Loading...
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. .