is the sum of two components. The first co,:"panent
consists of all the noise that travels in a direct line from each source to the ear. The second
component consists of all the noise that reaches the ear from each source only after being re-
flected one or more times from the surfaces of the room. Noise that is transmitted directly
cannot be affected by the character of the room surfaces, but the reflected component will
increase with the reflection coefficient of the room surfaces. The total noise received by the
ear, then, is never less than the directly transmitted component, and will always be greater.
.
There is 0 wide selection of acoustical materials on the market, many of which con be installed
with little difficulty. The usual method of utilizing these materials is os a covering or replace-
ment for highly sound-reflective interior surfaces such os plaster, concrete, gloss, wood, and
masonry. All of these types of surfaces reflect over 95 percent of the energy of incident sound
waves. A highly efficient acoustical material may at certain frequencies reflect less than 5
percent of incident sound energy and absorb 95 percent.
This being the case, reflected noise created inside a nursery building but passing through walls
or windows can be greatly reduced through the use of acoustical materials.
Although outdoor noise caused by laage groups of children is not amplified by reflective surfaces
to the same extent, it too can be a source of annoyance to nearby dwellers. Presumably, this is
one of the reasons for the zoning ordinance provisions requiring fencing or screening of play lots.
Trees and shrubberies have been found to ve very effective in reducing the noise of traffic along
parkways and in screening out the din, and the Highway Research Board currently is engaged in
a study to determine just what varieties of trees and plants are most successful sound traps. It is
suggested, therefore, that a zoning ordinance, instead of merely requiring fencing and screening
might, in addition, specify plantings of an approximate height and denseness.
.
B.
.
.
.
Another device for minimizing noise emanating from outdoor play lots is that af distance. Since
noise decreases approximately as the square of the distance, it is suggested that clauses requiring
that any part of a bui Iding be located not less than a certain number of feet from adjacent lot
lines could be expanded to include play lots as well. (P.A.S. Information Report No. 55)
D. Off Street Parking - one off street parking space shall be provided for each employee.
If the structure is also used for residential purposes, two additional covered off street parking
spaces sholl be provided.
E. Loading Areas - adequate facilities shall be provided to permit children to be safely
loaded and unloaded.
These facilities shall be either of the following:
I. A circular driveway
2. A sidewalk from curb to property line
3. A driveway terminating in the area designated for off street parking
4. All driveway and parking areas shall be improved with pavement in
accordance with the Arcadia Municipal Code.
F. Signs - one unlighted sign four square feet in area shall be permitted. The location
. of the sign shall be shown on the plot plan.
G. Landscaping -fhe landscape development of the nursery school front yards sholl be
developed and maintained in a manner similar to and compatible with existing properties in the
immediate neighborhood.
;;t/~a4-
WILLIAM PHELPS
Planning Director
WP:ma
9.
.