HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA-94-3M E M O R A N D U M
TO: p Planners, Code Officers, Building Snspectors
FROM:u ~'"Glen Gidley, Director of Planning & Development
~~,
RE: ~ Ordinance 945/Special Uses
DATE: December 28, 1993
Please £ind a~tached Ordinance 9~5 which became ef£ective on
Deaember 13, 1993. There are two parts to this ordinance that
you should be aware of:
1. SPECIAL t75E PROC~DURE~ have been revised as follows:
A. Special Uses (new ones) will be granted only to the owner
of the use. When ownership of the use changes, the
Special Use Permit becomes void, This means it does not
go with the land.
B. A new subsection (3)(C) criteria has been added.
C. Special Use Permits are revokable i£ there are violations
of ~pecial conditions or requirements. Such violations
will be heard by City Council, rather than municipal
court, as a quasi-,judicial hearing.
D. NonconPOrming Special Uses have five years to become
con~orming or cease. At this time only "Pawn Shops" and
"Day Care Centars in Residential Zones" are considered
nonconforming. Any Special Use that received legai
approval under the old procedures are no considered
nonconforming.
2. 5PECIAL USES ADDED to the Zoning Ordinance include PAWN SHOPS
in the C-2 zone district, and SMALL DAY CARE CENTERS and DAY
CARE CENTERS in the Residential and Agricultural zone
distric'ts.
Please update the handouts and be aware of these revisions when
you speak to anyone about a Special Use or review propasals that
ixiclude a Special Use.
GEG:slw
<pc>ggmemol2/28
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EDWARDS
Council Bill No. 30 Ordinance No. 945
Series o£ 1993
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CODE
OF LAWS OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE RELATING TO PAWN SHOPS
AND SPECIAL USES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT
RIDGE, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
Secti.on 1_ Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26, Article 1.
Zoning Code, Section 26-6.(H) Special Uses is hereby repealed and
reenacted as fbllows:
"(B) Snecial Uses: Special uses are discretionary uses
which are clearly shown to be void or deficient in an
area, and which if properly designed, developed,
operated and maintained, may be approved for any
specific location within a zone district wherein the
special use is enumerated. Special Uses are highly
dependent upon proper design, management and
operational aspects, therefore such uses must be
considered as a personal grant of use, granted to the.
owner of the special use and not as a grant of a vested
property right which transfers with the land or Iease.
The only time a Special Use Permit may be transferred
to a new owner without re-applying for approval is
through inheritance by an heir. The primary issues
which planning commission and city council shali
address are those related to justi£ication o£ need and
those special design and operational considerations
which mitigate potential detrimental impacts of a
special use e~ _~~~~~ :~} ~,:,~ on surrounding land uses,
the street system, or public services or ~acilities. In
order to protect the public interest £~t-.:.~:;.
t~=r~P~z~, planning commission and city council
shall have the right to approve, approve with
modifications or deny a special use request, and to
revoke previously approved special use permits pursuant
to subsection (6) hereof.
(1) Anolic;ahilitv~ The requirements o£ this subsection
shall apply to all uses listed as "Special UsAS" within
the provisions set forth for any particular zone
district.
(2) Annli.cation f~.r.m anci raview nroceduraG;
(a) Prior to submitting any application for a special
use permit, the applicant shall be required to
hold a neighborhood input meeting. (See subsection
(F)(1) for requirements.)
Ordinance NO. q~5
Series o£ 1993
Page 2
(b) Special use applications shall may be originated
only by the prospective owner of the proposed
special use, with written approval of the fee
owner of the property in cases where the owner of
the property is dif£erent than the owner of the
proposed special use. Both the special use owner
and the land owner, or their legal
representatives, must be present at all public
hearings. er-~ Y~~ ~r.~X ~~ ~-egsi~Y ~~~~7
,.o~~~ a~ew~~= ~= ~~~~.er~e~
(c) Application shail be submitted on forms provided
by the department of planning and development, and
shall be accompanied by a copy oP the property
deed, a certiPied survey, and a fee of one hundred
dollars ($100.00).
(d) All applications shail also be accompanied by a
site development plan and additional written
in£ormation in su£ficient detail to convey the
£ull intent of the applicant in developing,
operating and maintaining the special use. The
site development plan shall meet the requirements
of a Type I site plan as set £orth in subsection
(E)(1) below.
(e) Upon receipt o£ a complete application packet as
described above, the planning and development
department shall proceed with the following
process:
1. Refer the application to a££ected public
agencies for review and comment.
2. Within thirty (30) days of acceptance of a
completed application packet, give notice of a
scheduled public hearing on the application by
newspaper publication, letter notification and
posting in the manner as provided in
subsection (F)(1).
3. Prepare a written report and recommendations
to the planning commission which evaluates the
proposal and makes findings using the
following review criteria set £orth in
subsection (3) below.
( 3) Cri +..ar; a fr,r re~>;_Pw. .Before a special use is approved,
the applicant shall show, and the planning commission
and city council shall find, the proposed special uses:
(a) Will meet a proven public need in that it will
fi11 a void in necessary services, products or
facilities especially appropriate at the location
proposed, considering available alternatives.
(b) Will not have a detrimental e£fect upon the
general health, welfare, safety and convenience of
/^
Ordinance No. 945
Series o£.1993
Page 3
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
the proposed use.
(c) Will not create or contribute to blight in the
neighborhood by virtue of physical or operatianal
characteristics of the proposed use.
(d) Will not adversely affect the adequate light and
air, nor cause signiPicant air, water or noise
pollution.
(e) Is consistent with the comprehensive p1an.
(f) Will not result in undue traf£ic congestion or
tra££ic hazards, or unsafe parking, loading,
service or internal traffic conflicts to the
detriment of persons whether on or off the site.
(g) Will be appropriately designed, including
setbacks, he3ghts, parking, bulk, buffering,
screening and landscaping, so as to be in harmony
and compatible with character of the surrounding
areas and neighborhood, especially with ad~acent
properties.
(h) Will not over burden the capacities of the
existing streets, utilities, parks, schools and
other public facilities and services.
(4) Pl.ann~na commission review:. The planning commission
shall hear and oonsider.any evidence or statement
pre5ented by the applicant, city staff, or by any
person in attendance at the hearing. The planning
Commission shall then make a recommendation to city
council to approve, approve with conditions or deny
the application, basing its recommendation upon the
facts presented in the public hearing in consideration
of the criteria for review as specified in subsection
(3) above. Planning commission may recommend condi-
tions or stipulations, which may include physical
design as well as operational and maintenance
considerations, upon the special use in addition to
standard development and use regulations which apply
within a particular zone district or for a similar
"permitted use". Such conditions or stipulations inay
be recommended in order to ensure compliance'wi.th the
criteria £or review, which, if not complied with, shall
be grounds £or revocation o£ the special .:.:,r.3i.~f:::=-r_
use, A recommendation for denial shall be cons3dered
final, unless the applicant files an appeal to city
oouncil.
(5) Citv council review, City Council shall review and
decide upon all requests £or special uses upon
recommendation of planning commission for approval or
upon appeal by an applicant of a recommendation for
denial by planning commission. Special uses may only
be approved by passage of an ordinance, following the
Ordinance No. 945
Series of 1993
Page 4
city's standard ordinance adoptipn procedures. Notice
of public hearing shall be in the manner provided in
subsection 26-6(F)(1). City council, in addition to
consideration o~ the planning commission record, sha11
hear additional evidence and testimony presented, and
either pass, pass with modi£ications, or deny the
ordinance, its decision being based upon all evi:dence
presented, with due consideration of the briteria for
review.
(6) ~nforcement. All conditions and stipulations imposed
by city counoil shal7, be maintained in perpetuity with
the special ;,~..~~,,..~.- -_ use. If at any time the
stipulations or conditions are not adhered to or are
found to have been materially altered in scope,
application or design, the zoning administrator shall
notify a code en£orcement o£ficer. of the nature of the
violation(s) and the code en£orcement of£icer shall
investigate, and if appropriate, initiate revocation
s~~;::~~~~ ~.-.~.:.~~~....~ =t proceedings which shall include
the following:
(a) Notice of violation following procedures as set
forth for xuisances pursuant to Wheat Ridge Code,
Chapter 15.
(b) Upon a finding of noncompliance by a Code
Enforcement Officer after the prescribed
correction date, the Zoning Administrator shall
schedule a revocation hearinq hefore the City
Council. Such revocation hearing date shall be
set by City Council a£ter lst reading of an
ordinance therefore. The purpose of the revocation
hearing shall be for the City Council to hear
evidence ooncerning the nature and extent of the
alleged noncompliance with the conditions of the
Special Use Permit. The Council shall have the
power, upon good cause being shown, to cancel or
revoke the previously issued Special Use Permit,
to require certain corrective measures to be
taken, and/or to direct the City's agents to enter
upon the premises and take corrective measures
required by the City Council, and to modify the
conditions which apply to the Special Use Permit.
Any revocation action shall become effective
fifteen (15) days after final publication of the
ordinance. Any other action shall require a
continuance of the public hearing to a specific
future date, and a motion stipulating the specific
corrective measures that are to be accamplished
either by the special use owner or by an 'agent of
the City within that time period. Upon the date
of the continued hearing, should the Council find
that the conditions and stipulations have not been
Ordinance No. 945
Series o£ 1993
Page 5
satisfactorily met, Council shall adopt the
revocation ordinance."
(7) Nonconformina SnP~ial Us~s:
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Zoning
Code Section 26-7. Nonconforming lots, uses
and structures, any special use which is
nonconforming to the provisions of this
Section 26-6.(B) by way of not having
received approval of a Special Use Permit
under prior rules and procedures shall
terminate, or shall otherwise become
conforming to these provisions, within
five (5) years of the date that such
nonconforming status became effective.
In addition, within this five (5) year
amortization period, no nonconforming
special use sha11 change ownership without
coming into conformance with this Section
26-6.(B)• All other provisions of 5ection
26-7 shall apply.
SPCtinn 2_ Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Section 26-23. Commerc3al-
Two District (C-2), subsection (E) Special Uses, is hereby
amended by the add3.tion of an additional special use as follow:
"(d) Pawn Shops."
saction 3. Wheat Aidge Code of Laws, Section 26-5. De£initions
subsection (a) is hereby.amended by the inclusion of an
additional de£inition, in the appropriate alphabetical order, as
£ollows:
"Pawn Shop. A commercial establishment where a
pawnbroker, as defined by Colorado Revised Statutes,
regularly conducts the business of making contracts
for purchase or purchase transactions."
sPett~n 4. Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Section 26-10 through
Section 26-15, and Sections 26-18 and 19, subsections (E) Speciai
Uses, are hereby amended by addition of the following new special
uses:
"Small Day Care Center, Day Care Center."
Section 5_ Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Sections 26-16 and 26-17,
subsections (E) Spedial Uses, are hereby amended by addition o£
the following new special use: .
Ordinance No. 945
Series oP 1993
"Day Care Center."
P.age .6
sectic~n 6. _Safetv CiausP. ..,The City Council hereby finds,
determines, and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under
the genera7. police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is
promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public,
and that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of
health and safety and for the protection of public convenience
and wel£are. The City Council further determines that the
ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative
object sought to be attained.
Ser.tinn 7. SevPrahilifivz I£ any clause, sentence, paragraph, or
part of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person
or circumstances shall £or any reason be adjudged by a court o£
competent jurisdiction invaTid, such judgmerit shall not af£ect,
impair or invalidate the remainder o£ this ordinance or its .
application to other persons or circumstances.
Ser.tinn 8. SiinPrses~;on Ctaii~P_ If any provision, requirement
or standard established by this Ordinance is found to conflict
with similar provisions, requirements or standards found
elsewhere in the Code of Laws of the City o£ Wheat Ridge, which
are in existence as o£ the date of adoption of this Ordinance,
the provisions, requirements and standards herein shall supersede
and prevail.
Section 9_ This ordinance shall take ef£ect upon approval by
City Council.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote o£ 8
to 0 on this 22nd day of Novembex , 1993, ordered
published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the
City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final
passage set for necemher L.'i , 1993, at 7:30 o'clock p.m., in
the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge,
Colorado.
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading
hy a vote of 6 to 2 , this 13th day of December ~
1993.
SIGNED by the Mayos on this 14th day of December
, 1993.
~,~L~1r.-¢_d{~
DAN WILDE, MAYOR
Ordinance NO. q45 Page 7
Series o£ 1993
ATTEST'
_ it«~
UTancla Sang, C"it.~,= LClerk
~_)
lst PubliCation: November
2nd Publication: December
Wheat Ridge Sentinel
Effective Date: December
<ldr>ordspecialuses
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY
~~~ ~~'~~~~~
KA HRY SCFIROEDER, CITY ATTORNEY
30, 1993
21, 1993
13, 1993
r
PLANNINC CONIMISSION BYLAW$
StatemPnt nf PnrAnsP
These bylaws are promulgated by the Planning Commission o£ the
City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, for the purpose of governing all
public hearings and meetings be£ore this body, thereby insuring
that this body conducts itself in accordance with its status as a
quasi-judicial, £act-finding body, and £urther insuring that due
process o£ law will be accorded to all those participating
therein. By consistent,interpretation of these bylaws, the above
purposes will be fulPilled, and the City o£ Wheat Ridge and its
residents will be well-served.
1. Reaular Comm9_csion Meatinas_ The Commission shall meet in
regular session on the first and third Thursday of each month
at 7:30 p.m. When Thursday is a holiday, which is of£icially
recognized by the City of Wheat Ridge, the regular meeting
shall be held on the following Thursday at the same hour,
unless otherwise provided £or by motion. The Commission may,
by motion, dispense with any regular meeting except that at
least one regular meeting shall be held each month. The
place of the meeting shall be in the Municipal Complex. No
public hearing shall be started after 11:00 PM, except upon
ma~ority vote of the Commission.
2. S1neciai MeetinaG. Special meetings shall be called by the
Commission Secretary on the written request o£ that Chairman
or any two members of the Commission on at least forty-eight
(48) hours written notice to each member of the Commission.
The City Administrator and the Director of Planning and
Development shall be notified personally or written notice
left at their usual place of residence. A special meeting
may be held on shorter notice if all members of the
Commission are present or have waived notioe thereof in
writing, and the relevant provisions of Section 5.2.(b) of
the Wheat Ridge City Charter have been followed.
3. Adiourned Se~~ions. Any session_of the Commission may be
adjourned or ad~ourned Prom day to day, or £or more than one
day, but no ad~ournment shall be for a longer period that
until the next regular meeting thereafter.
4. Executive SPSSic~nc,
A. An executive session o~ the Planning Commission may be
convened only if the ma~ority of the members o£ the
Commission present vote publicly to hold such a session,
the subject matter to be considered is one of those
listed in Subsection (B) of this Section and a public
announcement is made as to which category of Subsection
(B) the matter concerns. No £ormal votes may be taken in
any executive session unless they concern a matter
included as a category of Subsection (B) of this Section.
,
4. Executiva Sessinn (cnntinued~
B. An executive session may be convened only on the
following matters:
(1) Legal Consultation. The Planning Commission may ,
convene an executive session under the £ollowing
conditions:
a. A suit, which names the Planning Commission or
any of its members, has been £iled against the
City and has received £ormal written notice that
suit against the City is 3mminent.
b. The Planning Commission is considering
instituting legal action against another party.
c. The Planning Commission has knowledge o£
violations of the law and is considering the
possibility o£ recommending prosecution.
(2) Personnel Matters. Personnel matters concerning
City employees may be considered in an executive
session if that employee requests such a session.
However, no request of the employee is required i£
the matter concerns a subject covered under another
category of this subsection.
(3) Real Estate Appraisals. The Commission may convene
an executive session to cansider real estate
appraisals made £or the purpose o£ the possible
acquisition o£ real property or an interest therein
for public use, or the sale of any real property
owned by the City. However, no executive session
shall be convened to discuss the merits of
purchasing reai property for public use or the sale
of real property owned by the City, or any other
matters pertaining to land acquisition or sale.
C. The Commission Secretary shall make a tape recording and
prepare the minutes o£ all executive sessions. Such
recordings and minutes shall be closed to the public
unless a ma,jority o£ the Commission votes to make them
available to the public. The Chairman, any member o£ the
Commission, the City Attorney, or the Director o£
P,lanning and Development or his designee (in the event
the Directar of Planning and Development was a
participant in the eaecutive session), may examine such
tapes or minutes at any reasonable time under the direct
supervision of the Commission Secretary. The Commission
Secretary may also release such tapes and minutes
pursuant to a valid court order in any action challenging
the legitimacy of an executive session.
(2)
THE PRESIDING OFFICER
5. ElPr.tinn of. OfficPrs~ A.majority vote o£ all members
present o£ the Commission shall be required to elect a
Chairman and Vice Chairman.
6. Presidina OPficer_ The Chairman, or in his absence, the Vice
Chairman, shall take the Chair at the hour appointed Por the
Commission to meet, and shall 3mmediately call the members to
order. The roll shall then be called by the Commission
Secretary who shall enter in the minutes of the meeting the
names of the members present. The Chairman shall be elected
on a rotating basis at the second regular meeting in November
o£ each year. The Chairman shall be elected on a rotating
basis and shall not succeed himself. This shall be the first
order of business a£ter public hearings at that meeting and
it shall be held by secret ballot without nomination.
In the case of a tie, the Director o£ Planning and
Development shall preside until the election of the Chairman.
Ae will disclose the names of the tied contestants and
another ballot shall be taken. Until one person has received
a majority of all members present of the Commission,
successive ballots w311 be taken.
7, vice Chairman. After selection of the Presiding Officer, the
Commission shall choose one o£ its members as Vice Chairman
who shall serve as Chairman during the absence or ~isability
of the Chairman and, in case of vacancy in the o£fice of the
Chairman, pending the selection o£ a successor at the next
regular meeting. He shall be selected in the same manner as
the Chairman.
8. Temnorarv Chairman. In the case of the absence of the
Chairman and Vice Chairman, the senior member of the
remaining members shall act as Temporary Chairman until the
Chairman or Vice Chairman appears.
9. Decoriun and Order. The presiding officer shall preserve
decorum and decide all questions of order, subject to appeal
of the Commission. If a member transgresses the rules of the
Commission, the presiding o££icer shall, or any o££icer may,
call him to order, in which case he shall relinquish the
£loor, unless permitted to explain.
10. ouorum__ A minimum of £ive (5) Commissioners shall constitute
a quorum £or the transaction of business at all Commission
meetings. Once the Commission Secretary makes a,
determination, based upon advice Prom Planning Commission
prior to a meeting that a Quorum will--not be attained, then
she may, by telephone: A) Advise Commission members o£ lack
o£ quorum and, then B) Poll members to decide whether to
continue the public hearing to the next regulaL meeting.
(3)
11. CnmmiGG3on Se~retarv and Emnlnvees_ The Commission Secretary
and other oP~icers and employees o£ the City shall be under
the control and direction of the Chair.during session o£ the
Commission.
12. Ci.tv Aclmin.istra~or,__Tha City Administrator or appointed
representative from his office may attend all meetings of the
Commission. He may make recommendations to the Commission
and may take part in the discussions on all matters
concerning the welfare of the City, but shall have no vote in
the meetings of the Commission.
13. D3rentor c~f Plannina and Develonment. Th2 DiY'ector of
Planning and Development or his appointed deputy, shall
attend all meetings of the Commission, unless excused by the
Commission or the City Administrator. He shall keep the
Commission £ully advised as to all matters related to the
planning and development conditions and needs o£ the City.
He may make recammendations to the Commission and may take
part in discussions on all matters coming be£ore the
Commission. He shall have a seat, but no vote in the
meetings of the Planning Comm3ssion.
14. CommiGgion fier.retar.v. A City employee appointed by the
Planning Commission shall serve as Commission Secretary and
shall keep minutes of the meetings and perform such other and
£urther duties in the meeting as may be ordered by the
Chairman, Commission or Director of Planning and Development.
15. Citv Attornev_ The City Attorney may either in person or by
deputy, attend all meetings of the Commission. An oral or
written opinion to provide advice on any question o~ law by
the City Attorney may be requested by a majority of the
Commission and shall be submitted through the City
Administrator.
16. Offiners an~ Emnlovees to Attend. When the Commission needs
to con£er with the head o£ any department or any of£icer or
employee of the City on any matter relating to zoning or
planning, the City Administrator shall be asked to request
that such of£icer-or employee attend any regular or special
meeting. Such request shall be by the majority o£ the
Commission and shall be submitted through the City
Administrator.
~TTTF.S AN?1 PRIVILF.GES OF MEMBERS
17. Riaht of Floor. When_,recognized by the Chair, a member shall
con£ine himsel£ to the question under debate, avoid
personalities, and refrain £rom impugning the motives of any
other member's argument or vote.
18. Riaht o£ Anneal_ Any member may appeal to the Commission
(4)
from a ruling o£ presiding of£icer. IP the appeal is
seconded, the member,making the appeal may briefly state his
reason for the same,;and the presiding o£Picer may briefly
explain his ruling, but there shall be no debate on the
appeal and no other member shall participate in the
discussion. The presiding of£icer shall then pose the
question, "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" I£
a majority of the members present vote "Yes", the ruling of
the chair is sustained; otherwise, it is overruled.
19. 7,;mifiation of Dahate_ No member shall be allowed to speak
more than once on any one subject until every other member
choosing to speak thereon sha11 have spoken, and no member
shall speak more than five minutes without permission of the
Commission.
20. Votinn.
A. The vote by "Yes" and "NO" shall be taken upon the
passage of all motions and entered upon the minutes of
the Commission proceedings. Every matter £or decision
be£ore the Planning Commission shall require the
af£irmative vote o£ a majority o£ the members of the
Planning Commission present ~or adoption, unless a
greater number is specifically required by Ordinance. An
abstention shall not be counted as a vote, but shall be
entered into the record.
B. No member of the Commission shall vote upon any question
upon which he believes himself to have a conflict o£
interest (other than the common public interest), on any
question concerning his own conduct, or on any question
upon which the remaining voting members of the Commission
determines, by ma~ority vote, that said member shall be
disqualified from the hearing based upon the reasons
speci£ied herein. On all other questions, each member
who is present shall vote when the question is called.
Application to abstain from voting shall be made before
the hearing of the case commences, or immediately upon
discovery of the fact requiring abstention. The moving
member shall briefly state the reason £ar his request or
motion, and the decision thereafter shall be made without
debate. It shall not be in order £or any member to
explain his vote on a question of abstention during said
vote. Once an affirmative vote granting or requiring
abstention is recorded, the abstaining member shall -take
no £urther part in discussion or consideration of, or
voting upon, the case pending. The sole reasons upon
which a member may base a motion to disquali£y a member
are actual or apparent con£lict o£ interest, breach of
this Commission's bylaws, or breach oP quasi-judicial
procedures as defined herein. No member abstaining under
the provisions of.this Rule 20(B) shall be penalized for
thus abstaining. A member who abstains from voting shali
(5)
remove himsel£/herself £rom the hearing room until the
matter has been finalized, except where a member is the
applicant in a matter before the Commission, then the
member may step down and participate in the presentation
o£ his/her request and shall not retake his/her seat with
the Commission until the matter is finalized by the
Commission.
C. Any member who was absent £rom a public hearing and said
public hearing has not reached a conclusion, may vote on
the public hearing o£ a prev3ous case, provided he/she
has listened to the tapes, read the minutes of the
previous public hearing (if available), has familiarized
himself/hersel£ with the contents o£ the case file, and
at the beginning of the continuation o£ the subject
hearing, states he/she has complied with the £oregoing
requirements.
21. nemand for Ro11 Call• When a vote is taken on any question
be£ore the Commission £or which a roll call vote is not
otherwise required and upon demand of any member, made before
the question has been put, the roll shall be called £or "yes"
and "no" and entered upon the Minutes o£ the Commission
proceedings. It shall not be in order for members to explain
their vote during the roll call.
22. PPrsonal PrivilPae. The right of a member to address the
Commission on a question of personal privilege shall be
limited to cases in which his/her integrity, character or
motives are assailed, questioned or impugned.
23. Dissents and Pr.otests__ Any member shall have the right to
express dissent from, or protest against, any action o£ the
Commission, and have the reason therefore, entered upon the
minutes. Such dissent or protest must be filed in writing,
couched in respect£ul language and presented to Commission
not later than the next regular meeting £ollowing the date of
the action objected to, and shall become a minority report
which shall become a portion of the record of the Planning
Commission action.
24. Attendanae. Al1 members o£ the Commission are expected to
attend all regular and special meetings of the Commission.
The Chair shall review all absences of Commission members and
inform the secretary whether such absences are excused or
unexcused. Where the Chair determines that a Commission
member has a su£ficient number o£ unexcused absences to
constitute neglect of duty, in accordance with Wheat Ridge
Code of Laws Sec. 2-53(e), the Chair shall_bring the matter
to the attention of the Commission under agenda item number
10, Discussion and Decision Items, and the Commission shall
vote upon the matter. If the Commission finds neglect o£
duty, a resolution shall be adopted that informs the City
(6)
Council of the Commission's findings and requests that the
member be replaced.
25. Excusal Durina Meetina. No member may leave the chamber
while Commission is in regular session without permission
from the presiding of~icer.
26. Makina Motions. A motion presented by any member shali
require a second. The presiding of£icer shall have the same
rights and privileges of making motions as any other member.
However, to do this, the presiding o£ficer must step down
from the Chair and have his/her deputy preside.
PROCEDURE
27. Or~er of $ixsiness_ The business of all regular meetings of
the Commission shall be transacted in the £ollowing order,
unless the Commission, by a vote of the majority of the
members present, shall suspend the rules and change the
order:
1. Cali to Order
2. Roll Call o£ Members
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Approval of Order of Agenda
5. Approval o£ Minutes
6. Public Hearing
7. Close the Public Hearing
8. Old Business
9. New Business
10. Discussion & Decision Items
11. Committee and Department Reports
12. Adjournment
Notes on Tentative Agenda
The Commission will make every attempt to be' as flexible as
possible in the order of the agenda to make the most considerate
use of time £or those who must appear. On the Friday proceeding
the regular Commission meeting, the Director of Planning and
Development will have delivered to each Commission member an
agenda showing the order of business and indicating the public
hearings to be anticipated, and items pertaining to said agenda
items. Only Commission members and staff may submit other
matters £or consideration under New Business at that same
meeting.
At each meeting, it shall be asked by the presiding officer if
there are ob~ections or are corrections to be made to the minutes
of the preceding meeting, as published.
(7)
28. Prer.edance n£ Motions_. When a question is be£ore the
Commission, no motion shall be entertained except: (a) to fix
the hour of ad~ournment, (b) to ad~ourn, (c) to lay on the
table, (d) for the previous question, (e) to continue to a
certain date, (f) to rePer, (g) to amend, and (h) to postpone
indefinitely. These motions shall have precedence in the
order indicated. Any such motion, except a motion to amend
the mot3on to postpone indefinitely, shall be put to a vote
without debate.
29, Stinnc - rcnprp~ Roberts Rules oP Order shall govern the
meeting unless otherwise set forth in these Bylaws or changed
by a ma~ority vote of the Commission.
30. Anonvmous Communinati~~c_ Unsigned communications shall not
be introduced before the Commission.
31. T3.e V~tP_ In case o£ a tie in votes on any proposal, the
proposai shall be considered lost.
COMMITTEES
32. standina Committees. The Chairman, as president o£ the
Commission, shall appo3nt such stand3ng committees as may be
authorized by vote of the Commission.
33. How Aonointed. There shall be three members of the
Commission appointed on each standing committee unless
otherwise authorized by the Commission, the Chairman
designating the member who is to serve as Chairman of the
Committee. Vacancies occurring on any committee shall be
£illed in like manner. The Chairman may also appoint, from
time to time, such special or select committees as in his/her
discretion he/she deems desirable, or as may be desired by
the Commission, to expedite the handling of the business and
a££airs of the City.
34. Notir.P__ It shall be the duty of the Chairperson o£ special
committees to give advance notice of the time and place o£
meeting to all members of the Commission, the City Clerk,
City Admin3strator, Director of Planning and Development and
other persons known to be interested, in favor or, or opposed
to, the particular matters proposed to be considered.
35. Renorts. When a committee to which a matter has been
referred, with instructions to report at a time named in the
order of reference, is not ready to report at such times, the
matter so rePerred shall, unless £urther time be granted, be
considered as though reported back without recommendation.
In such case, the committee shall forthwith return to the
(8)
Secretary, the documents pertaining to the matter, and the
matter shall take its proper place in the order of business.
36. Renort to be in Writina__ The reports of committees other
than the committee o£ the whole shall be in writing, agreed
to in committee assembled and shall not be presented unless
signed by a majority of the committee. Copies of the report
shall be available to each Commission mem6er. Documents
referred to the committee shall be returned with the report.
Nothing in this rule shall be construed to prohibit the
introduction of minority reports.
37. Re~_jpvi~q £ro~ FurthPr C~n.sidPration_ Upon mption,
Commission may, by a majarity vote, relieve a committee of
further consideration of matter referred to it and order the
same placed on the agenda.
38. Secretazv to Committees__ Commission Secretary or other City
employee shall act as secretary to the several committees,
and keep a record o£ the attendance and business transacted
at their meeting.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS _
39. Intro~uction_ All changes to the Code and Subdivision
Regulations shall be introduced in the Commission in printed
or written form. Ali such changes shall be approved by the
Commission in their final written form before forwarding to
City Council.
40. Review_ All proposed ordinances shall be forwarded to the
City Attorney with a request foz review to assure correct
legal form. The Director of Planning and Development shall
attach to each proposed ordinance a brie£ digest of the
provisions thereof, and where it is proposed to amend an
existing Ordinance, such digest shall indicate the change
sought to be made.
MISCELLANEOUS
41. Qrivileaes of Floor~ No persons except members of the
Commission and Officers named in the rules and persons
invited by the presiding officer of the Commission or by vote
o£ the Commission, shall be allowed to address the Commission
except as set £orth in Para. 42 and 45.
42. Addressina the Commi_ssion under Public Fnrum 5ection of
Aaenda. Any citizen may address the Commission under the
Public Forum section of the agenda on any subject not on the
agenda. Time may be limited by the Chair.
43. Susnension of Rules. Any provision o£ these rules not
governed by State s~atute or City Code o£ Laws may be
temporariiy suspended at any meeting of the Commission by a
(g)
majority vote o£ all those members of the Commission who are
present. The vote on any such suspension shall be taken by
"yes" and "no" votes and entered into the record. Any rule
may be suspended by general consent if presented by the Chair-
and if there are no objections from any member.
44. To Amend Rules_ These rules may be amended or new rules
adopted by a majority vote of all members o£ the Commission
present. Any such alterations or amendments shall be
submitted in writing at the preceding regular meeting and
shall be placed on the calendar under the order o£ "New
Business". This requirement shall be waived only by ma~ority
consent, with a recorded vote of all members.
45. Puhi;c Heari.nas, pJ.1 those desiring to be heard on a
particular issue at a regular public hearing before the
Commission shall list their names on forms provided. This
list shall be handed to the Chair who shall have all those so
listed step forward to attest, by sworn oath, that all
evidence they present shall be the truth.
The Chair shall be empowered to announce the length of time
allotted to any particular case, and thereaPter to en£orce
said time limit. Presentation and discussion of all zoning
and rezoning cases, subdivision plat approvals, and any other
action upon which a public hearing is required by ordinance,
and shall follow the £ollowing procedure:
(1) Upon the caliing of a case, the planning staff shall
give a brie£ presentation summarizing the action
requested, introducing into the record all relevant
ordinances, regulat3ons and related materials, and
briefiy outlining the non-disputed facts of the case.
Sta£f's presentation may include recommendations and
findings which the Commission, at its discretion, may
accept, accept in part or re~ect.
(2) Following staff's presentation, applicant shall present
all £acts, whether in written or testimonial £orm, which
he deems appropriate to meet his burden of proof. The
burden of proof in any zoning or rezoning case, in any
subdivision plat request, any planned development
request, any special use permit reguest, or any other
request Por change wherein a public hearing is required
shall be upon the applicant (whether the City or a third
part), to establish the existence o£ the need £or action
or relief requested.
(3) Protestants may present any evidence, whether in written
or testimonial form, which they deem appropriate.
Authority is hereby expressly granted to the Chair to
designate or recognize a spokesman or representative for
a group of protestants having the same or substantially
similar positions, said authority being granted solely
(10)
for the purpose of expediting hearings by avoidance o£
repetitious presentations, and not for the purpose of
limiting the opposition.
(4) After presentation of all direct evidence by the
applicants and protestants, a right o£ crass-examination
shali exist. All questions shall be posed to the
Commission rather than directly to sta££, the
protestants or the applicant. The order of cross-
examination shall be:
A. Applicant and staPf may be cross-examined by
protestants; and
B. Protestants and sta£f may be cross-examined by
applicant.
(5) An opportunity £or brief rebuttai shall be aP£orded
applicant and sta£f, during.which rebuttal testimony or
other evidence may be presented only to rebut evidence
presented during the case on behalf of either applicant
or protestant.
(6) Follow3ng said rebuttal, applicant and/or protestant may
be examined and/or cross-examined by members oP the
Planning Commission, the sta£f, and -the City Attorney.
(7) An opportunity for brief summation sha11 be granted,
first to protestants, and then to staff, then to
applicant.
(8) In the presentation of evidence, the Colorado Rules of
Evidence shall not be applied, but the Commission
expressly reserves to itself the right to iimit or
exclude evidence which it deems to be irrelevant,
repetitious, or otherwise inappropriate or unhelpful in
reaching a decision.
(9) Upon closing the public hearing, the Commission shall
render a decision based solely upon the £acts adduced
and appearing upon the record of the public hearing just
co[apleted. A motion shall be made and duly seconded
recommending Commission action either granting or
denying the action sought, whiah motion sha].Z embody the
facts relied upon to sustain the action recommended. In
the event a condition is sought to be imposed as a
portion of the motion thus made, a right shall be
granted to the applicant to brie£ly and succinctly
raspond to the proposed conclition. Nothing contained in
this rule shall be deemed automatically to preclude the
staPf from making suggestions or answering quest3ons
regarding the form of the motion thus made. In the
event the motion £ails to receive a majority vote, it
shall concZusiveZy be presumed that no action has been
(11)
taken, and it shall be required that a second motion be
made, seconded, and adopted by majority vote indicating
the de£inite action (either granting or refusing the
requested action), action; provided, however, that a
vote which ends in a tie sha11 constitute a denial o£
the action sought, and shall not require a second motion
and vote thereon.
(10) Upon the vote on the question being recorded, a
Resolution shall be prepared by the Commission
Secretary, and executed by the Chairman, which
Resolution shall be ~he official record o£ the
Commission's action.
READOPTED this 16th day of October, 1980.
sianed/Sonnie Scom~
BONNIE SCOMA, CHAIR
Wheat Ridge Planning Commission
Adopted by the Planning Commission May 1, 198Q
Amended by Planning Commission May 15, 1980
Amended by Planning Commission February 16, 1984
Amended by Planning Commission December 11, 1986
Amended by Planning Commission April 4, 1991
Amended by Planning Commission December 3, 1992
<pc>pcbylaws
(12)
DEG-30-92 WED 9;23 HAYES PHILLIPS MALONEY FAH N0, 3038251~69
r•
IiA'Y~,S, PEiIL~.iPS & MAT~ONE'Y, P.C.
Atro~neys at Law
Suite 450, The Marke~ Cenwr
1350 Sevenceenth Street
penver, Colotadv 80202-15I7
(303) $25-6444
Telccopier: (303) 825-3269
Jaltn ~, H:~ycs
Harbert C. Phillips
dxmes S. Matonav CT'L~Y OT~' WAEAT RIDGE
M~MdRANDVM
.
TO: WI3EAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMTSSION
F'ROM: SOHN E. HAYES~ CITY ATTORNEY ~~
DATE: QECEMBER 30, J.992
RE: DELISERAT2~NS IN ~XECUTIVE SE:SIQN
P, 02
M. SusaQ Lombara}i
Scott W. Smitli
OF Counset
Kaehleen E. Hacldock
Some concern has ba~n expressed to me regarding tkte apparen~
adjouxnmeat to a~~factfinding," off»the-record session af the
Planning Commission i.n its deliberations regdrding the "Alexis
rezoning.~~ Sinca I was obviausly not in attendanoe at that
maeting, i~ is difficu~.t por me to determine whether or not such
a praa~ioe of the Planning Coaunissiaxl has developed, or is
developing, which needs addressi.ng. However, taka.rig the very
conservative approaci3 of offering preventative advice which may
head aff problems whiah aould ari-se in the future, 2 will offer
some general observations and suggestions for your considexation.
The deli.berations df any official body within the Cxty of
iniheat Ridge are governsd by the provisions of the Ci.ty~s Hame Rule
Charter, the Rules of the individual deliberative body, and, to'a
certain esctent, by the Colorado ~~Sunshine" law. The City's
Chazter, and all Rules of baards and commissiarls, allow for off-
the-record or "ex~cu~ive~~ sessions nnly for the puxpose oP
determining'pexsonnel,matters in certain circuzustances, considering
real estate appraisa].s, and for legal consultation. Deliberative
or °factfxnding~~ sessions as such are not speci~ically allowed by
the Charter or th~ Ituies o~ boards and commissions, and therefore
should probably not be held.
If a percep'tion is alZowed to develop that actual decisions,
and Pinal languaqe, are being arrive@ at and agreed upon in °off-
the-reCOrd" sessions, at J.east ths perception o~ improprie~y is
ra~sed. Therefore, in order to avoid the appearanca oP such
activities, it would be my recommendation and advice that recesses,
acCOmpanied by adjaurning to the "back zoom~~ to arrive at a
consensus, be curtafled and, to the gxeates~ extent possible,
motions be offered, and amended if necessary, as a past of the
publiC hearing process.
DEC-30-92 WED 9~23 HAYES PHILLIPS MALONEY FAX N0, 3038251269 P,03
Again, I wish to reiterate that nothing which I have been
advised o~ to this poirit would lead me to believe that any of the
actions of the P~anning Commission taken ta date aXe either
improper or questionable. Rather, I h~pe that adhering to this
advice and these recommendations will avoid in the fu~ure any
individual~s perception that tihe requirements of the City~s
Charter, the Board~s Rules, or sta~e statute are being
circumven~ed.
I would be more than happy to meet with the Planning
Commission ~o discuss this ar any other mattar at your convenienoe.
The members of ~he Planning Comxnission have historically done, and
continue to do, a very fine job in consi.dering land use issues
facing tkxe City. S look forward to worki.ng with you to allow that
process to contznua.
2
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: anning Commission
FROM: len Gidley, Director of Planning & Development
RE: Case No. ZOA-94-3/Special Use Permits & Day Care Centers
in Residential Zones
DATE: April 14, 1994
At their meeting of March 28, City Council adopted a motion to
refer the attached proposed Council Bill to Planning Commission
£or public hearing and recommendat3on. In summary, the proposed
Council Bill would amend the Zoning Ordinance to achieve the
£ollowing:
1. Add specific provisions for adjoining property owner LEGAL
PROTEST for Special Use Permit applications the same as
currently applies to rezonings.
2. Delete "Small Day Care Center" and "Day Care Center" from the
list of Special Uses in all residential zone districts and
agricultural zone districts.
Regarding Sectinn 1_ of the Council Bill re£erring to Legal
Protest, staff supports this provision as a Special Use is
simiiar to rezoning for a specific use al2owed by right in a
higher zone class.
Regarding Saction 2~ o£ the Council Bill, I believe it would be
appropriate to de£ine the various types of day care £acilities
found in our Zoning Ordinance and describe under what
circumstances they are allowed in the residential and
agricultural districts, both-currently and prior to Ordinance
945. Pursuant to Wheat Ridge Cqde o£ Laws, Zoning Ordinance
Section 26-5. Definitions, there are four types o£ Day Care
facilities de£ined as £ollows:
"Day care center. A£acility licensed by the State of Colorado,
which provides care o£ children with or without compensation.
Day care center, small. A facility licensed by the State o£
Colorado which is used exclusively £or the purpose of providing
care, wi~h or without compensation for seven (7) to twenty-£our
(24) children.
Day care home, large. A home which is licensed under the State
of Colorado and which provides care, with or without
compensation, £or seven (7) to twelve (12) Children, £rom twenty-
four (24) months to sixteen (16) years oE age, including the
Memo to Planning Commission Page 2
April 14, 1994
caretaker's children not attending full-day school such as a day
care, preschool, day nursery or child care service.
Day care home, sma11. A home which is licensed under the State
of Colorado and which provides care, with or without
compensation, £or not more than six (6) children under the age of
sixteen (16), including the caretaker's children not attending
£ull-day school, such as a day care, preschool, day nursery or
child care service."
The £ollowing table illustrates where each class o£ day care
£acility may locate and under what author3ty (permitted (P) or
special use (S), both prior to Ordinance 945 and currently.
H_7 g'1A ~-~R g-~r. R_9 F_?A F-~ R_~A A-1 A-2
D8y C8i0 Center ,~/ 5/ S/ S/ I R/ S/ S/ I~/ ~/ R/
Small Day Care Center
s/
s/
s(_
s/ ~i
,gi I
~/~ ~ S/~ ~
s/ ci
Large Day Care Home ;i$ ~~s eie S/5 5%S I sig I ~i~ $is
Salall Day Cai'e Home , P/P ~ 7~p ?/P ~ P/P p/p n/n P/P I n/n I p/p p/p ~
Current/Prior to Ordinance 945
As the table illustrates, prior to Ordinance 945, Day Care
Centers were not allowed. Small Day Care Centers were allowed
only in the R-3 and R-3A zones with a SUP, Large Day Care Homes
were allowed in all with an SUP, and Small Day Care Homes were
allowed as a permitted use, as a home occupation.
2 have attached photocopies of Planning Advisory Service Report
No. 422, ZONING FOR CH~LD CARF, American Planning A5sociation,
1989. This report provides an in-depth analysis of zoning
provisions and issues relating to Child Care facilities. I would
draw your attention to page 11 under the subheading "Locations",
where there is specific discussion and recommendations regarding
locating child care £acilities in residential zone districts.
Staff believes that the Special Use Permit Process provides
adequate opportunity £or public input and diligent due process,
as an appropriate mechanism to review proposals for Day Care
Centers and Small Day Care Centers in residential zone districts,
especially with the added legal protest procedure. Therefore, we
do not support the proposed amendment to delete these as special
uses.
If, however, Planning Commission and City Council believe that
additional regulation is necessary, you may want to consider a
provision such as:
A. Limiting Day Care Centers (large and small) to schools and
churches; and/or
B. Limiting location to those residential or agricultural
properties fronting upon collector or arterial streets.
Memo to Planning Commission Page 3
April 14, 1994
A final note, i£ you fail to make a recommendation to City
Council by April 28, then your recommendation is deemed to be £or
approval without comment, pursuant to Wheat Ridge Code o£ Laws,
Section 2-60(c).
GEG:s1w
<pc>ggmemo4/14
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: anning Commission
FROM: len Gidley, Director of Planning & Development
RE: Case No. ZOA-94-3/Special Use Permits & Day Care Centers
in Residential Zones
DATE: April 14, 1994
At their meeting of March 28, City Council adopted a motion to
refer the attached proposed Council Bill to Planning Commission
for public hearing and recommendation. In summary, the proposed
Council Bill would amend the Zoning Ordinance to achieve the
following:
1. Add specific provisions for adjoining property owner LEGAL
PROTEST for Special Use Permit applications the same as
currently applies to rezonings.
2. Delete "Small Day Care Center" and "Day Care Center" from the
list of Special Uses in all residential zone districts and
agricultural zone districts.
Regarding Section 1. of the Council Bill referring to Legal
Protest, staff supports this provision as a Special Use is
similar to rezoning for a specific use allowed by right in a
higher zone class.
Regarding Section 2. of the Council Bill, I believe it would be
appropriate to define the various types of day care facilities
found in our Zoning Ordinance and describe under what
circumstances they are allowed in the residential and
agricultural districts, both currently and prior to Ordinance
945. Pursuant to Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning Ordinance
Section 26-5. Definitions, there are four types of Day Care
facilities defined as follows:
"Day care center. A facility licensed by the State of Colorado,
which provides care of children with or without compensation.
Day care center, small. A facility licensed by the State of
Colorado which is used exclusively for the purpose of providing
care, with or without compensation for seven (7) to twenty-four
(24) children.
Day care home, large. A home which is licensed under the State
of Colorado and which provides care, with or without
compensation, for seven (7) to twelve (12) children, from twenty-
four (24) months to sixteen (16) years of age, including the
Memo to Planning Commission Page 2
April 14, 1994
caretaker's children not attending full-day school such as a day
care, preschool, day nursery or child care service.
Day care home, small. A home which is licensed under the State
of Colorado and which provides care, with or without
compensation, for not more than six (6) children under the age of
sixteen (16), including the caretaker's children not attending
full-day school, such as a day care, preschool, day nursery or
child care service."
The following table illustrates where each class of day care
facility may locate and under what authority (permitted (P) or
special use (S), both prior to Ordinance 945 and currently.
Day Care Center
Small Day Care Center
Large Day Care Home
Small Day Care Home
140TE: ALL PAY CARE, w
As the table illustrates, prior to Ordinance 945; Day Care
Centers were not allowed. Small Day Care Centers were allowed
only in the R-3 and R-3A zones with a SUP, Large Day Care Homes
were allowed in all with an SUP, and Small Day Care Homes were
allowed as a permitted use, as a home occupation.
I have attached photocopies of Planning Advisory Service Report
No. 422, ZONING FOR CHILD CARE, American Planning Association,
1989. This report provides an in-depth analysis of zoning
provisions and issues relating to Child Care facilities. I would
draw your attention to page 11 under the subheading "Locations",
where there is specific discussion and recommendations regarding
locating child care facilities in residential zone districts.
Staff believes that the Special Use Permit Process provides
adequate opportunity for public input and diligent due process,
as an appropriate mechanism to review proposals for Day Care
Centers and Small Day Care Centers in residential zone districts,
especially with the added legal protest procedure. Therefore, we
do not support the proposed amendment to delete these as special
uses.
If, however, Planning Commission and City Council believe that
additional regulation is necessary, you may want to consider a
provision such as:
A. Limiting Day Care Centers (large and small) to schools and
churches; and/or
B. Limiting location to those residential or agricultural
properties fronting upon collector or arterial streets.
Memo to Planning Commission
April 14, 1994
Page 3
A final note, if you fail to make a recommendation to City
Council by April 28, then your recommendation is deemed to be for
approval without comment, pursuant to Wheat Ridge Code of Laws,
Section 2-60(c).
GEG:slw
<pc>ggmemo4/14
NO%E- a % is f~2EIno is Co)U,6C7E1-) To 46 i
TA Day C~eE ~-E,eS
A-~AY5 1>516"
g~ )4CCE 5.50 y SE i 4
J N 14~L Zom- 5 .
CHILDCARE:
IT IS
EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS
Quality childcare is a critical piece to the
puzzle of helping families cope with the
simultaneous demands of child recffing and
economic stability.
--Family First Resource and Referral--
969-9500
Onan Red Rocks Communty College
Family First
Resource and Referral
Joan W. Smith, Director
13300 West Sixth Avenue - Box 22B
Lakewood, Colorado 80401-5398
(303) 988-6160 ext 276
FAMILY FUNCTIONING
A successful family is one that functions in healthy ways; it
supports and nurtures its members so that everyone's needs are
met. Parents pass on values through modeling, discussion,
teaching and problem solving. They know how to express
feelings in healthy ways. They know how to discipline children
and to guide and control behavior in ways that leave self-esteem
intact. Family members are protected from the outside yet
family member(s) in need of special services will have the
connections sought out in their behalf as these families see
themselves as part of a larger social network and they are able
to both give and receive help from this network.
DOES SOCIETY HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO FAMILIES?
The affectionate, stable, and loving families are not random
blessings, the result of some cosmic roll of the dice, nor are
they genetically ordained. The circumstances in which they
develop are in large measure the product of social forces and are
therefore amenable to social action... Social policies that
stimulate the economy, prenatal care, child health services,
child care, preschool education, and improved schools--have a
substantial role in strengthening families.--Within Our Reach,
Lizbeth Schorr
CHILD CARE: THE PARENT'S FIRST PARTNER
1. In the period between the womb and school, one cannot care
for children without educating them, and one cannot educate
them without caring for them.
2. Whatever provisions are made by the nation, the states, or
localities to increase access to a more orderly and
higher quality system of child care and preschool education,
it is children of disadvantaged families who have both
the most to lose and the most to gain.--Within our Reach,
Lizbeth Schorr
Half the mothers of preschool children in this country are
employed outside the home. 79% in Jefferson County. Partnership
between caregivers and parents creates an important and
distinctly different role for each partner. Since parents and
childcare providers are partners in child rearing it is vital
that they appreciate and respect and support each other.
A key term in child rearing today is shared care. The ideal
would be parents and childcare workers, teachers and caregivers
as true partners. All the adults concerned with any one child
come to respect, appreciate, and support each other. Children
can grow and develop in a variety of settings, including their
own homes, family child care and childcare centers. The key word
in any setting is quality.
Child Care in the 90s'1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 28, 1993
RE: Wheat Ridge Infant/Toddler Licensed Child Care Supply and Demand
TO: Colorado 2000 Goal #1 Subcommittee
The enclosed chart is a reflection of the shortage of licensed child care slots for
infant/toddlers when compared to demand.
The data for these charts has been collected from parent's request for child care received
by Family First Resource and Referral. Vacancy data is reflective of the last completed
update of all licensed facilities (May 1993).
GRAPH CATEGORY KEY:
Requests- Total child care request Jan 1992 - April 1993 for
Wheat Ridge
Inf/Reg - Number of child care requests under the age of 2.5
Slots - Number of licensed slots for children over 2.5
May 1993
Inf/Slots - Number of licensed slots for children under 2.5
May 1993
Openings- Number of openings for children over the age 2.5
May 1993
Inf/Opn - Number of openings for children under the age of 2
.5 May 1993
Inf/Tod
Percent
WHEATRIDGE:
Requests 1/92 - 4/93 432 257
59%
Licensed Slots 579 91
14%
Openings over 2.5 25
4%
Openings for under 2.5 5
5%
Income Eligible for CCCAP 61
14%
Wheat Ridge Child Care Requests
Monthly Average *27
N
J~
N
W
~a
Y~
a~
wr
x~
7
tl
8 ~ 8 8 ~ 8 °
f
THE QUIET CRISIS
Of the 12 million children under the age of three
in the United states today, a staggering number
are affected by one or more risk factors that make
healthy development more difficult.
CHANCES IN FAMILY STRUCTURE ARE
TROUBLING
In 1960, only 5 percent of all births in the
United States were to unmarried mothers; by
1988, the proportion had risen to 26 percent.
About every minute, an American adolescent
has a baby; every year, about 1 million ado-
lescents become pregnant.
Divorce rates are rising: In 1960, less than one
percent of children experienced their parents'
divorce each year; by 1986, the percentage
had more than doubled, and by 1993 almost
half of all children could expect to experience a
divorce during childhood and to live an aver-
age of five years in a single-parent family.
Children are increasingly likely to live with just
one parent, usually the mother: In 1960, fewer
than 10 percent of all children under the age of
eighteen lived with one parent; by 1989 almost
a quarter of all children lived with one parent.
Fathers are increasingly absent from the home.
MANY YOUNG CHILDREN LIVE IN POVERTY
One in four infants and toddlers under the age
of three (nearly 3 million children) live in families
with incomes below the federal poverty level.
While the number of children under six
increased by less than 10 percent between
1971 and 1991, the number of poor children
under six increased by more than 60 percent.
MORE CHILDREN LIVE IN FOSTER HOMES
In a mere four years, from 1987 to 1991, the
number of children in foster care jumped by
more than 50 percent-from 300,000 in 1987
to 460,000 in 1991.
Babies under the age of one are the fastest
growing category of children entering foster
care, according to a study conducted in New
York and Illinois.
4
INFANTS AND TODDLERS ARE SPENDING
LESS TIME WITH THEIR PARENTS
Pressures on both parents to work mean that
they have less time with their young children;
more than half of mothers of infants now work
outside the home.
More than 5 million children under the age of
three are in the care of other adults while their
parents work. Much child care for infants and
toddlers is of substandard quality, whether it is
provided by centers, family child care homes,
or relatives.
HEALTH DATA ARE DISCOURAGING
In the United States, nine out of every thousand
infants die before age one-a mortality rate
higher than that of 19 other nations.
The mortality rate is higher for infants born in
minority families: African American babies are
twice as likely to die within the first year of life
as white babies.
In 1992, rates of immunization against com-
mon childhood diseases among two-year-olds
were only 30 percent in some states; in most
states, they were below 60 percent.
PHYSICAL ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND
UNINTENTIONAL INJURY ARE COMMON
One in three victims of physical abuse is a
babHess than a year old. In 1990, more
one-year-olds were maltreated than in any
previous year for which we have data.
Almost 90 percent of children who died of
abuse and neglect in 1990 were under the age
of five; 53 percent were less than a year old.
The leading cause of death among children
aged one to four is unintentional injury.
SOURCES:
America's children: Economic perspectives and policy options.
Science 255:41-46, 1992.
Children's Defense Fund. The State oFAmenco's Children 1992.
Washington, DC, 1992.
D. Daro and K. McCurdy. Current Trends in Abuse Reporting
and Fatalities: The Results of the 1990 Annual Fifty-State
sI-AKIIN(c rruNn
JE'FFCO-HLTH-ADM-LKWD ID:2397088
Nei(.
a L Newnmm R
E. Lubell p r
NOV 10'93 17:26 No.003 P.02
le v~- Gay
]Facts
Pockets of Child Poverty Dot Metro Area
The Piton Foundation, a private operating
IbUildatlnil, is analyzing the 1990 census data in
preparation for a report on poverty in the Denver
\Setropulitan area to he released later this year.
The tbUndation is compiling and analyzing data
from the 1990 U.S. Census, comparable statistics
from the 1980 Census, and other state and local
data. This will lie the most comprchensiye
neighborhood-by neighborhood analysis of'
pocern• in Denver since the 1980 Census. In
advance of the publication of its report, the
foundation is publishing a series oi'Ncighborhood
Fact Sheets featuring some of the data highlights.
The topic of this second edition of Neighborhood
Facts is child pocern'.
Ranks of Poor Children Sivell
with Declining Wages, Benefit Cuts
and Rise in Single Parents
Child poverty in the Denver metropolitan area
rase dramatically during the 1990s. By 1990
more than one in seven metro area children (13.1
percent) was poor. The total number of children
lining in pocern' reached nearly 61,000, 44 percent
more than in 1980. When the 1990 census was
conducted.,t fancily ofthrec was considered to be
poor Wits total income was less than $9.885.)
Child Poverty Rates for Metro Counties
1989
Cbmtar in V a. q
pilar rhildrnt tirna 1980
Adams
......14.5`e.
.59";,
Arapahoe
7.8%
v53%
liuttldfr
........9,5".
?T:,,
Demer
......2/.4:.
6%
Dou lj%.--
- AY..
letitr>na
........7 4;.
64"..
Child ppvern• in Denver increased to such a
degree that the cin•'s pocern, rate was greater titan
that of'1Vashington, DC: and virtually the saute as
Los Angeles. Demer's 1990 child pocern' rate teas
27.4 percent, compared with 25.5 percent for
Washington, DC and 27.8 percent for Los Angles.
While the child pocern• rate in Denver (27.4
percent) was much higher than in anv of the
surrounding metro counties, wiihin the other five
counties there were "pockets of child poverty"
where the pocern• rate was much higher than the
rate lbr the county. For example,
in Caanmvn• Cihy 1he• 1990 child pave•rm rat[ mas34.4'','
is Euednrood, it mat 16.5%
in Lakewood, it was 11?%, cold
ill tt'In ns Ridge, the child porertp rate was 11.1%
Child Poverty Rates for
Metro Area Cities, 1979 - 1989
1979
198'9
Aurora
6.9
10.8 1
1111ltlder
_..11.6
13.4
i'immcrccCirc..
........16.4
34.4
1) en%er
.......20.2
27.4
F.nclclcoud
I0.6
16.5
"c, lden
..........4.1
10.5
L.1ie r1Nnl
..........5.4
.11.2.,
I.inlenm
..........73
9.6
Ni,idielcttn
..........6.9
7.i
I imm
84
ll.]
1Ce+unilwvl
_.6.1
8.6
~tl hcat Ridge
..........8.4
11.1 .
E~yewa~--
~
13.8
%wm, LA CnuRY.
,<7
EiA 1198VCVL1c Va.
1410,114, 1]-,
a ~t40,
[J
~vo aFr
7 Nay'
3032908005 CORRA
NATIONAL CHILD CARE STAFFING STUDY REVISITED
426 P08 JUN 20 '94 13:21
FIGURE 1
Average Wages of Child Care Teaching Staff, 1992
$60,000 _ _
S50,000
Annual 540,000 -
--Earnings
$30,000 _ _ -
$20,000 _ _ .
$10,000 _
SO - -
NOTE: Fuume anrwal earnings based
on 35 hours per week/50 weeks per
year - the average work week of
teaching staff in the anginal sample.
In the orig-mad smople, 34% of of
teaching staff had completed some col-
logo education and22%had complet-
ed a BA. or more. Forty-four percent
of assistants and 26% of teachers had
earned a high sctoal diploma a less,
31% of assistants and 44% of teachers
had comphred some college and
18.5% of assistants and 31% of leach-
ers had completed a BA of more.
FIGURE 2
Average Wages of Civilian Labor Force, 1992
I
'f
NOTE full-lime annual
$50,000
{
E'fl
earrings based on 35
hours a more per
week/S2 weeks Per
$40,000
year. All wages are
Annual
1992 dollars. Includes
Earnings $30,000 _ _ _
s
workers 18 years and
older.
$20,600
Bu-
. B.S. Deporiamn of LAW,
of tahy Shaw. 19911
Curren Populooee Proaa
,loom' income at Namrho ds,
$10,000 _ _ _
PamiBes, and Perae node
Burled shotm. sorks P-60, No
Iso. T"a
se___
Gr.Idar
f
female
Gr. labor
hors female
Gr. labor
force femok
Gy,laba
fare note
G..low
farce rate
fom mole
col
ora
w/B.S
l
w/same
talle
w/8Aor
mom
w/H.5
diplomo
W/ some
m0ege
o wl 11A
more
ama
diD
r
8
Irwst aad Highest paid lowest paid KOO paa
itcIaLing lea her teo6er
sash ng
aRlitan assistant
New High/Scope Perry Preschool. Project Findings
Document Effectiveness of High Quality Early
Childhood Programs Through Age 27
Significant Benefits: The High/
Scope Perry Preschool Study High/Scope Perry Preschool Project:
Through Age 27 is a landmark
study chronicling the long-term Major-. Findings at Age 27
success ofthe Perry Preschool pro-
gram. Given high quality preschool
experiences, children born into
Poverty have experienced lasting
benefits not only for themselves Completed 12th grade
but also for society, both socially.
and economically. These'findings
include significant benefits in, >db_#arregts;E,
terms of
• increased number of years of
education;
• increased.earnings -and eco-
nomic status,
increased socialresponsibility,
• increased family stability,
Earned $2,000+/
month
Owned a home
• reduced crime rates,
Received welfare as
• reduced drug use, and
an,adult
• reduced needforsocial services.
0 Program
Purchase at least two copies of
0 No Program '
SignificantBenefitstoda r-
7 . 1%
2001o 40% 60% 80% 10001o
y -one
yourself and one for your favorite Source: L.J. Schweinhart LLP. Weikart, (November 1993). Public policy legislator! Report. Success by Empowerment: The.HighlScope Perry Preschool: Study,
Through Age 27, Young Children, 49(1), 54-59. - -
To order
Significant Benefits: The Highl
Scope Perry Preschool Study - Flea
through-Age 27, by L d Schwem i
hart, H-V. Barnes,. and D.P. -bp
Weikart with W.S. Barnett and The Clin ton
A.S. Epstein, is #10 in the High/
Sco eEd ' 1R stresses five "11
te
health reform plat
p uca Iona search roun- ciples: security, simplicity, quali-
dation Monograph Series, It is ty, choice, savings; and responsi-
available for $25 from Monograph bility. There is a strong emphasis
Series, High/Scope Foundation, on preventive care. The plan would
600 North River Road, Ypsilanti, affect early childhood programs in
MI 48198; call 313-485-0704. at least two major ways. The plan
Also, look for a five-page sum- places a strong emphasis on pri-
mary of the study's key findings mary care and preventive services
published as the "Public Policy Re- for children. Fore xample, all den-
port" in the November 1993 Young tal services for children would be
Children. 7f covered under the plan but not for
adults. By calling for universal
coverage, the plan would ensure
i.nai, aui eany cnuanow practiti6 ,
' -
ners in centers and family child'.
care would receive health insur-
ance coverage. A number ofcen-
ters may qualify for government
assistance toward healthcare costs
as small businesses:in which the
majority of employees earn rela-
tively low wages. As a self-em-
ployed business owner, familychild
care providers would pickup both
the employer and employee shares
of their coverage; these expenses
would be fully tax deductible..7k
5
oan
mm~
c
H m
to
A
v
m
fA
w
M
J N
c a rn
O
N
O
» 0
a F. N
°
o
m°
0
11 co m
ooc0o0
a°
0
o
~ y>
go o
o
w <
mm»
m
-3
mmm
w
3
3~o
d0
s
amo
w°o
0
Jam
H
(n 3 2 -
.
m
Q m O
3 0,0
m
m
m
0
0
w
N m
(n J
2
;j
m
D
J N
a
m
m N
,
. S 0 O
0- y
w
Q
o N
ccn
a
o
0
'o U
ZZ
m w x: -
0 J
Er m< 0°
Z
O
jp
0
°
3 o
w m m
n30
m
0
3
m3
i"^~
mt
°
0
~y
w
3D~
oma00
z
a
~m
3D13
0
Na
=
mw
m
.
m'
mo
2
m mo
m
c
y
mm~
f.
y
g
v
i
a
o
°
m
m
~3»
o
>
m
0
°
a
a
m
N
J
N
aN
a
3
O
0
J D
m
J 2.'°
to
d
s
a
a
a
a
a
o
m
N
5
o
y
W
?
!A
~
y N N
O
N
O
A
W
f
J
~
m
0'a
c
o
o
N
w
m 3
<
d
J J w
aNo
N
°m
o
°
m e
m o
-0
m°
o
F m ~
°
0
m
0
U-0
m
m 3. a
a
m 0
n
m
;
a o
o
my
a~_m
o
~N
03
n
a
i
3 c
00
w
yo
o
° o
J m
d o
° m
0
y w 9
-
3
a
w
J
o
C)
o
~~01
l
mm
m;E
CL
0
w
a
S
ry N
m o
N
m
m
m
O
N
°
-0 0
3
m
m
f0
w
C
a
N
d
N
(
x
y
I
"
I
ox -n
O W E
~O c
a0
m g
C N
a r
~Dm
"3
N
O
0
3
S
co
m^
m'
0
mm
N0
Q
S
O
O
n .
S
a
N
N
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
=m
m
m
m
0m
0m
0m
m
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
3 <
<
<
<
c <
c <
w <
<
Q
Q
Q
Q
Iz
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
mz
m~
C
A
N
N
N
A
A
cn
ca
N
N
ca
N
N
W
N
3
A
!
3
M
O
O
S
N
3
N
N.
N
N
N
3
N
0
o
o
$
c
o
m
m
m
m
m
m
0
m
p
°
O
O
O
O
°
7
C
C
O
O
>
>
N
H
~
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
C
_
O
J
a
m
w
N
7
m
7
7
.
m
m
O
CL
0
0
N
N
N
CL
N
C
N
O
O
O
N
O
M
N
N
w
m
N
o
m
J
m
m
>
J
J
o
o
a
S
j
j
>
A
co
0
0
»
w
o
o
w
o
»
»
m
N
N
O
O
O
m
~1
m
(O
V
-N
f0
f0
N
N
J
N
D'
O'
41
°
a
a
a
b
m
°
m
m
o-
v
o
o
°
°
o'
3
w
m
a
a
w
3
°
d
m
°
°
3
3
0
0
w
<
m
m
m
y
b
°
J
o
o
J
J
d
m
0
'
m
a
m
o
o
o
m
.
9
D
D
3
3
a
a
<
o
0
C
C
y
F
N
J
m
F
O
m
c
a
a
o
'D
m
o
o
3
m
0-
o
-o
5
a
o
n
m
m
3
m
3
3
»
0
0
EF
0
n
o
a
p
a
m
>
>
3
0
m
D
_
D.
m
°
o
0
°
J
3
m
o
v
w
m
o
m
Q
a
N
0
3
0
0
o•
m'
4
°
o
N
N
N
m
J'
O
O
O
O
a
N
m
o
c
c
J
m
-
3
3
m
3
"
m
o
c
a
s
w
m
m
N
m
N
J
o
co
m
m
O
m
N
O
0
D
N
O
m
N
m
m
N
O
O
m
C
N
0
o
C
_
m
:O
J
_S
m
m
N
O
O
a
C)
tT
.0
o
m
m
m
o
°
m
m
J
J
o
CL
m
w
<
0
O
W
y
'O
D
a
w
O
0
O
m
C
J
O
~
m
C
~
OJ
J
w
S
a
m
a
a
~
a
m
m
N
m
Adlk
1MBE Red Rocks Community College
FAMILY FIRST RESOURCE AND REFERRAL
Who Will Care For
Our Children?
Bringing families, providers and employers
together to enhance quality child care.
Services Available:
For Families:
• Three levels of service to parents for child care referrals:
Free Level: Available to all families in Jefferson, Park, Clear
Creek and Gilpin Counties. Counselors available by phone to
educate parents on types of child care and how to select child
care options which meet your family needs. Parent may request
up to two zip code listings of licensed child care in their area.
(Includes both homes and centers)
Vacancy Level: For a minimal fee, based on family income, a
Family First Counselor will contact providers on behalf of the
family requesting the search to verify immediate openings. This
service can be completed within 24 hours of the parent's payment
being received.
Enhanced Level: A parent needing child care in the six-county
metro area may request this service. The fee entitles the parent
to one year of service, which includes a customized child care
search which will include back up care, and sick sick child care
options as needed. The family may also request a search for an
In-Home provider or Nanny at this level.
• Printed material on how to select quality child care is available at all
levels.
• Computerized Database of Family Service Agencies: Referrals
available for multiple family needs in Jefferson County.
• Team Parenting Program: Training of licensed family child care
providers as mentors to teen parents in their home school
community.
• Special Events and Workshops: "Quality Child Care: How to Find It
- How to Keep It." This evening workshop is held quarterly at Red
Rocks Community College.
Call Cami at Family First, 969-9500, for details on upcoming events.
Toll-free number for parents and providers who live outside the
Denver area: 1-800-436-3665. OVER
For Providers:
• Child Care Provider Education and Training:
Approved Pre-Licensing Training for Family Child Care Providers: Sixteen-hour course meets
state requirements for licensing.
First Aid and Infant/Child CPR and CPR Recertification
Substance Abuse Prevention Training: 5.5 hours of training available statewide in 17 sites each
year. Help young children acquire healthy, life-coping skills.
Preschool and School-Age Child Care Certificate Programs: Specialized hands-on seminars for
providers in family child care and center care settings.
Caring for Children with Special Needs: Four-session seminars held each semester.
Child Development Associate Training: Advanced training for family child care or center
providers. Twelve-college-credit-hour course meets the requirements of the Council for Early
Childhood Professional Recognition for persons seeking the CDA Credential. Successful
completion is accepted for Group Leader Qualification by the State of Colorado.
Good Beginnings-Infant/Toddler Training: Meets the state's training requirements for the
infant/toddler license. Available for college credit.
Free Listing in the Family First Child Care Resource and Referral Data Base: Providers may
call our 24-hour update line to keep information current in our data base, 988-61k60, ext. 316.
Provider Warm Line-969-9500: Staffed by experienced child care personnel, providers may
seek advice on licensing, marketing, or behavior problems with children in care.
For Employers:
Affordable solutions for businesses that recognize the negative effects of employees with child care
problems. Businesses who contract with Family First to assist their employees with child care
referrals can expect the following services:
Phone access to experienced parent counselors who will conduct a customized child care
search on behalf of the employee. The employee may expect referrals of providers who meet
their needs within 48 hours of initial contact.
Specialized child care recruitment to meet non-traditional needs of families.
Work site seminars on parenting or family issues, including how to select child care.
For more information on any of the above services, please call Family First:
In the Denver area, 969-9500 Outside Denver, 1-800-436-3665
Inclusion of any provider in the referral system does not imply recommendation of that service, nor
does it guarantee accuracy of information supplied to Family First by the provider. Selection of child
care services which provide quality and meet the family's needs are the responsibility of the parents.
An AA/EEO educational institution 3/94
INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER EDWARDS
COUNCIL BILL NO. 48 ORDINANCE NO._
Series of 1994
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CODE OF
LAWS OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE RELATING TO SPECIAL USES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE,
COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26-6.(B) Special Uses
is hereby repealed and reenacted as follows:
(5) ~~ Council reSiew. City Council shall review and
decide upon all requests for special uses upon recommendation of
planning commission for approval or upon appeal by an applicant of
a recommendation for denial by planning commission. Special uses
amy only be approved by passage of an ordinance, following the
City's standard ordinance adoption procedures. Notice of public
hearing shall be in the manner provided in subsection 26-6(F)(1).
City council, in addition to consideration of the planning
commission record, shall hear additional evidence and testimony
presented, and either pass, pass~with modifications, or deny the
ordinance, its decision being based upon all evidence presented,
with due consideration of the criteria for review.
in the event of a protest against such changes, signed by
the owners of twenty (20) percent or more of the area:
(a) of the property inaluded within the proposed chanqe; or
(b) Of those immediately adjacent to tha rear or any side of the
property, extendiaq one huadred (100) feet from the property;
or,
(c) Of those directly opposite across the street from the
property, extending one hundred (100) feet from the street
frontaqe of such opposite property.
Suah chanqes ahall not become effactive escept by the favorable
vote of threa-fourths of the entire city council. Where laad
within the area proposed for change, or adjacent or opposite land,
as defined, above is owned by the City of Wheat Ridge, such
property shall be exclu8ed itt the aomputing the required twenty
(20) percent, and owners of noncity land withia the one-hundred-
foot limit, as defined above, shall ba considered adjacent or
opposite despite such intervettittg City land. The writtett protest
to such changes shall be submitted to the City Council no later
than the hearinq on the proposed special use permit.
Ordinance No.
Series of 1994
Section 2: Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Section 26-10 through Section
26-25, and Section 26-18 and 19, subsections (E) Special Uses, are
hereby amended by repeal of the following special uses:
~~,Sr<.,~~ :~j ~c :~__, ~.~ ~z-~=n~=~'-~
Section 3. Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Sections 26-16 and 26-17,
subsections (E) Special Uses, are hereby amended by repeal of the
following special use:
nE~i _~~ :--^cciracr~
section 4. Safetv Clause. Tha City Council hereby finds,
determines, and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under
the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is
promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and
th~t this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and
safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare.
The City Council further determines that the ordinance bears a
rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be
attained.
Section 5. Severabilitv, If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or
part of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances shall for any reason by adjudged by a court of
competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgement shall not affect,
impair or invalidate the remainder of this ordinance or its
application to.other persons or circumstances.
Section 6. Sunersession Clause. If any provision, requirement or
standard established by this Ordinance is found to conflict with
similar provisions, requirements or standards found elsewhere in
the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge, which are in existence
as of the date of adoption of this Ordinance, the provisions,
requirements and standards herein shall supersede and prevail.
section 7. This ordinance shall take ePfect upon approval by City
Council.
Ordinance No.
Series of 1994
FORWARDED TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON MARCH 28, 1994 BY A VOTE OF 7-1.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to
on this day of , 1994, ordered publlshed
in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the city of Wheat
Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for
, 1994 at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council
Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by
a vote of _ to _, this day of , 1994.
SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of , 1994.
DAN WILDE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Wanda Sang, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY
KATHRYN SCHROEDER, CITY ATTORNEY
ist Publication:
2nd Publication:
Wheat Ridge Sentinel
Effective Date:
Planning Commission Minutes Page 10
April 21, 1994 a
4
the time of Certificate of Occupancy. He added that the property
is within the City of Wheat Ridge and all notification and
posting requirements have been met, therefore there is
jurisdiction to hear this case.
Mr. Gidley stated that the public improvements time frame issue
was not controlled by the applicant, but by City Council. He
doubted that Commission could make that a condition. It could be
made a recommendation to City Council, however.
Commissioner CERVENY agreed that this was a recommendation and
not a requirement. Motion carried 5-0.
Vice Chairperson ECKHARDT called a short recess. Meeting
reconvened at 10:05 p.m.
2. Case No. ZOA-94-3• A proposal to amend Wheat Ridge Code
of Laws, Chapter 26. Zoning Code relating to right of
legal protest for Special Use Permits and Day Care
Centers as Special Uses within residential and
IF agricultural zone districts.
Y Mr. Gidley informed Commission that this case had been referred
by City Council as a legislative proposal. He passed around a
copy of the proposed Council Bill. He reviewed his memo
summarizing the proposed changes.
Commissioner CERVENY asked if the proposed regulations were
consistent with most other communities?
Mr. Gidley stated yes, it is. He added that the chart, in one
area, is misleading in that with day care centers and small day
care centers the chart states that they were not allowed in
residential zone districts prior to ordinance 945. However, they
were allowed as an accessory use to a church.
Commissioner CERVENY asked if they were allowed as a freestanding
facility.
Mr. Gidley stated no.
Commissioner CERVENY asked for further explanation of a "legal
protest".
Mr. Gidley did so.
Commissioner LANGDON asked Mr. Gidley if this change would
accomplish anything.
Mr. Gidley stated he believed it would. He explained that he
believes it is a better process than rezoning. He added he
thought more control would be maintained by leaving the zoning as
Planning Commission Minutes'
Lr~ ~
April 21, 1994 Page 11
it is, but allowing one additional use. Mr. Gidley stated it
would be beneficial for the neighborhood, since an illogical zone
district would not be created. Spot zoning would not be an issue
and neighbors would have the right of due process.
Geraldine Faes, 6205 West 35th Avenue was sworn in. Ms. Faes
read a written statement into the record. She spoke in favor of
approval of the proposed Council Bill.
vice Chairman ECKHARDT asked about Ms. Faes' comment about day
care centers being on the same ordinance with pawn shops. Would
you feel differently had the two been on separate ordinances?
Ms. Faes answered yes, she would have. She added that she would
have had an opportunity to have input on the subject. Ms. Faes
noted that the ordinance had not been published with the day care
section included.
vice Chairman ECKHARDT asked Ms. Faes if her opinion of having
day care centers in residentially-zoned areas by special use
permit would change?
Ms. Faes stated that if the process was followed correctly, she
would have no problem.
Susan Seeds, 6147 West 35th Avenue was sworn in. Ms. Seeds
showed on the screen the table on page two of Mr. Gidley's memo
dated April 14, 1994. She had highlighted the changes made, and
pointed out how drastic the changes were. Ms. Seeds had a sheet
entitled "Conditions Specified in Ordinances Regarding Day Care
Facilities in Other Cities" which she passed around and reviewed.
Ms.,Seeds recommended removing Sections 4 and 5 from the Pawn
Shop Ordinance and bringing the ordinance back to Planning
Commission with the considerations listed in the above-mentioned
sheet. She further recommended that Planning Commission consider
adding those items listed under "Other Conditions to Consider".
Ms. Seeds agreed that it was important to allow legal protest
with Special Use Permit applications.
Mr. Gidley asked for a copy of the sheet Ms. Seeds was reading
from.
Ken Lamkin, 6147 West 35th Avenue was sworn in. Mr. Lamkin read
into the record a letter prepared by Louise Turner, who could not
be present. A copy was provided for the record. Mr. Lamkin
stated he agreed with the letter and with the previous speakers.
Dorothy Thompson , 3014 Chase Street was sworn in. Ms. Thompson
read a prepared resolution dated March 14, 1994, from Wheat Ridge
United Neighborhoods into the record. A copy was provided for
the record. Additionally, Ms. Thompson read into the record a
Planning Commission Minutes Page 12
April 21, 1994 1~4
letter read to City Council on February 28, 1994. A copy was
provided for the record. Ms. Thompson urged Commission to
approve the ordinance forwarded to Planning Commission by City
Council and to remove Sections 4 and 5 from the pawn shop
ordinance.
Louise Turner and Mr. and Mrs. Burke pile were not present to
speak.
Dick Doll, 3220 Ingalls Street was sworn in. Mr. Doll stated
that he was in agreement with the previous speakers. He was in
favor of approval of the Council Bill currently under
consideration. Mr. Doll asked for a definition of a "collector
or arterial" street.
Mr. Gidley stated collector and arterial streets are designated
on the Major Streets Plan, which is an adopted public document.
For example, arterial streets would be Sheridan, Wadsworth,
Kipling and Youngfield, I-70 and Ward Road. Collector streets
generally are most of the east-west streets i.e., West 32nd
Avenue, West 38th Avenue, West 44th Avenue and a portion of
Harlan Street.
Mr. Doll was in favor of incorporating the right to legal protest
and adding some standards or criteria relative to limiting
location to those residential or agricultural properties fronting
collector or arterial streets.
Shirley Hei hton, 6160 West 35th Avenue was sworn in. Ms.
Heighton stated she was in agreement with the other speakers.
She was in favor of a specific ordinance for day care centers and
the right of legal protest.
Discussion followed.
Mr. Gidley summarized. that a Special Use Permit process provided
more protection for the neighborhood than a rezoning with the
addition of the legal protest, because it places controls on the
use in that location, it also is limiting to the specific
opertor
ownertofetheaproperty. If
the operator of a Special Use.Permit leaves/quits the business
for whatever reason, the Special Use ceases to exist. Anyone
wishing to open a similar business would be required to go
through the entire process again.
Vice Chairman ECKHARDT suggested that regarding the case under
consideration, the issues be considered separately; the legal
protest issue; and, deletion of "small day care center" and "day
care center" from.the list of special uses.
Planning Commission Minutes
April. 21
1994
Page 13
,
0
4
Discussion followed.
Commissioner JOHNSON moved regarding Case No. ZOA-94-3
a
,
.proposed amendment to the Zoning ordinance, that Section l
Cit
(5)
y Council Review of the proposed Council Bill be added,
Section
2
that
s
and 3 be deleted and forward the proposed Counc
to City
Council with
il Bill
.
a recommendation for approval, as
recommended by staff.
Commissioner LANGDON seconded the motion. Motion carried
5-0.
8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
9. OLD BUSINESS
1. Code of Ethics
Commissioner LANGDON suggested that this item be postponed
all Commis
i
until
s
on members can be present. Consensus was that
item be postponed until all members
this
are present.
2. Bruce II
Mr. Gidley stated there was no particular hurry to discuss
item.
this
10. NEW BUSINESS
1. Mr. Gidley suggested that a study session be scheduled
for our regular meeting, May 5, since no cases are
scheduled for public hearing on that date.
2. The Takings Bill
Mr. Gidley stated a revision to state statutes was being proposed
creating a "Takings Bill". The government would be required to
pay an individual when any regulation imposed by a governmental
agency reduces the right of an individual to use his land or
places a condition upon that individual that costs him money.
Examples would be zoning regulations, subdivision regulations,
environmental regulations, etc.
Discussion followed.
11. DISCUSSION AND DECISION ITEMS
12. COMMITTEE & DEPARTMENT REPORTS
CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
CASE NO.: ZOA-93-4
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
City of Wheat Ridge
LOCATION: City-wide
REQUEST: Case No. ZOA-93-4: A public hearing was held regarding
a proposed amendment to Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26.
Zoning Ordinance, relating to right of legal protest for Special
Use Permits and Day Care Centers as Special Uses within
residential and agricultural zone districts.
WHEREAS, The City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division has submitted
a list of factors to be considered with the above request, and
said list of factors is attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference, and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, there was testimony received at a public hearing heard
by the Planning Commission and such testimony provided additional
facts.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the facts presented and conclusions
reached, it was moved by Commissioner JOHNSON seconded by
Commissioner LANGDON that Section 1. (5) City Council Review of
the proposed Council Bill be added, that Sections 2. and 3. be
deleted, as recommended by staff, and the proposed Council Bill
be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation for Approval.
VOTE: Yes: Eckhardt, Cerveny, Langdon, Crumpton
and Johnson
No: None
I, Sandra Wiggins, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning
Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly adopted by a 55=0 vote of the members present
at their regular meeting held in the Council Chambers of the
Municipal Building, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, on the 21st day of
April, 1994.
Robert Eckhardt, Vice Chairperson Sandra Wiggins, Secretary
WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
resozoa934
ANN CIBULSKIS AND MARSHA RITIDORF
,/ O ~l ~1G
~''~
~~
=0 ~
~~ C -~ _ ~
~ CA ~ _
:.
_~~
,
. ~.. ~ ~~ ~ ~
,~~-.~.~~
~~..u~~ ~~~~'~~~~
Y - ~' }.
~.: . • _„ -r _._°. . r-
~
~
.
~
~ -~
~., ., American Pianning Association
~
'~ p A C Planning Advisory Service
„ x i AJ Report Aumber 422
~~ ~
~.. ~ 3 _ _
. ~~. ~.__ ~
Zoning for Child Care
Ann Cibulskis and Marsha Ritzdorf
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Federal Policies and Programs ........................................................_................................ 2
State and Loca] Programs ........................................................................•---.................. 2
Comprehensive Municipal Stategies .................................................................................. 4
Local Zoning for Child Care Facilities .........................................................:..............••-•---. 7
Zoning for Child Care Homes ......................................................................................... 9
Zoning for Child Care Centers ....................................................................................... 11
Zoning Exactions and Bonuses ...............................................................................~--••--- 15
Private-Sector Sponsorship of Child Care ......................................................................._. 19
Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 21
Appendixes
1. Child Care Law Center Model State Preemption Statute ................................................... 23
2. Local Child Care Ordinances for Olympia, Washington, and Salem, Oregon ......................... 24
3. Directory of State Agencies That License Child Care Facilities ............................................ 26
4. Policy Implementation Principles of the American Planning Association
on the Provision of Child Care ................................................................................... 29 •
Zoning for Child Care
3
a
~
a
In U.S. society, women have historically been the primary
caretakers of children (with assistance from extended fam-
ilies), but this is changing. In 1986, for instance, nearly two-
thirds of all women with children under the age of 18 worked
outside the home, according to the Census Bureau. That
same year, nearly one-half of the mothers of children under
the age of one were working. The majority of these mothers
worked full-time. Eighty-two percent oE employed, single
mothers and 68 percent,of employed married mothers held
ful]-time jobs.
The complex issues associated with the siting of child care
homes and centers will soon be, if they are not already, on
the agenda of planning commissions nationwide. In a 1987
Urban Land article evaluating Ehe forces that will shape the
real estate and development markets in the next decade,
child care is recognized as"a major issue. "Few developers
previously considered including day care facilities in their
projects, but such considerationswi[I soon become routine.
The number of children under 15 will rise steadily. And their
mothers will, by and large, work outside the home."
Sodologists estimate that 80 percent or more oE mothers will
be in the work force by the late 1990s.
For these mothers and Families, finding aEfordable, quality
child care requires considerable effort. (For the purposes of
clarity and accuracy, the terzn "child care,"rather than "day
care' will be used throughout the report-unless the term is
within a quote from another source-to describe Yhe less-
than-24-hour care that a child receives from a person other
than his or her parents.) The number of children neec~ing
care greatly exceeds the number of legally established spaces.
Even when the nvmber of "hidden" (i.e., unregisEered and
unlicensed) spaces is considered, as well as the number of
children cared for by relatives, there is still a geat need. A
conservative estimate by the National Commission on
Working Women is that a half-million preschoolers are left
at home alone at least part of the day and that approximately
7 million six- to 12-year-old children have no supervision
until their parents return home.
The entry of a great number of middle-class mothers into
the work force has brought needed attention to this im-
balance in child care supply and demand. These middle-class
families have more disposable income and are more
poliEicaIly sophisticated and poxrerful than the poor fami-
lies who have faced child caze pro6lems for a long time. In-
deed, the media (and advertisers) have responded to the
plight of the middle-class mother. They have made child care
a high-profile issue-one that got a lot of exposure in the
1988presidential campaign and one that continues to get at-
tention in local political agendas. So the issue is not whether
child care merits attention, but ratherwhat is the best, most
efEicient, and most economica] solution to the lack of child
care.
The solution to the problem is not likely to come from the
marketplace alone. An Apri] 1989 Hazris Poll found that 87
percent of Americans feel that "there must be a joint effort
between private employers and government on the federal,
state, and local level to meet thiscountry's child care needs."
The tremendous imbatance between demand and supply
means that the market will most likely not be able to create
a sufficient number of child care facilifies fast enough. Some
businesses have begun to provide child care facilities or~
funds for their employees in an effort to respond to the needs
of their employees. Most business initiatives have been
voluntary, sparked by either employee requests for child
care support or by the experiences of upper management.
The media attention, the inability of the private sector to
fGlly respond to the demand, the sheer number of families
that need child care, and the political clout of the middle
class have brought increasing pressure on state and local
governments to support and encourage the establishment of
child caze facilities. In many communities, this pressure has
resulted in local zoning and land-use changes that have im-
proved Ehe availability of child care.
Beyond their response to their constituencies, there are
other reasons why politicians and oEficials have had to give
increased attention to the affordability and availability of
child care:
Child Care and EconomicDevelopment. Some local gov-
ernment officials have come to recognize that providing
good child care is also good economic development
policy. Many major companies hire firms to evaluate
community child care qualiey, accessibility, and affor-
dabffity. Evidence of commitment to child care and the
ease with which it can be found (or developed) aze becom-
ing common criteria in a business s search for an ap-
propriate location.
Child Caze and Local Employment. Facilitating the crea-
tion of child care facilities can generate local jobs-
individuals can take children into theirhomes and entre-
preneurs can run centers as self-employment ventures. An
important caution about promoting child care as a means
of creating jobs is in order here, however. Chffd care
workers do not make a lot oE money; the majority earn
minimum wage or less, According to the Bureau of Labor
Stafistics, the turnover rate of child care workers is in ex-
cess of 40 percent annually, as compazed to an average 20
percent among other occupations. For this reason, child
care is not a viable primary occupation for most pro-
viders. Such employment often is used only to supple-
ment the wages of the household's primary wage earner.
Child Care and Welfare Reform. In the past, the federal
govemment and state and local governments have also
overlooked the role that the Y... ~:~:on of child care can
play in welfare reform. However, the Family Support
Act, which goes into eEfect staYe by state no later than Oc-
tober 1990, requires that child care assistance be part of
all state welfare training programs. As states implement
their new prog;ams, the availability of child care wil]
become an even more important issue.
This report is designed to show planners, planning com-
mission members, and elected offidals how they can provide
their community with quality child caze while balancing the
needs and desires of other residents. Ihe Eollowing section
provides information about federal programs and policies.
The report then reviews state and local policies and pro-
grams and discusses how they are being used to improve the
provuion of chiId care. That review includes a look at com-
prehensive municipal strategies being employed in cities like
Sacramento and Irvine, California; Seattle, and Toronto.
Finally, the report discusses zoning provisions for child care
facilities, beginning with an ocerview of local policy
statements and definitions and moving on to specific provi-
sions for child care homes and child care centers. The report
concludes with a look at exaction and bonus programs used
to encourage the provision of child care facilities and a
discussion of private-sector sponsorship of child care.
F£DERAL POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
Although the federal government is the major source of
government funding for child caze, its commitment to child
care beyond funding has traditionally been limited by a
reluctance to trespass on the role of the family in rearing
children. For instance, there are no federal licensing stan-
dards for chiId care facilities. The attention given to the issue
of child care in the 1988 presidential campaign, however,
may make the federal government a more active player in
the provision of child caze in the near future.
In 1974, Title XX of the Social Security Act waspassed to
match state funds for chffd care and to increase eligibiliry and
payxnent standards for child care. However, these funds
were tied to stringent regulations and application forms.
With income limits on participation, the policy continued
to be one of using child care as a means to remove families
from the welfare rolls, rather than as a social service to pro-
vide continuing support for child development.
By 1980, about $800 million of Social Services Block
Grants (Tide XX) funds had been used for child care. At that
time, however, child care became a victim of federal budget
cuts. The Federal government recognized that it could not
pull out entirely; its compromise was to provide a tax break
for Families who used child care while it cut back on Tide XX
funding. The dependent care tax credit allows a credit of up
to $2,400 per yeaz per child on a sliding scale based on family
income, and the employer child care tax provisions allow
pretax deductions from an employee's salary to be used to
pay for child caze. By 1486, the tax credit provided more
than half of al] federa] child care support.
7here are provisions for child care in a number of federal
programs. (See box.) It isclear from this sample that federal
support is often indirect and less than adequate. As noted
above, however, child care has become a political football.
Advocates for child care are using its current popularity to
push for reforms and increased funding from the federal
government,
Advocates have chosen three specific goals:
Restoring funds to Tide XX as the largest source of sup-
port for child caze for low-income families;
Securing subsidies that will enable AFDC mothers who
are participating in a training or work program to buy
quality child care (as mentioned above, the passage of the
Family Support Act in 1988 provides Eor such subsidies);
Increasing funding For the HeadStart Program by $131
million. Project HeadStazt currently provides care and
education for children from low-income families for part
of the day (this program currently serves only 14 percent
of eligible children).
The scope of any increased federal involvement in child
care wil] probably be limited. Nonetheless, of several bills
pending before Congress, it is clear that some measure will
be approved to increase funding of child care. As of January
1990, a compromise bill (known as the Act for Better Child
Care or the ABC bill~ was before Congress that would ex-
tend tax credits for child care, expand Title XX Social Ser-
vices, increase spending for HeadStart, expand ear]y
chi]dhood education, and establish grants for child caze pro-
viders. The House Ways and Means Committee, on the
other hand, has recommended that only the Title XX block
grant and tax credit approach be used at this time.
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS
State and local govemments have increasingly become in-
volved in the provision and regulation of child care in recent
years. States have become active in the areas of licensing,
financial support, resource and referral networks, and the
operation of child care facilities for state employees. Many
local govemments are making explicit commitments to the
expanded provision of good child care by developing a local
child caie program. Their commitment and activity can take
many forms. They can add arr••,Y•:ate policy ]anguage to
A SAMPLE OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS WITH PROVISIONS FOR CHILD CARE
Aid to families with dependent children (AFDC),
whichisfundedjoindybythefederalgovemmentandthe
states, has a provision that allowspayments for child care
expenses to be deducted kom family income when deter-
mining the amount of a family/s grant:'I'he maximum
allowed per month is $160. Tlus amount will likely cover
only a portion of actual expenses. Families eligible for the
AFDC deduction are determined by a state standard of
need.
A food support program, overseen by the U.S. Depazt-
ment oF Agriculture, has provided funding for meals at
child care facilities since 1975. These funds are paid to
local public or nonprofit organizations that set up a pro-
gram through which providers are'trained to prepare
nvtritious meals using surplus food from federal supplies.
A two-year Child Care Demonstration project
received $5 million in funding from Congress in 1988.
These funds were awarded by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to 57 nonprofit
organizations to provide start-up funds for the provision
of child care centers or homes in or neaz assisted housing
projects. Each faciliry has to be able to secure 100 percent
non-HUD funding at the end of the two-yeaz period. It
is clear that the federal government is not making a Fman-
cial commitment to long-term subsidy for child care at
this time.
A HUD program allows public housing authoriEies
(PHAs) to make space available for child cam as long as
program funds come from sovrces other than assisted
housing funds. In 1986, only 10 percent of PHAs had at
least one child care center in their developments. These
centers provided space for an esHmated 10,000 children
nationwide. Only 38 percent of the spaces were used by
PHA residents; many residents with children did nat even
know that a rnnter existed in their development.
Child care centers for federal employees have been
started by 26 federal agencies nationwide. The U.S. Sen-
ate has sponsored a 45-child center for its employees since
1984. The centers aze all run by individual agencies and
wece often started at the request of employees.
their comprehensive plans; they can commit public funds to
assist providers or low-income parents; and they can pro-
vide child caze coordination, resources, and referral services.
State Licensing of Child Care Fadlities
The states exercise a signiEicant amount of influence over
the function of child care. Although there are currently no
federal licensing standards for child care, a1150 states have
licensing or registration procedures for child care facilities.
Child care centers and family child care homes are treated
differently in all cases. The exact regulations for each state
can be obtained from the offices listed in the appendix.
Child care centers are more stringently regulated than
child care homes in all states. Although there is no consis-
tent definition of a center, the most common definition is
"any place, either a residence or nonresidence, in which
more than 13 children receive care for some portion of the
24-hour day."Although the center may operate around the
clock, the care provided to each child must be for less than
24-hours duration. Forthese centers, the state regulations
establish and enforce a set of minimal standards for both the
operatorand the facility. Standazds address the design and
structure of the facility, the qualifications of the staff, staff-
to-child ratios, equipment, nutrition, outdoor recreation
space, and a host of other concerns. The number of
regulated elements and the degree of regulation vary from
state to state.
In virtually all states, family child care is defined as the
care or supervision of children for less than 24 hours in the
provider s own home. All states specify a maximam number
oF children that can be cared for in a family care home, the
most common number being 12. In some states, this number
includes the provider s own children.
Twenty-nine states have a two-tier system in which
"small" faznfly caze homes and'9azge' family care homes are
treated differently. Small homes (usually six or fewer
children) may not be regulated at all. In some states, how-
ever, providers are regulated if they take care of even one
child who is not their own. Large family care homes are al-
most always more stringently regulated. Common dif-
ferences in state regulations as they apply to each type of
home include the number of children that can be cared for,
the number of staff required, the trainingand qualifications
of stafE, and health and safety standards.
Family child care homes may be required to be licensed
or registered. Licensing sets minimum standards for health
and safety and usually requires that a state inspector visit the
facility prior to licensing and at regular intervals. Registra-
tion is far less stringent and usually involves a self-
certification system without an inspection.
State Financial Support
Basically, there are two types of state activity that make
up financia] support-funding child care either through
vouchers or through capital funds to start a center and pro-
viding child caze facilities for state employees.
Vouchers serve two purposes-they help make it possi-
ble for low-income famIlies to afford child care, and they
help to raise the salazies that can be paid to child care work-
ers. The primary source oE child caze vouchers has been
federal Title XX social service grant funds (see discussion
above), about one-fifth of which have been used by states
for child care.
Several states have established foan funds to help pro-
viders start child care facilities. The Massachusetts Industrial
Finance Agency has a Corporate Child Care Loan Fund.
This fund serves as a catalyst for encouraging financially
sound small companies and nonprofit associations to
establish a child caze center. A five-year loan is made to tund
the purchase of space and to cover renovation, construdion,
site planning, and equipment costs. Projects must demon-
strate demand from employees of the sponsors and show
evidence of feasible success.
Maryland has established a Day Care Facilities Loan
Guazantee Fund to guarantee loans to individuals and
businesses or to help fund the development of corporate child
caze fadlities through an equity investment. The project
must create or expand day care capacity in Maryland and
must be able to obtain adequate financing through conven-
tional channels. Priority is given to projects in communities
with the lowest median tamily income.
State government is usually a large employer in the state.
By providing child care, states can set a good example for
other employers. The states that currently provide some on-
or near-site child care facilities are Arizona, Arkansas, Cali-
fornia, F(orida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Mich-
igan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Washington,
and Wisconsin. The majority of these states have one cen-
ter opened by a particular department (e.g., transportation
in Iowa, revenue in Illinois). Others are running pilot
projects. _ ~
Although many of these states aze considering expanding
beyond one center, only New York and California have
done so. New York has a large-scale program through Em-
pire State Day Care Services, Inc., which provides on-site
care for state employees. Thirty centers have been opened
to provide child care at a reasonable cost at locations close
to work. In this case, the initiative came from discussions
during labor-management bargaining in which other
employment beneEits were negotiated. Califomia opened a
child care center in 1975 in a pilot program at the Depart-
ment of Motor Vehicles. At that time, it was mandated that
all state office buildings with 700 or more employees set aside
space for a center. Since then, six other on-site centers have
opened. Recently, CaliEornia has also worked out a collec-
tive bargaining agreement with their employees' association
to inclttde child care benefits.
State and Local Resource and Referral Networks
In many cases, parents seeking child care have had to re]y
on two main sources Eor information-advertising and
family or friends with children in care. The availability of
accurate information about all types of accessible day care,
day care subsidies, and parent support programs would
facilitate the search of many of these parents, decrease the
number of times they have to switch from one provider to
another, and help alleviate some of their major anxieties
over their choice of care.
One of the fastest-growing types of municipal, county,
and state coordination of child care responds to this
problem-the resource and reFerral (R and R) network. With
a small financial commitment (relative to the development
of actual child care spaces), R and R can provide easier,
faster, and better matches between those who need care and
the providers, and disseminate a variety of types of infor-
mation to parents and providers.
R and R centen funetion as clearinghouses of information
about community child care. Parents can obtain referrals to
licensed providers of all types and information about how
to make an informed choice. Child care providers can get
technical assistance with licensing, zoning, etc., and ex-
change expeaences about daily concerns with other pro-
viders. Other types of services that an R and R can possibly
provide are child care job banks to monitor openings and
match employees, volunteer placement coordination, and
a lending library of materials about child caie development.
Several states have established R and R networks coor-
dinating the information obtained from local networks and
relaying contacts to families across other states. Connecti-
cut's Department of Human Resources and the United Way
sponsor a Child Caze Information Line staffed by social
workers, educators, and counselors who give parents infor-
mation about more than 4,500 state-approved child care
facilities. Oregon andNew York both provide information
on child care resources to state employees. New Jersey has
established the New Jersey Child Care Resource and Refer-
ral System, which has three levels: the Statewide Clear-
inghouse, three Regional Resource Centers, and eight Local
Resource and Referral Agencies. The system's goals are to
provide information and referrals to parents, provide
technical assistance and training for providers, collect data
and assese child caze needs to plan for resource development,
and increase public awareness about child care.
COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL S'IRATEIGIES
Several cities have begun to encourage the provision of
child care facilities through comprehensive progams. Many
cities (Seatde, Boulder, Denver, and Irvine, to name a few)
have created child care coordinator positions. The role of the
coordinator is to link govemment, public and private agen-
cies, community and neighborhood groups, providers, and
consumers to improve child care resources in the com-
munity.
Child caze coordinators embark on public education pro-
grams through conferences, forums, newsletters, and
brochures. They are brolcers, forging public-private part-
nerships and providing the connection to a network through
which employers and child care providers can get needed ex-
pertise and technical advice. Through R and R centers, they
link up the public with available child care providers. They
are Facilitators, providing financial incentives, removing
regulatory barriers, and offering technical assistance. Most
of all, child care coordinators transform the municipal role
from a passive one to one of initiator and innovator.
In many communities, child care task forces or commis-
sions have been established. These bodies are enormously
impertant in gathering communiry expertise on child care
and forging a common agenda tailored to local needs. Per-
sonne] from the state regulatory agency, county govem-
ment, the school district, churches, and private agencies,
such as the United Way, are often r<r. ~x.. ~ted on these task
forces or commissions. These sources are invaluable for
piecing together the mosaic of current child caze provision
and identifying community needs.
The case studies offered here provide a sampling of the
many ways in which municipalities can carry out an agenda
that facilitates the provision of child care and child care
facilities.
Sacramento, Califomia
Sacramento has incorporated specific child care directives
in its revised general plan, hired a child caze coordinator,
x
d
A
~
x
~
~
~
A
~
~
~
~
V
cq
<
a
~
~
a
w
~
A good child care center, whether in
2eykjavik, Ice(and, orCrysta(Lake,
Illinois, shou(d provide sa~ety and
setunty as wel] as places to p(ay
and nap.
a
~
'
n
a
C
~
x
a
~
x
c
w
m
and begun working to improve private development's role
in.meeting the demand for new child care alternatives.
In 1985, a Community Quality of Life Survey of 10,400
registered voters in Sacramento was conducted as part of an
effort to gather information From citizens about which goals
and policies should be included in the city's general plan.
Child care is mentioned repeatedly in the policy paper that
summarizes the survey results. It is included in the general
quality-of-life statement: "Because most parents are in the
paid work force, adequate childcare at the worksite would
help attract and maintain a productive work force." Child
care is in the housing policy section as pazt of a directive "to
conduct a feasibility study to determine if a monitoring
system on housing development will help in meeting needs
for child care facilities in growing communities and to
recommend methods to meet child caze needs." Child care
is also mentioned in the commercial and land-use element
as part of a policy to "actively support effortr to develop day
cue facilities for downtown employees, shoppers, and
visitors."
The report recommended the establishment of a child caze
coordinator's office to coordinate with the office of
Economic Development, a local advocacy group, and local
employers to assess employer/employee child care needs
and to establish facilities and progams to meet those needs.
And, in line with this recommendation, the first child care
coordinator was hired in 1987.
Based on yet another survey, a nonprofit goup, Urban
Planning For Children and Youth, made further recommen-
dations about child care that were incorporated in the Sac-
ramento Central Business District Urban Design Plan.
SpeciFically, the group noted that:
Child care amenities will make downtown more attrac-
tive to businesses who hire parents. ... Funding and
development of facilities should come through the
coopetative efforts of the public, private, nonprofit, and
academic communities.
In regard to younger children, recommended projects in-
include:
1. Child care facilities in both public and private
buildings;
2. Chiid care facilities for downtown employees as well
as for downtown shoppers;
3. Child care facilities in the Central Library'Expansion;
4. Employer-sponsored initiatives to help meet the child
care needs of their employees by providing child care
capital improvements in their buildings, subsidizing
child care spaces for their employees children, and/or
by providing flexible benefit packages that include the
payment of child care costs; this type of business
assistance will help finance child care, and can be tax-
deductible business expense;
5. Areas of enrichment as well as small play areas for
younger children in public open spam and public areas
of privately developed buildings; and '
6. Small play areas for younger children in family
restaurants.
Other efforts in Sacramento include new ordinances re-
qu'uing an analysis of a project's impact on the availabiliry
of child care. Developers are required to explain what mea-
sures will be employed to ameliorate the negative impact of
new projects, especially msidential projects lazger than 100
units and business projects larger than 75,000 square feet.
The ordinances also help streamline the child care permit
process and provide for the distribution oF child care infor-
mation packets to help providers follow regulations and for
the dispersal of information about child care to the commu-
nity at lazge.
Seattle
Kidsplace is a project that symbolizes Seattle s determina-
tion to stem the exodus of families from the city by placing
child care on the city's political, economic, and cultural
agenda. After extensive data collection efforts, inciuding a
survey of approximately 60,000 children, the city govem-
ment and Kidsplace organizers embazked on a five-year pian
to make Seattle an attractive place for families with children.
Leadership for the Kidsplace effort has been provided by the
Seattle nonprofit sector, particularly the YMCA and Junior
League. City officials have pazticipated from the outset and
have committed in-kind support for the program, including
a waiver of fees to rent city-owned space for child care
facilities and establishment of a formal liaison in the Mayor's
office. The Kidsplace initiative dovetailed with the latter
stages of a decade-long effort by city planners to replace the
city's comprehensive plan and zoning code with a new set
of land-use policies and provisions. The 1985 amendments
include an extensive menu of developer incentives with day
care as the "human service'receiving the largest bonus of all
human service bonuses. (A fuller discussion of bonuses and
exactions appears below.)
Toronto
Toronto has made major achievements in responding to
child caze needs through the local land-use planning process,
and many child care experts feel it has been the most suc-
cessful of North American cities in its efforts. Toronto's of-
ficial plan encourages development of community services
and facilities in the central core and provides density bonuses
for these facilities. The ciry negotiates with developers on an
ad hoc basis to incorporate child care into their projects. A
city Task Force on Work-Related Day Care includes a coor-
dinator who works with the Planning and Development
Department and employers or developers to facilitate devel-
opment of child caze. City buildings are required to set aside
space for nonprofit child care centers. The city has also made
a multi-yeaz financial commitment to inctease the salaries
of child care workers, while keeping chIld caze costs afford-
able through a Day Care Grant Program. This highly visi-
ble city commitment to day care has had a strong positive
effect on the attitudes of private developers who might have
otherwise hesitated on the issue of day care.
Irvine, California
Irvine and the Irvine Unified School District have agreed
to work together to promote child care and child develop-
ment programs. This kind of joint powers agreement can be
used to combine a municipality's efforts with those of other
authorities to study, encourage, and develop programs for
child care provision. A Child Caze Coordinator has been
hired by the city to organize the project. The program coor-
dinator solicits corporate funds to build portable facilities.
These mobile classrooms are placed on school district prop-
erEies, and child care programs, run by nonprofit organiza-
tions, aze set up. The coordinator monitors the quality of
these programs and staffs other child care initiatives in the
city, including the City Child Care Committee; corporate,
community, and familyproviders meetings; and a resource
and referral information network. Currently, the resource
and referral network receives 200 to 300 calls per month;
puts out a newsletter; provides technical assistance to a va-
riety of providets; and holds skill classes, rnonthly meetings
for providers, and conferences on special topics such as
employer-sponsored child care and earthquake
preparedness.
LOCAL ZONING FOR CHILD CARE FACILTTIES
INhether or not a community i:.....Y... ates child care con-
cerns in its comprehensive plan, it will be responsible for
determining the appropriate zoning regulations as child caze
facilities proliferate rapidly in the coming decade. Many
codes do not speciEically address child care Facilities, leav-
ing their treatment unclear.
Zoning of child care uses has a far-reaching impact on ac-
cess to care, quality of care, and cost of care. When zoning
regulations restrict child caze facilities to a few areas of the
community, aze too rigid, do not conform with state licens-
ing standards, or require excessive permit fees, they can have
a profound negative impact on child caze. Conversely, each
of these issues can be addressed positively in an ordinance.
A
a
s
0
~
~
E
¢
Zoning provisions that allow child caze facilities of a vari-
ety of sizes to locate in a vaziety of districts, while carefully
safeguarding child and neighborhood welfare, aze essential
in any community that wants to ensure that adequate child
care facilities are developed.
The Eollowing discussion looks at the various elements of
a zoning ordinance for goveming child care. We begin our
examination with a discussion of the importance of policy
statements, which may appear in comprehensive plans,
general plans, or the zoning ordinance. These statements
support zbning regulations. We then ofEer definitions of the
vaziety of child care facilities so that a community can pro-
perly distinguish between types of fadlities. A discussion of
zoning for chSld care homes, including a section on state
preemption of local zoning for these faciliries, and zoning for
child care anters follows. Finally, we examine exactions and
zoning bonus programs for the provision of child care.
Local Policy Statements
Policy statements about child care serve several purposes.
First, they form a basis for incorporating definitions and
regulations in the zoning ordinance. They also provide firxn
reasons for dealing with the land-use, ]egal, and economic
issues that child care raises. Finally, they provide an indica-
tion of legislative intent if related zoning regulations are
legally challenged.
An explicit policy statement conceming child care in-
dicates the municipality's concern and offers support to ef-
forts on the part of private and nonprofit advocates and
providers. In Carlsbad, California, the Land Use Element of
the General Plan states the city's intention to:
MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AIVD PLANNING CONIlVIISSION
POLICY STATEMENT CONCERNllVG CHII.D CARE
Clv1d Care Services in Montgomery County
We ... agree to work in partnership with other public
agencies "to enable, support, and enhance the provision
of child care services through the private sector." The ac-
cessibility of child care facilities and the ava~lability of ap-
propriate transpoftation and recreational opportunities
are important elements of our community planning eF-
fort. We will continue to work with otherpublic agencies
and private citizens to address child care issues. '
The role of M-NCPPC in Montgomery Counry includes
community land-use plazuung, approval of development
proposals, and development and management oF the
pazk system. M-NCPPC is also a major employer in the
county. In its various capacities, the Montgomery
County Planning Board wIll address the following issues
related to child care services:
Community Land-Use Planning
Provide demographic data by census tracts and planning
areas;
Supportarr..,Y.:ate expanded use of pubic buildings for
child care;
Consider child caze needs in the review of the zoning or-
dinance, including a review of existing standards related
to child caze and an ocploration of the possibie incentives
that might be provided for developing new facilities for
child care; and -
In...,.,,,,. ~te child care needs in communiry hcilities plan-
ning and in recommendations for updating the master
plans in Montgomery County.
Pazk System
Explore addiHonal use of pazk,,.,,r:.:~ and buildings as
potential sites for child care; and
Support the development of innovative play areas.
As an Employer
Investigate and address the child care needs of our
employees; and
Encourage a commissionwide initiaHve to assist our
employees in meeting their child care needs.
Encourage and promote the establishment of child care
facilities in safe and convenient locations throughout the
community to accommodate the growing demand for
child care in the community caused by demographic,
economic, and social forces.
This statement paves the way for zoning and land-use
regulations that will facilitate the siting and operation of
child care facilities, which, in turn, means that it should be
easier for families to find child care and child care providers.
In some communities, a commitment to child care has
been expressed as a separate policy document. The
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
(M-NCPPC), has a policy statement as a companion to
child care regulations. (See box.)
DeFinitions
In a 1984 national random sample survey of 212 urban
and suburban communities about their zoning policies to-
ward child care, Marsha Ritzdorf found that:
The major zoning issue related to day care is the lack of mu-
nicipal acknowledgement of the diEferences between large day
care centers and small day care homes. This is true even
though a1150 states reqvire day care centers to be licensed and
differentiate between small and lazge Eacilities for that purpose.
Only two-thirds of the communities acknowledged the ex-
istence of day care in their ordinances. Of the communities
that mentioned day care, 63 percent did not distinguish be-
tween smal] homes and large centers. Often, the result of this
. lack of differentiation is the treatment of all day tare fatilities
as if they were ]arge, commercial operations. Indeed, 41 oF the
communities required a special use permit to operate a small
(six or fewer children) family care home in a residentia] zone.
Not a single community offered any incentives to developers
for the indusion of space for day care in either commercial or
residential development.
The resolution to the problem mentioned here begins with
a good set of definitions for the various child care facilities
that exist in a community. Zoning ordinance definitions of
child care facilities should be clear and explicit. Most impor-
tantly, they should mirror the definitions found in state law
pertaining to the licensing and regulation of child care. It is
especially important that the number of children allowed to
be cared for in each type of facility correspond with state
standards. A provider successfully sued a Califomia city for
limiting large family child care to 10 children when the state
law allowed 12 children to be cared for in such a facility.
The following are two examples of municipal definitions
that aze consistent with their state legislation. The Okla-
homa definitions do no[ reference the need for local con-
sistency with state regulaHons in order to be a legal operating
center; the California example does do this, which is
preferable.
Family Day Care Home A family home that provides
care for five or fewer children for at least six hours of the
24-hour day. This does not include informal arrange-
ments that parents make independently with neighbors,
friends, or others, or caretakers in the child's own home,
nor does it include nursery schools or other facilities for
which the purpose is primarily educational, recreational,
or medical treatment.
Child Day Caze Center A licensed private establish-
ment enrolling six or more children for at least six hours
of the 24-hour day for a prearranged compensation, but
not including nursery schools, kindergartens, or other
facilities of which the purpose is primazily educational,
recreational, or medical treatment. (Stillwater, Okla.)
Small Family Day Care Home A home that provides
family day care to six or fewer children, including children
who mside at the home, as defined in regulations issued
by the state of California.
Large Family Day Care Home A home that provides
family day care to seven to 12 children, including children
who reside at the home, as defined in regulations issued
by the state of California.
Child Caze Center A facility other than a lazge or small
family day care home that provides nonmedical care to
children under 18 years of age in need of personal services,
supervision, or assistance for sustaining the activities of
daily living or for the protection of the individual on less
than a 24-hour basis. Child care center does not include
family day care homes, and typically serves 13 or more
children. (Concord, Calif.)
Occasionally, as in the Stillwater ordinance, the number
of hours a child is in care may determine what constitutes ap-
propriate regulation. Some ordinances actually have sepa-
rate definitions for'babysitting" to define care for a small
number of children for brief periods of time. In most com-
munities, this is such a common activity that it is not
regulated.
The use of "day care" instead of "child care" is common
in most ordinances. Although it seems like a minor issue,
some regulators and courts have interpreted "day care" to
mean only care during daylight hours, thus excluding the
possibility of child caze facilities for swing shift and night
workerswho often have the most difficult time finding care
for their children. By using "child care," this problem can be
avoided.
A comprehensive ordinance recently passed by Olympia,
Washington, is an excellent example of an ordinance that
takes all of these concems into account. (See the appendix
for the full text of the ordinance. ) Although it uses the term
"child day care," it is clear that it refus to care for any por-
tion of a 24-hour day, has clear definitions, and differentiates
between babysitting and child care.
ZOIVING FOR CHILD CARE HOMES
Without a doubt, the most prevalent problem for the zon-
ing of child care facilities is the zoning of child care homes.
By faz, the majority of children in the United States aze cared
for by operators of unlicensed, unregulated child care
homes. These facilities and their operators remain "under-
ground" for a number of reasons. Many are unaware of the
fact that their child care operation requires licensing. Many
more fear regulation because they think that they will have
to pay exorbitant fees, remodel their facilities, or Eace a se-
ries of inspections. These fears aze not unfounded. The Child
Care Law Center indicates that some communities still
totally prohibit child caze homes in all residential districts.
Many others lack definitions that distinguish homes from
centers, have regulations that are not consistent with state
licensing regulations or definitions, and have onerous per-
mitting processes and high fees.
There aze many advantages to child care homes that
should be taken into account when composing any set of
regulations for child care facilities. Flexible hours and ar-
rangements, a location close to home and in a neighborhood
like the one the child lives in, and the less tangible benefits
of a provider who shares or reflects parental values are all
important to parents. A recent Child Care Law Center re-
port lists the following additional reasons parents give for
preferring family child care homes:
• Small group size and more individualized attention;
• Provisions For part-time care for children;
• Less-structured programs, allowing developmentally
appropriate activities;
• Affordable cost;
• Flexibility of scheduling for parents with long hours
and odd working schedules to provide night time and
weekend care;
• Abilify to care for very young children;
• Ability to care for children who are mildly ill;
• Ability to care for special needs children;
• Ability to provide care for children of differing ages
from the same family, including infants, preschoolers,
and school-age children; and
• Gmater adaptability to shork-term notice in emergency
situations.
Several of these factors echo an azgument of advocates for
allowingboth small (six children or fewer) and large (seven
to 12 children) child care homes by right in residential
districts-most family child care homes are virtually in-
distinguishable from any other home in a neighborhood.
The activities that takeplace-eating, playing, napping, and
learning-are the activities that take place in all homes in
which children are being raised.
The most appropriate treatment of a smali child care
home is to permit those homes in conformity with state law
as a use permitted by right in all dwelling units. Large family
care homes are allowed by right in some communities but
require a permit in most. Because a full-blown conditional
use heazing is an unnecessary cost and imposition on these
residential providers, a nondiscretionary permit is a better
option. To acquire the permit, a provider must comply with
a limited number of specified conditions (e.g., be licensed by
the state; have a fenced play area; provide a space in the
driveway or directly in front of the home for loading and
unloading; and, sometimes, comply with dispersal require-
ments). The Olympia, Washington, ordinance in the appen-
dix provides clear distinctions.
If communities adopt simplified family child care zoning
regulations, more homes will be able to operate openly.
Adding these provisions will not result in an influx of new
homes. Rather, it is likely that many home care facilities
operating illegally (estimated to be 95 percent oE all such
facilities) will now become legal. When coupled with state
registration or Iicensing standards that cover safety and
health standards, simplified zoning standards help ensure
that more Iicensed, registered, and legally run home care
facilities can: provide adequate caze; have access to support
programs; and advertise their services. '
The following sections discuss the mgulation of family
child care homes. First, we address the issue of why child
caze homes should not be regulated as home occupations.
We then discuss the most common community zoning con-
cerns with child care homes-noise, traffic, concentration
and dispersion, and effect on property values.
Why Child Caze Homes Should Not Be Treated
as Home Occupations
Caze provided in a child caze home is a unique service and
should be considered separatety from other home occupa-
tions for the purpose of zoning. Unlike other home occupa-
tions, it must, by de(inition (in virfuaiIy all seates}, ta[ce place
in a provider s residence. The three most common home oc-
cupation regulations that would be inappropriate when ap-
plied to child caze homes are:
Limitations on the amount of floor space devoted to the
activity, sometimes including a restriction to the principal
building or specific rooms of the principal building;
Employee limitations that often allow only one household
member to be involved; and
Additional pazking requirements.
It is difficu]t and inappropriate to try to limit the operator
of a child care home to the use of only a portion of the home.
Children are togically fed in the kitchen, nap in the bedroom,
and play in the living room, playroom, or yazd. Indeed, the
Ineernal Revenue ~:. ~:..,, has acknowledged this difference
and created sepazate rules for allowing tax deductions for
operaHng expenses for famiiy child care homes and has dis-
tinguished their operation from the operation of other home
businesses. The requirement in all states that children have
outdoor play space is an obvious reason why limiting the use
to the primary building is inappropriate.
Requirements having to do with employees are also dif-
ficult or impossible to meet. Obviously, more than one
fami]y member might help out with the children. Many pro-
viders may want to have an assistant, even if it is not re-
quired, to provide more individualized attention, Many
states require an assistant for a large family care home to be
licensed.
Pazking for an additional employee is most often avai]-
able in ehe driveway of the home or in a space on the street
that is used by another family member in the evening.
Sometimes, assistants are from the same neighborhood and
simply walk to the home or take public transit.
Noise
An increase of noise in the area around a child care home
is the most often expressed concern. Studies in Oakland,
California, and in the Maryland suburbs surrounding Wash-
ington, D. C., both found that noise was not a signiFicant
problem. A 1987 Maryland study found that neighbors did
not report any significant inaease in noise levels. The noise
from a chiid care home is the same noise made by any family
with children. Often, neighbors playing music, repairing
equipment, or taking care of their lawns make more noise
than that generated by the children in a child caze home. Be-
cause licensing requirements usually require some type of
fencing, fhe home has some additional noise bt~ffer. Finally,
in the case of a real noise problem, local noise and nuisance
laws provide enforceable standards.
Traffic
Despite complaints that trafficwill increase considerably
if child caze homes are allowed, there is no evidence to sup-
port such a claim. A 1987 study conducted by the
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commis-
sion found that over 94 percent of the neighbors of child caze
facilities who responded to the survey indicated that traffic
had increased only slightly or not at all since the mnters were
established. Since the facilities in the survey served up to 20
children (farmore than the maximum of 12 usuallyallowed
in large child care homes), these findings are especially im-
portant. The consultantsfound that "no significant backup
of cars picking up or delivering children were observed,"and
"the amount of traffic generated at each Eacility was mini-
mal and the distribution of trafficwas even throughout the
day." A 1987 Salem, Oregon, traffic study of a chifd care
facility seroing ZO children at the end of a cul-de-sac also
found that, there was no significant traffic impact. Again,
this is especially revealing because this situation, at least on
the surface, would seem to naturally strain the street's
capacity.
Concentration /Dispersal
There is no support for expressed fears that neighbor-
hoods will become "ghettos" of chi]d care homes. The fear
comes in part From neighborhood apprehension about
residential group homes and care facilities. Child caze homes
are demand-driven. Parents prefer child care located close
to their homes, and the neighborhood will only have as
many providers as there are parents in reasonable proxim-
ity to support them.
A study of the treatment of large child caze homes in Cali-
fornia communities found a range of dispersaI requirements
ranging from 300 feet apart to one-half mile apart. This
disparity reflects the lack of accurate data about the need for
and appropriate dispersal requirements for child care homes.
A child care home does not present a threat to the residen-
tial nature of a community-it is only an accessory use to a
residence. We do not suggest using a dispersal requirement
because it would add an arbitrary and not particularly useful
burden to both providers and enforcement oEficials.
Property Values '
To dafe, there has been no study that specifically explores
the eEfect of Family child care homes on adjacent or nearby
property values. The 1987 Maryland study did ask
neighbors if they thought that the presence of a child care
facility would reduce ti~e value of their Y...r~.,y. Neighbors
thought that it would have no effect.
As child caze demand inaeases, it is possible that the pres-
ence of family child caze homes and child care centers in a
neighborhood may increase the value of adjacent parcels.
For example, it is well known that the presence of a good
10
is not achievable in home rule states, reseazch conducted by
the Child Care Law Center indicates that, even in home rule
states, preemption legislation is possible because municipal
power must be exercised "in a manner consistent with the
general law of the state."The Center has developed a model
preemption statute that provides a good example For states
without such legislation. (See appendix.)
a
v
0
m
v
'~
0
school, in a neighborhood will enhance local property
values. There are anecdotal reports from Realtors that pro-
spective purchasers inquire about the proximity of child
care. Some real estate trade periodicals have predicted that
provision of child care facilities will be one of the major de-
velopment issues in new residential constrvction in thenext
five years.
Preemption of Local Zoning For Child Care Homes
Many states have pr«..,r.~1 the municipa[ zoning of child
care homes. Table 1{on pp. 12-13) lists these states and the
parameters of the legislation. It is anticipated that many
other states will fo]]ow suit in the neaz future iE municipalities
are not regulating these homes in ways that encourage their
existence.
In most states, preemption is simple to achieve (with the
proper constituent inYerest) because localities are granted
their zoaing powets through enabling legislation. In some
seates, however, the power is granted through a home rule
system. Although it is often assumed that preemptive action
ZONING FOR CHILD CARE CENTERS
As noted in the discussion of definitions above, a child
care center is a primary use. For zoning purposes, all types,
of centers are treated equally because the'ir characteristics {~
terms of number of children and impact on surroundings)
are simiIar. However, for planning purposes, a distinction
must be recognized between three types oF centers: those run
by francbise and for-profiE organizations; those sponsored
by employers; and those that are nonprofit center in
churches, schools, community centers, etc.
The primary difference in these types of centers is the
population served by each: for-profit franchise centers aim
at the market demand for child care; employers target their
employees' needs; and nonprofits serve those who cannot
afford the market-rate centers but prefer a center over a
home. There is, of course, overlap among these types; for
instance, a franchise can run a center For employees of a par-
ticular workplace, or an employer can contribute funds to
a nonprofit center in the area. To meet local circumstances,
a combination of the different types of centers may need to
beencouraged.
The following sections ofFer recommendations and ex-
amples for the proper zoning of child care centers. The
discussion takes into account the various types of centers
that may occur within a community. Specificatly, we ad-
dress ehe issues of location, parking, pickup and delivery of
children, play space, noise, signage, dispersal requirements,
and hours of operation.
Location
A child care provider wi11 seek a location that best suits
his or her potential clientele. Franchises and for-profit
centexs want visibility and easy access for parents from a
wide geographic area. Employers will aim for on- or near-
site care to ensure easy access and to allow for parentaI visiEs
during the day. NonproEit centers will locate according to
the population served. For example, some locate at or near
low-income housing developments; many others are in or
affiliated with neighborhood churches. The bottom line is
that, to effectively meet the community demand Eor child
care, it is necessary to open up all zoning districts to the
establishment oE child care centers.
Of course, child caze centers, as nonresidential facilities
with larger numbers of children, are properly more c]osely
regulated and restricted than are child care homes. While
centers should be allowed by right in commercial, multi-
family, office, and institutional districts, those to be sited in
residential areas shouId be required to meet standards
spelled out in an ordinance. If they meet these standards,
they should be allowed. Many of the arY...r.:afe conditions
can be applied by a zoning administrator, thereby avoiding
public hearings and special permit reviews. Indeed, locating
child caze facilities close to schools is a logical answer to the
growing problem of school-age children being left to fend for
11
TABLE 1. FAMILY DAY CARE STATE ZONING PREEMPTION LEGISLAT[ON
Statutory
State Reference
CaliE. Cal. Health and
Safety Code Sec
tion 1597.40,
1597.45, and
1597.46
'I'ype af Home Building and Fire Deed Restrictions CondiHanal Use
Exempted Preempted Rendered Void Statute [.anguage Permit (CUP)
Small Yes Yes Single-family Prohibited
residrnce used as
smali family day
' care considered
msdentia! use of
property
Large (locality Yes (fire regula- Yes Large family day Permitted
may choose 1 of 3 tions to be applied care shai] not be
options: permitted established by prohibited on
as of right, non- State Fire single-family
discretionary or Marshall) dwelling lots
CiJP) -
Conn. Conn. Gea. Stat. Small and Large No
Ann. Section S-2
No Family day care Implicitly permitted
and group day '
care may not be
prahibited in
residential zones
Fla. Fla. Stat. Ann. Smal] (no provi- No No Residence used as Fxplicidy prohbited
Sectian 402.313 sion for Large) a family day home
constitutes a valid
residential use
Mass. Mass. Gen. Iaws Small (no provi- No No Family day care is Permitted when
Ann. Ch. 40A, sion for Large) a permitted use family day cam is
Section 3 unless specifically not permitted by
prohibited or right
regulated by
zoning
Mich. 169(g) to Michigan Small No No Family day wre Prohibited
Compiled Laws home considered a
Settions 125.271 to residential use of
1?5.301 and property; permit-
125.201 to 125.232 ted by right in all
Only affects zoning residential zones
in coanties and
townships, not
citles.
Large No No Group day care a Permitted if group
pexmitted use if day care home
certain standards cannot meet stan-
specified in statute dards specified in
(regarding concen- statute yet still
tration, signage, desires to operate
fendng, parking,
etc.) are met
Minn.' 16A Minn. Stat. Small No No Licensed day caze Prohibited
Ann. Sedion faaliry for 12 rnn-
254.812. sidered permitted
single-family
residential use
Continued
'Preemption pertains to all residential care fadlities; hence, language does not match day care definitions. Small Eamily day care = 10: large family day
care =14.
'fABLE 1. CONTINUED
Statutory Type of Home Building and Fire Deed Restrictions Conditional Use
State Reference Exempted Preempted Rendered Void Statute Language Permit (CUP)
Minn. Large No No Fadlity for 13-16 Explidtly permitted
(wnt.) considered permit-
ted multiEamily
use, but may bB
subject to CUP or
special use permit
Mont. Mont. Code Ann. Small and Large No No Fami]y day care Explicitly prohibited
Section 76-2-412 home considered
residential use of
property
N.J. N.J.1986 Small (no provi- No
Assembly Bill sion for Large)
No.1791
N.Y. N.Y. Social Ser- Large No
vices Law Section
390(13)(d) ~
No Family day care Same restrictions
home tonsidered as applied to home
home occupation otcupation
and should rtot be
treated more strict-
ly than home
occupation
No Grovp Eamily day Implicitly permitted
, care may not be
prohibited in
single-Eamily
dwellings or multi-
ple dwellings
Ohio Ohio Rev. Code Small Yes (per Unoffitial No Family day tare Fxplidtly prohibited
Ann. Section Atty. Gen. , home considered
5104.054 Memorandum; residential vse of
Dept. of Justice property
File No. 412-
400-G0032-88)
Ore. Or. Rev. Stat. Sec- Small and Large No No Family day care Conditions may
tions 418.805- home considered not be more
418.815 residential use of restrictive than for
property and may residential dwell-
not be prohibited ings in same
in residential or zone-CUP im-
commercial zones plidtly prohibited
Vt. Vt. Stat. Mn. Small No No Day care facility Prohibited
Title 24, Section considered by
4409(fl right single-family
residential use of
properry
Wis. Wis. Stat. Mn. Small (no provi- No No Family day care Municipality may
Section 66.304 sion Eor Iarge) may not be impose regulations
prevented from that are applicable
location in zone to sixnilaz dwell-
which permits ings in the district
singlrfamily
residences
Note: Rhode Island is considering a preemption for family day care homes (no large category).
Reprinted with the permission of the Child Care Law Center.
themselves after school.
In some cases, a child caze center sited in a residential
district can be allowed by conditional use review. The re-
view should be simple and straightforwazd, and applicants
should not feel that they need the help of attomeys or con-
sultants. Such conditional or special permit reviews may be
appropriate in locations like historic residential districts.
Approximately 50 percent of child care centers nation-
wide are nonprofit centers in churches or church facilities.
These facilities are typically located in residential districts.
The centers in them should be allowed as accessory uses.
Generally, the measures used to buffer the main use from
residences will prove to be adequate for buffering the ac-
cessory use. The Olympia, Washington, code specifically
deals with this situation:
A child care center as an accessory use. A child day care
center, ff sited on the premises of an operating community
service activity, such as, but not limited to, a private or
public school, pIace of worship, community center, or li-
brary, and associated with that activity, shall be consid-
ered accessory to the principal use of the property
concerned.
As the number of employer-sponsored chIld care centers
grows, another concem for the siting of child caze centezs has
to do with the proximity of potentiaJly hazardous uses, ac-
tivities, or materials. The Plano, Texas, code says:
No portion of a day care center site may be located within
300 feet of gasoline pumps, underground gasoline storage
tanks, or any other storage of explosive materials.
In most states, no matter what district the child care cen-
ter is in,it must be on the ground floor. Because the cost of
ground-floor space is prohibitive in many metropolitan
cores, soirie cities have changed these rules to allow child
care to locate on the mezzanine or second floor. In 1984,
Seattle amended its code to read:
In Types I or II fire-resistive buildings or buildings equip-
ged with an automatic sprinkler system throughout,
rooms used for kindergarten, first, and second grade
children, or for day care purposes, may be located on the
second story, provided there aze at least two exits to the
exterior.
Pazking
There should be a minimum of one parking space for each
full-time employee. The Salem, Oregon, ordinance requires
parking spaces on the basis oF the number of children. (See
appendix). In the Maryland study, the consultants recom-
mended one spot for each 10 children if the center is a
freestanding structure. For structures in existing commercial
and/or industrial buildings, it states:
The minimum parking requirements should be those of
the applicable zone, except Eor freestanding facilities. Such
facilities should have, as a minimum, elther the highest
number of parking spaces required in the zone or one
space for each staff person plus one space for each 10
licensed capacity slots.
This requirement is restricted to freestanding centers since
parking demand for child care is generally equai to, or less
than, the pazking demand for office or commerdal uses. For
example, 6,000 square feet of office space would yield ap-
proximately z7 ofEice workers. A 6,000-square-foot chIld
care facility would serve 80 children and, with a staEfing
ratio of five to one, would yield a stafE gazking requirement
of approximately 16, plus the director, for a total of 17
spaces. With parking Eor parents required at the rate of one
per 10 children, an additional eight spaces would be needed,
Eor a total of 25. Child caze center parking needs appeaz to
be no greater than those For ofEice uses.
Pickup and Delivery of Children
To provide for the safe pickup and delivery of children,
an unloading zone is necessary. The Maryland study sug-
gests a ratio of one unloading space per 20 children. Children
aze picked up and delivered over a range of times during the
day and that should be sufficient space to handle the load.
The pickup zone needs to be placed so that children do not
have to aoss the pazking lot or any other traffic areas to
reach the car waiting to pick them up. Additional attention
should be paid to a circulation patrem that does not create
a stack of cazs in the nearby street. If possible, the children's
saFety is enhanced by a one-way traffic pattem on the site.
This may not be possible, but checking plans for traffic
safety is one of the most important contributions a planner
can make. However, it is important that pickup require-
ments aze flexible enough to allow a variety of buildings and
locations to be used. For example:
Unloading and loading of children from vehicles shall ,
only be permitted on the driveway, approved parking
area, or directly in front of the facility. (Huntington,
Calif. )
Play Space
Minimum standards for outdoor play space are set by
most state licensing requirements. And the vast majority of
communities require fenced outdoor play space adjacent to
or very close to the center.
This requirement should not be a problem for most
centers proposed in industrial park settings, most public and
private locations, and nonprofits and freestanding centers.
However, because of the growing demand For downtown
day care, exceptions might be needed. For example, several
cities, including Washington, D.C., allow the use.of city
parks to meet the outdoor play space requirement. San Fran-
cisco allows the use of a smaller outdoor space than would
normally be allowed, providing no more than a certain
number of children use it at any one time.
Noise
If a child care center is freestanding, noise is not likely to
be any problem. For a center located in a commercial
building, there may (or may not) be a need for some addi-
tional insulation. IF a child care center was making a signif-
icant amount of noise, local noise and nuisance laws would,
of course, apply. There are no known cases of a center mak-
ing enough noise to qualify as a nuisance.
Signage
Visibility and ease of identification are important to child
14
care centet owners. Signage is most easily handled by hav-
ing the center conform to the sign mqu'uements for the zone
in which it is located. Child care centers located in residen-
tial zones (where signs are normally not allowed) should be
allowed one small sign, if they wish. PAS Report No. 419,
which covers sign regulations for small and midsized com-
munities, suggests that six square feet is an adequate sign size
Eor single-family residential districts. Many residentially
located centers often do not have a sign other than a notice
on the "sign board" already allowed for the building (usually
a church or school) in which they are located. Others have
no sign at all.
Dispersal Requirements
Spacing or dispersal requirements are most often adopted
to quell neighborhood fears about overconcentration of
child care facilities in residential neighborhoods. In ac-
tuality, it is unlikely that a residential neighborhood would
become saturated because chiid care demand is driven by the
needs of parents who live or work close by the child care
center.
Despite this fact, many communities have adopted such
requirements. Often, these requirements are set arbitrarily
without aIlowing flexibility. It may be useful to require per-
mit applicants to report on the existence of nearby child care
facilities to help planners and providers see what the com-
petition is like in the area. Charleston, South Carolina, and
Washington, D.C., make such provisions.
The zoning board of adjustment may determine a day
caze center to be incompatible with a residential neighbor-
hood if another nonresidential facility is facing or abut-
ting the same block Face or is within 300 feet of the
proposed facility. (Charlesfon, S.C. )
The zoning board may approve more than one child de-
velopment center ... within 1,000 feet of another only
when the board finds the cumulative effects will not have
an adverse effect ... due to traffic, noise, orotherFac-
tors. (Washington, D.C.)
Hours of Operation
Although there are a few communities that restrict the
hours of operation of child care centers, such restrictions aze
not recommended. One of the most pressing child caze issues
is the need oFparents who work swing ornight shifts. Find-
ing care for their children is an exceedingly difficult task.
Pazents who work shift jobs aze not likely to be affluent, and
ordinances that restrict hours of operation may discriminate
against low- and moderate-income households.
A 24-hour-a-day child care center at the end of a cul-de-
sac in Salem, Oregon, was studied to determine iEits full-day
operation was causing significant disruptions for the neigh-
borhood. The evidence did not support an allegation that it
was causing a problem.
ZOIVIIVG EXACTIONS AND BONUSES
In cities and suburbs that are experiencing major growth,
some local govemments are simply requiring developers to
provide certain public benefits as a condition of zoning ap-
proval. These mandatory requirements aze called zoning ex-
actions. In other local jurisdictions, zoning bonuses, usually
in the form oE increased floor area ratios, are being offered
to developers with the condition that some contribution be
made by the developeFS that helps meet local child care
needs.
Exactions
Exactions often take the form of a cash contribution or
perhaps a dedication of land in a new subdivision for roads,
parks, or schools. The use of exactions raises a number of
legal issues that are beyond the scope of this report. In
general, in order for an exaction to successfully withstand
legal challenges brought by a developer, it must be author-
ized implicitly or explicitly by state law, rationally related
to the proposed development's impact on the community,
and show a reasonable relationship, or link, between the ex-
action and the benefits that will acave to the users of the new
development.
San Francisco may have the most publicized "linkage"
15
program for chi]d care. An ordinance was passed in 1985
that requires office developers of downtown projects ex-
ceeding 50,000 squaze Eeet to meet two conditions. The first
is that they must provide basic child care information and
referral services on-site or in a neazby location for the life of
the project. This service entails collecting data on child care
needs from building occupants and giving them data on
child caze availabiliry. In this way, the city will havefigures
on employment patterns and child care needs and can
educate parents and the general public about related issues,
such as transportation for children, open space opportuni-
ties, and resources for parents.
The second requirement is that developers provide child
care space in new projects or make a payment in lieu oF pro-
viding such space to an Affordable Child Care Fund. The
day care space must be at least 3,000 square feet in azea and
be Free of any user chazges whatscever. The current fee is set
at a contribution of $1 per gross square foot of the project.
Developers can exclude the child care space #rom calculation
of the building's gross floor area for purposes of determin-
ing floor area ratio (FAR). The FAR exclusion is limited to
a cap of 6,000 square feet oF child care space per project.
The chiId care provisions in San Francisco's zoning or-
dinance are based on a"causal connection be-
tween ... developments and the need for additional child
caze facilities:' The ordinance speaks of how new employees
"mvst compete with current residents for the few apenings
in child care programs:' The ordinance then refers to mas-
ter plan statements urging "continued growEh of prime
downtown office activities so long as undesirable conse-
quences can be avoided." Since "adequate amenities' are re-
quired, the city "should impose requirements on oFfice
developers ... to mitigate the adverse effects."
Strict growth controls for downtown San Francisco have
permitted only five projects that are subject to this require-
ment since the ordinance took effect in October 1985.
Developers of these five projects have all chosen to con-
tribute to the child care fund-a contribution of about $1
million. The fees are payable when the projects are com-
pleted, which should take place in 1991. The city has not yet
decided how to distribute the fees, but it is likely that some
of the money wiIl be used to subsidize child care for the
children of low-income employees of the new buildings.
Concord, California, a suburb of San Francisco has had
a mandatory child caze fee system in effect since 1985. The
developer oF any nonresidential properEy valued at $40,000
or more must pay a fee equal to .5 percent of the develop-
ment cost, minus the cost of the land. Exemptions aze given
to those developers who arrange for child care facilities or
who can show that their development has not increased de-
mand for child care. No exemptions had been granted in the
firsE four and one-half years of the program. In 1988, the city
col]ected almost a quarter of a million dollars for the Con-
tra Costa Child Care Council, a nonprofit organization that
coordinates and manages a number of child care services for
the county. The funds are used to provide subsidized child
care for needy parents and to provide scholarships for child
care workers. Some funds are dedicated to matching fees
paidby azea employers to help defray the child care costs of
their employees.
It shouldbe noted here that aliowing developers to pay a
fee'vn lieu of dedicating space can a~eate problems if the com-
munity's goal is to increase the numbers of child care spaces
downtown or overall. Paying fees often Eums out ro besub-
stantia]ly cheaper for the developer than building and sub-
sidizing a center.
Boston may have recognized this problem when it passed
an ordinance in March 1989 that requires all developments
lazger than 100,000 squaze feet to provide space for child
care-Eees are not an option. The required amount of
dedicated space ranges from tcvo percent in buAdings smaller
than 200,000 square feet up to a requirement for 12,000
square Eeet of child care space in buildings larger than 1 mil-
lion square feet. Boston also includes an incentive in its
progam-child care space u not included in the calculation
of floor area ratios. This two-pronged approach might prove
fruitful; as of the date of this publication, it is stil] too early
to tell.
Bonuses for Child Care
For almost 30 years, Iocal governments have used zoning
incentives to encourage developers to provide desired
amenities. If the amenities aze provided, developers are often
granted permission to build lazger or different buildings than
the site's zoning classification would normaily altow. Incen-
tive provisions typically apply to buildings in downtown
areas, although they may also be used in other locations
within a community and may be permissive or discre-
tionary.
Proponents of bonuses for the provision of downtown
child care facilities have enlisted allies in the social services
community, the mrporate world, and city planning depart-
ments. Some child care advocates, however, think that
downtown business distcicts are inappropriate for child care
facilities. Providers must contend with issues of ttaffic
safety, scarce play space, increased building costs, and the
potential for child care clients to disturb the workings of of-
fices. Nevertheless, the concentration of office workers in a
small geographic azea presents a lazge potential client base.
Also, some parents prefer to have their children in a child
care facility neaz theirplace of business so that they can visit
during the day. Conveniently located child care services can
reduce parents commuting time and increase the time
parents and children spend together.
A number of communities have employed zoning incen-
tives to encovrage developers to provide downtown child
care in their new projects. Hartford, Connecticut, enacted
its downtown chIld care zoning bonus in Februazy 1984. The
bonus allows developers to add six square feet oE floor space
to a building for every one square foot of day caze space pro-
vided, up to an increase of one in floor area ratio (FAR) be-
yond the project's allowable FAR. The current FAR limit in
the downtown azea is 10.0, b~t there is no general FAR limit
on bonus projects.
Peter Spitmer, Hartford's Chief Staff Planner, confirmed
the status of child care as an issue of secondary concern in
the public debate over downtown development. He noted
that the inclusion of the child care bonus was not the result
of any perceived crisis in the downtown area. Instead, iE was
an attempt by the planning staff and interested child care ad-
vocates to make use of an untried mechanism to provide an
amenity that did not exist in the downtown area.
16
La Pe[ite Academy, Kansas Gty. Mo.
~
~ ~ ~
~~ ~
~ ~~
ZY ~ ~~
N .~i ~ a
.1._~__,L_
~~~3 .
UJ~~~ ~~
~~~~~ ~~
k ~ Q ~ ~ ~
ti~~~a ~.~
~... _
-,--- --;:--; -
ti ~ ~
r°
., _. - . .
:.,I~.:: : ~-
'
:..:......,.,...> .
. _ . . , - `; ~
~
:
~.~~F ,
~
~ ' ;
~ ~ :j
~
~
N ~~ ~' w '
:
~ ~ ',~
,
, ,~ ~
,
'
,
_ ~g
._ ~
Q ,Y
.~,
.
~ ~
~
~
~
~
......... ,: ~~
~ ~: Q
, ~~
:
~ a ,. ..
... ... ~
, .
., . , , ~..:.-~:.
`~ a ~'~::;
'~
; ;
. :
.,...,
.
. ~ 1
~ ~ ~ ~
. ~ .
~ ,.,~ ,
~~ti ~~:
~,~u
,
..
_ __
~ ~
.
,
,~:. : ~,.
X~ . ...
~ ~
:
\
y ~.~.i.a~J...... ...w ~. . . I
~~
~ ~~
r
'~: ~
...._..: IL~ C
~ Q
~ 9/ r 5~i
~:,.
~.i ~ ..~.1`~
~~1_ ,
~~~ ~
~;y, ~~3
~~~ o ~~
~~ /
~~~
~~ ~
f~
_ I~
~.f I
c
, g, ~ __./
~~
~
~
W
~
~
V y
~,
~~
~~
a
0
c
A
S
Since the child care bonus has been available, one devel-
oper has requested this bonus from the city planning depazt-
ment and is building a 90.space center in the ground floor of
a building with 60,000 square feet of retail space and one mil-
lion square feet of office space. The 4,500-square-fo0t cen-
ter allowed the developer to add 27,000 square feet to the
project. Outdoor play space is provided on an adjacent site
that is owned by a church.
For some other developers, the availability of the bonus
gave them the idea to provide child care, but they built a cen-
ter without taking the bonus in order to avoid being required
to keep the child care center open over a set period of time.
In still other cases, as was the case for exactions, developers
opted to pay fees in lieu of providing space.
Developers maywell consider including child care space
in a project if the tenant so desires or may consider it if the
bonus provides a large enough economic windfall, but there
may not be sufficient market pressure to force the inclusion
of child care in new office projects in the absence of such
factors.
Seattle, Washington, uses a bonus system, begun in 1985,
that makes child caze only one of several human services that
can qualify for a zoning bonus. Child care is cleaily
recognized as a high priority because the bonuses given to
those who provide care centers aze ]arger than those granted
for other human services that might be included in a down-
town project. And, like Boston's exaction ordinance, Seat-
tle's bonus provisions rnquire'the inclusion of child care
space to obtain the bonus. Payment of a fee in lieu of pro-
viding child care space will not get the developer the zoning
bonus, although payments for other human services do
satisfy bonus provisions for those services. Health and
human services are not explicitly defined in Seattle's down-
town plan except to include emergency shelters. Neverthe-
less, the plan states that these services "shall be supported
through direct public action and incentives to gain indusion
of these uses in new private development."
Table 2lists the bonuses available for the inclusion of child
TABLE 2. DAY CARE ZOIViNG INCENTIVES FOR SEATTLE
Bonus Ratio
Zone New Bldgs. Existing Bldgs.
Downtown office core 12.5 6.5
Office core II 16.0 8.0
Itetai] core 6.0 3.0
Mixed commercial 11.0 5.5
Mixed residential 8.0 4.0
$ource: Seattle Land-Use Code.
18
care space in Seattle s downtown districts. The bonus ratio
indicated would apply only to the first 3,000 squaze feet of
the child caze space provided, with any additional space, up
to a maximum of 10,000 square feet, resulting in the applica-
tion of a slightly lower ratio. Here, as in Haztford, the bonus
ratio represents the number of additional square feet of child
caze space. For example, if a developer were to include 3,000
square feet of child caze space in a new building in the down-
town office core, he or she would be eligible to receive 37,500
additional square feet of office space. For an existing
building, an additiona119,500 square feet of space would be
allowed. Unlike Hartford, each zone in Seattle has a max-
imum FAR that cannot be exceeded even by projects with
bonuses for child care.
Seattle officials recognize the difficulties facing a devel-
oper considering the placement of child care space in a
dorvntown location. The relatively generous bonus ratio ac-
countsforthefactthatchildcarespacewillnotgeneratethe
same revenue that retail space would create. There are also
additional buflding costs for childsized windows, bathroom
fixtures, and other buildingcomponents. Seattle also allows
for the placement of a child caze center on the second or third
floor, providing all necessary safety codes are met. In this
way, developers can take advantage of the bonus and not
have to sacrifice their most lucrative floor space to a child
care center. Seattle's topography makes this flexibility easy
to offer since many buildings have entrances on different
levels (e.g., the third floor may not really be the third floor
on all sides oF a building).
As of May 1989, changes to the ordinance were being con-
sidered that would clarify the status of the centers and the
priorities to be followed in filling enrollment spaces. One of
the proposed changes is proving to be controversial-a re-
quirement that 20 percent of the child care slots created
under the incentive system would have to be,subsidized
under an agreement worked out by the developer and the
provider. The need for the subsidy became apparent when
comparing the rates chazged for day care. At the market
rate, downtown infant care in May 1989 ran $675 a month,
whereas, in the neighborhoods, it's abovt $400 a month.
Billie Young, the city's child care coordinator commented
that, "We decided as a city we didn't want to aeate yuppie
day care."The original guidelines mandate only that child
care space be provided at "reduced rents" such that the ser-
vice is "affordable to the range of income levels representa-
tive of the downtown workforce."
The other changes under consideration would give first
priority for available slots to building tenants and limit
building upkeep and utility costs for the day care provider
to electricity costs.
Since passage of the bonus measure in 1985, three proj-
ects have been granted bonuses for the inclusion of child care
space. One project is built. It provides a civld care center for
22 infants and toddlers in the Washington Mutual Tower.
At 55 stories, the building is neazly twice as tall as what
would normally be allowed in the zone. The indusion of the
child care center accounted For one additional story. The
two other projects are under construction and will bring
about 100 child caze slots on the market within the next two
years.
The three developers that have used the bonus suggest
that the inclusion of child care space is not necessarily linked
to the highest bonus ratio because they have not built the
lazgest allowable centers. One of the child care centers does
not have any play space because it is restricted to children
under 31 months and thus has a state waiver from the play
space requirement.
Are Incentives the Answerl
At this point, it is difficult to say whether or not'zoning
incentives alone will be enough to lure developers into cre-
ating downtown child care space. Hartford's experience sug-
gests that it will not, since there has only been one request
for the child caze bonus. In contrast, Seatde shows more
signs of progress because th'e city has incorporated its zon-
ing bonus into a broader program designed to identify and
address the needs of the city's children and mandates indu-
sion of child care space to secure the bonus. The limit in-
herent in incentives remains clear, however. 4Vhen relying
on the decision oF a developer to provide child care, there
can be no assurance that the measures will be sufficient to
satisfy a community need.
To some extent, the use of child care exactions holds out
the possibility oE greater results than the use of incentives.
However, there are not many cities that can afford the lux-
ury of imposing exactions without feaz of undercutting
desired downtown development. Even in cities with boom-
ing markets, there is no guarantee that rapid growth, and
thus the funds or amenities created by the exactions, will en-
dure indefinitely. Unless the trust funds aze supplemented
with general revenues, there could be significant swings in
the cash support of many of these municipal programs. At
this point, it may make more sense to initiate a child care
policy that relies on a predictable flow of funds From the tax-
payers, and "friendly" zoning regulations and comprehen-
sive plans, rather than exactions.
PRIVA'IE-SECTOR SPONSORSHIP OF CHILD CARE
Businesses that have begun to provide child care facilities
or funds for their employees have done so for one primary
reason: their employees need child care. Most business in-
itiatives have been voluntary, sparked either by employee
requests or by the experience of upper management. The
Apri11987 issue of BusinessWeek reported that, according
to a survey of its readers, worries about the quality and
availability oF care for their children erodes workers' pro-
ductivity. Companies who have supplied child caze .: r....~3
net annual benefits due to reduced tazdiness, absenteeism,
and tumover-all of which were directly attributable to the
availability of reliable child care. The survey also found that
employer-provided child care was considered an efFective
recruiting tool, a valuable fiinge benefit, and a way to retain
veteran employees.
Thereare a variety of options available to private-sector
employers who consider assisting their employees with child
care:
Subsidizing resource and referral networks;
Providing flextime and parental leave;
Offering flexible benefits packages;
Providing capital for new off-site child care facilities;
Giving vouchers to employees to help subsidize child care
19
spaces in existing facilities;
Contributing directly to child care facilities in exchange
for spaces designated to employees; and
Providing on-site facilities.
These options can be used singly or in any combination that
suits the needs of the employee population.
Resources for Child Care Management, an independent
child care consulting and research firm, found that, out of
44,000 major U.S. companies, 3,000 have some form of
parental support for child care. Half give flexible benefits;
the other half offer some amount of on-site, off-site, or paid
support for child care. This increased attention to privately
sponsored child caze has even given rise to a new business-
there are now consultants who provide assistance to
employers in deciding which type of child caze support is
best for their employees. They may also assist in implement-
ing and developing the chosen plan.
American Facpress provides an example of a combination
of child care support that does not include actual develop-
ment or provision of spaces. They consider their model a
flexible, cost-effective approach to improving child care for
as many of their employees as possible. By providing train-
ing to help child care providers meet licensing requirements,
providing space for resource and referral offices, holding
employee information seminazs, and paying othernetwork-
ing and training expenses, American Eacgress is committed
to increasing resource-sharing networks and expanding the
supply oE licensed child care facilities.
A different example of new child care spaces built for a
specific employee population is the first privately owned,
nonsubsidized, freestanding child carecenter in the U.S. ro
be located in an officellight industrial park. The Chappeil
III Child Development Center in jacksonville, Florida, was
opened in July 1984 and sezves 225 children from six weeks
to five years in age. By choosing to locate in this office park,
the employer offers its employees the opportunity to use a
conveniently located child care center.
For the most pazt, those employers who choose to develop
their own child care centers say that municipal land-use in-
centives had no effect on their decision to provide child care.
It was only after they had made the decision Eo provide
faalities that land use, zoning, and licensing were examined.
Those employers note that, while land-use and zoning
regulations do not necessarily directly encourage the provi-
sion of employer-sponsored child care facilities, it isvery im-
portant that the regulations help streamline the development
process and, in that way, indirectiy support employer-
sponsored child care programs.
According to a 1987 study oF employer-sponsored child
care by Michelle Jama-Bussazd, "Local political support for
workplace child care is aiso an important, though not
deciding, influence on the viability of developer-sponsored
child caze facilities. A more important deterrent is if the host
community has incorporated child care centers as a permit-
ted use in commercial and industrial districts and has defined
child care as a community service [ as opposed to a small
businessJ. . . .
Planners can in4]uence the business person's decision to
provide child care through public education campaigns
about the local jurisdiction s commitment to thild care and
by targeting those campaigns at influential members of the
business community. Good polity statements am extremely
important in this regard. Liberal land-use regulations are
also necessary to ensure that these centers are built, not
hindered.
According to Jama-Bussard, "the regulatory framework
guiding and goveming the development of onsite child care
facilities was consistently found to be the major obstacle en-
countered by developers." The reseazch also made it clear,
however, that this problem was not generally encountered
until a later stage in the development process when it
becomes necessary to begin the approval process; the initial
decisions are based on the developer's conception of the
project, its location, and its market feasibility. By the time
those decisions were made, the impetus of the need for and
desirability of the child care project would help to carry it
through the regulatory process.
One East Coast child care consultant uses a nile of thumb
that an employee population of at least 5,000 is needed to
support demand for a center for about 70 children. A
municipality may want to provide increased density to an
office park developer to reach an employee population oE
that size in return for child caze space. This rule vazies, oF
course, depending on local situations.
Is employer-sponsored child care the wave of the future
or a shott-term trend? The federal b... <...ment is not mov-
ing in a major way to provide child care for al] needy
households. Many unions are beginning to negotiate child
caze benefits as pazt of a package and will continue to do so.
As long as the work force continues to make child care an
issue, employers will, to some extent, directly respond to the
demand.
z. . ;~4:
.
.
~
~ y~
?.: t'FiaS .,~Y
~ ~ . ~
~
..J ~'..~ ~ ~SY~•n~
, ~..-t . °~ftire.:w : I' ~'"b .,'M
/° . 4'
.~~~>> .. ,-...~.»y-x
~ ~ ~:
S ~ }~
i} :y4 k~-~.~nT.~'
~rtv '
~
y
F ~
~- d
.
'
~~"
~
.2 A
w
~
3
~
x
0
T
c
w
20
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chemka Speranza, Patricia. Alanning for Child Care
Facilities: The Ro1e of Municipalities. White Plains, N.Y.:
Depaztment of Planning, December 1987.
Child CareManagement Resources et al. Small Chi1d Care
Facilities in Residential Areas. Silver Springs, Md.:
Maryland-National Capital Pazk and Planning Commis-
sion, March 1987.
Children s Defense Fund. State Child Care Fact Book. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Children's Defense Fund, 1988.
Child Welfare League of America. Standards forDay Care
Service. New York: CWI.A, 1984.
Legislative Auditor of the State of Hawaii. Study of the
Regulation of Child Care in Hawaii. Honolulu: The Of-
fice of the Legislative Auditor, Report No. 85-12,
February 1985.
Legislative Commission on Expenditure Review. State Day
Care Centers. Albany, N.Y.: LCER, April 1986.
Martin, Dan, and Paulette Carolin. "Child Care Takes Off
in Retail and Office Projects." Urban Land (August 1988).
Maynard, Fredelle. The Child Care Crisis: The Rea1 Costs
of Day Care for You-cmd Your Ckild. Markham, On-
tario: Penguin Books Canada, Ltd., 1985.
Cohen, Abby J. Planning for Child Care: A Compendium
for Child Care Advocates Seeking the Inclusion of Child
Care in the Land Use/Development Process. San Fran-
cisco, Calif.: Ch1d Care Law Center, 1987.
--, et al. A Loca] Officials Guide to Zoning forFamily
Day Care. Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities,
1989.
Colwell, Carolyn. "Child Care Grows Up." Planning (May
1989).
Cromley, Ellen K. "Locational Problems and Preferences in
Preschool Care." The Professional Geographer39, no.3
(1987).
Dorman, Mary, and A1 Benkendorf. "Day Care Center
Regulations Need Updating." Oregon Planners Journa!
(May 1986).
Ernst and Whinney. lroine Child Care Study. Irvine Child
Caze Project, Irvine, Calif., October 1987.
Jaffe, Maztin, and Edith Netter. "Zoning for Child Day Care
Facilities." Land Llse Lav~ and Zoning DigesE (February
1985).
Jama-Bussard, Michelle. "Developer-Sponsored On-Site
Child Care Facilities."M.A. Thesis, George Washington
University, 1987.
Knoxville/Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commis-
sion. Child Care SEudy. Knoxville, Tenn.: KKCMPC,
July 1987.
Koziol, Christopher, and William A. Peterman. A
Communify-Based Feasibility Study of Daycare Needs.
Chicago: Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Com-
munity Development, University of Illinois at Chicago,
Technical Report No. 2-84, January 1984.
Kyle, John E. Children, Families, and Cities: Programs That
Work at the Local Level. Washington, D.C.: National
League of Cities, December 1987.
National Commission on Working Women. Child Care Fact
Sheet: Kinds of Care. Washington, D.C.: NCWW. No
date.
Netter, Edith M. "Hartford Adopts Incentive Zoning
Regulations." Urban Land (June 1984).
Resources for Child Care Management. Child Care at the
Workplace. Proceeds of the 1987 Conference in Chicago.
Berkeley Heights, N.J.: RCCM. No date.
Rose-Ackerman, Susan. "Unitended Consequences: Regu-
lating the Quality of Subsidiud Day Care." Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management 3, no.1(1983).
Save the Children. Family Day Care: An Option for Rurat
Communities. Atlanta, Ga.: STC. No date.
Smith, Shelley. "Corporate Child Care." Urban Land (May
1988).
Smith, Thomas P. "Updating Day Care." Zoning News
(February 1987).
Swaback, Jacquie. Planning Sacramento: Views of Students
and Parents. Sacramento, Calif.: Urban Interdependen-
cies, 1986.
United States Bureau of the Census. Who's Minding the
Kids?: Child Care Arrangments. No. 9 in the Cunent
PopulationReportsSeriesP-70, Winterl984-S5. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1987.
Walker, Lisa. "Guess Who's Minding the Kids't Day Care at
the Office." Building Economics (August 1986).
Walker, Nancy G. "San Francisco Office-Hotel Child Care
Program." Women and Ettvironments (Spring 1987).
VJESTAT. A Study of Child Care in FacilitiesFurnished by
Pubfic Housing Authorities: FinaI Repo rt. Washington,
D.C.: Department of Housing and Urban Development,
1986.
21
Appendixes
1. Child Care Law CenEer Model State Preemption Statute
2. Local Child Caze Ordinances from Olympia, Washington, and Salem, Oregon
3. Directory of State Agencies That License Child Care Faciliiies
4. Policy Implementation Principles of the American Planning Association on the
Provision of Child Care
1. Child Caze Law Center Model State Preemption Statute"
Sec. l. Intent to Preempt; Preempdon of Local Zoning
a) It is the intent of the legislature that family day care homes
for children be situated in normal residential surroundings so
as to give children a home environment that is condvcive to
healthy and safe development. It is the public policy of this
state to provide children in a family day caze home the same
home environment as that provided in a traditional home
setting.
The legislature declares this policy to be of statewide concem
(in order] to occupy the field to the exclusion of municipal zon-
ing regulatlbns regulating the use or occupancy of family day
care homes for chIldren as other than residential use or oo-
cupancy and to prohibit any restrictions relating to the use or
occupancy of properiy for faznily day care homes for children
except as specified undu this chapter.
b) Faznily day care homes for children under this chapter shall
be considemd a residential use of property for purposes of zon-
ing and shall be a permitted use in all zones in which residen-
tial uses are permitted, including, but not limited to, zones for
single-Family dwellings. No conditional use permit or special
exceprion may be required for such residences.
c) For the purposes of tlvs chapter, resid~ces shall mean singlr
family home, townhouse, condominium, apartment, and any
other dwelling unit used for residential purposes.
Sec. 2. Written Instruments Relating to Real t...rz.,~*'
Every provision in a written instrument entered into relating
to real Y,.,r.:..> that purports to forbid or restrict the con-
veyance, encumbranrn, leasing, or mortgaging oE such real
r• ~r<-; ~ or use or occupancy as a family day caze home For
children is void, and every restricbon or prohibition in any
such written ins~vment as to the use or occupancy of the prop-
erty as a family day care home for children is void.
Sec. 4. Busineu license, Fee, or Tax' `
No local jurisdiction shall impose any business license, fee, or
tax for the privilege of operating a family day care home.
Sec. 5. Building Code'"
Use of a[residence] for the purpose of family day care shall not
consHtute a change of occupancy for purposes of local building
and Fire codes.
Sec. 6. Fire and Life Safery"'
Iarge family day care homes shall be considered [residences]
for the purp~oses of the State Uivform Building Standards Code
and local building and fire codes, except with respect to any
addiHonal standards specifically designed to promote the fire
and life safety of the children in these homes, adopted by the
State Fire Mazshal pursuant to this Subdivision. No city,
county, dty and county, or distrid shall adopt or enforce any
building ordinance or local rule or regulation relating to the
subject of fire and life safety in lazge faznily day care homes that
is inconsistent with those standards adopted by the State Fire
Marshal, except to the extent the building ordinance or local
rule or regulation applies to [residencesJ in which day care is
not provided.
Sec. 7. L'units of Preemption
The provision of this chapter shall not be mnstrued to preclude
any city, county, or other local public entity from placing re-
strictions on building heights, setback, or lot dimensions of a
family day care home as long as such restrictions aze identical
to those applied to other rnsidences. The provisions of this
chapter also shall not be construed to prohibit or restrict the
abatement of nuisance by a ciry, county, or city and counry.
However, such ordinance or nuisance abatement shall not
distinguish faznily day care homes from other residences, ex-
cept as othezwise provided in this chapter.
Sec. 3. Covenanks and Conditions'*
Every .<.,L:.::on or prohibition, whether by way of covenant,
condition upon use or occupancy, or upon transfer of title to
real property, that restricts or prohibits directly, or indirectly
limits, the acquisiHon, use, or occupancy of such properiy for
a family day caze home for children is void.
'Copyright 1987, Child Care Law Center.
"'Optional.
Sec. S. Severability
IE any clause, sentence, pazt or parts of this chapter, or of any
section thereof, shall be held unconstitutional, such un-
constitutionality shall not affect the validity of the remain-
ing parts of this chapter or of any section thereof. The
legislature hereby declares that it would have passed the re-
maining parts oF this chapter, or any section thereof, if it had
knDwn such clause, sentence, part or parts of any section
thereof should be declared unconstitutional.
23
2. Local Child Caze Ordinances from Olympia, Washington, and Salem, Oregon
Olympia, Washington easier to set up and operate licensed child day care facilities
by simplifying the review and approva] process. At the same
DEFINITIONS time, these standards are intended to preserve the sesiden-
Child day care means theprovision of supplemental parental tial character of neighborhoods.
care and supervision:
a. for a nonrelated child or children; SECTION 2. FAMILY DAY CARE HOME
A family day care home shall be permitted by right in all
b. on a regular basis; zoning districts pemtitting residences, [provided that]:
c. for less than 29 hours a day; and
d. under license by the Washington State Depaztment oE
Social and Health Services.
As used in this ordinance, the term is not intended to include
babysitting services of a casual, nonrecurring nature or in
the child's own home. Likewise, the term is not intended to
include cooperative, reciprocative chi]d care by a group of
pazents in their respective domiciles.
Child day care facility means a 6uIlding or structure whemin
an agency, penon, orpersons regularly provides care for a
group of children for periods of less than 24 hours a day.
Child day care Eacilities include family day caze homes, child
mini-day care centers, and child day care centers. 7hey do
not include preschools or nursery schools.
a. Familydaycarehomemeansalicensedfamilyabode
of a person or persons who regularly provides direct
care during part of the 24-hour day to six or Fewer
children, including the licensee's own and foster
children under 12 years of age on the premises. A
family day care home may provide care for up to 10
children if it meets the requirements (found in the sec-
tion on family day care homes in the ordinance].
b. Chifd mini-day care center means a licensed, large
family day care home or an agency that regularly pro-
vides for the care of seven through 12 children, in-
cluding the licensee's own preschool- and
elementary-school-age children, in premises other
than the family abode of the licensee/care provider
and other than an approved structure on the same
building site occupied by said abode.
c. Ertended day care home means a licensed large family
day care home or an agency that regulazly provides For
the care of seven through 1Z children, including the
licensee's own preschool- and elementary-school-age
children, in the family abode of the licensee/care pro-
vider or in an approved stcucture on the same building
site occupied by said abode.
d. Child day care center means a licensed agenty that
provides for the care of 13 or more children.
SECTION 1. INTENT
The City Council finds that affordable, good-quality, and
licensed child day care within the city oE Olympia is critical
to the well-being oE parents and children in the community.
Furthermore, it is the purpose of this ordinance to make it
24
A. State licensing requirements aze met, including those
pertaining to building, fire safety, and health codes.
B. Lot size, building size, setbacks, and ]ot coverage con-
form to those applicable to the zoning district.
C. One off-street parking space u provided for each
nonresident or nonfamily member employee in addi-
tion to the two spacesper single-family or duplex unit
required. ... The residential driveway is accept-
able for this purpose.
D. If located on a major azterial street, an off-street drop-
ofF/pick-up area must be provided.
E. Signage, if any, conEorms to the require-
ments ... For the zoning district.
F. A Child Care Registration form is filed with the city.
G. No structural or decorative alteration that will alter
the single-family character of an existing residential
structure or be incompatible with surrounding
residences is permitted. '
H. A family day caxe home may provide care Eor more
than six children provided that:
1. None of the additional children are in care for
more than three hours;
2. In no event shall the total number of children
under 12 years of age on the premises exceed 10;
and
3. LNhenever there are more than eight children on
the premises or whenever there are more than six
children on the premises, any of whom are under
two yeazs of age, the day care provider shall be
assisted by a competent person who is at least 16
years oF age.
I. No family day care home shall caze for more than two
children under two years of age, including the
licensee's own and foster children under two years of
age.
SECTION 3. EXTENDED DAY CARE HOMES; CHILD
MINI-DAY CARE CENTERS
A. An extended day caze home is permitted by right in
all zoning districts permitting residences, subject to
the same conditions ]isted in Section 2 of this or-
dinance, subsections A through G. In addition, no
structured area for active play or play structures may
be located in a front yard.
B. A child mini-day care center is allowed in the
designated zoning districts as follows:
1. Zoning Districts "Rl" (Single-Family Residential)
and "R2" (Two-Family Residential). A child mini-
day care center may be allowed only upon is-
suance of a conditional use permit. ...
2. AIIOtherZoningDistricts.Achildmini-daycare
center is permitted by right in all other zoning
districts provided the conditions set forth in Sec-
tion 2 of this ordinance, subsections A through G,
are met.
SEC'IION 4. CHILD DAY'CARE CENTER
A child day care center may be allowed in the designated
zoning districts as follows:
A. Limitation in Llse of Family Residence. No child day
care center shall be located in a private family
residence unless the portion of the residence where the
children have access is used exclusively for children
during the hours the center is in operation or is sepa-
rate From the usual living quarters of the family.
B. ZoningDistricts"RI"(Single-FamilyResidential)and
"R2"(Two-Family Residential). A child day caze cen-
ter may be allowed in these zoning districts only upon
issuance of a conditional use permit. ...
C. All Other Zoning Distncts, A child day care center is
permitted by right in all other zoning districts subject
to the following conditions:
1. State licensing standards and requirements are
met.
2. Setbacks, screening, and landscaping shall con-
form to the pertinent portions oF the zoning code.
3. Structure shal] meet building, sanitation, health,
traffic safety, and Eire safety code requirements.
4. A minimum of one off-street parking space shall
be provided for each employee, plus an oEf-street
drop-off/pick-up area.
5. Filing of a child care registration form with the
c;ty.
18.44.100 CHILD DAY CARE
Child mini-day care centers and child day care centers may
be permitted in R-1 and R-2 Districts subject to the follow-
ing conditions:
A. State licensing requirements are met, including those
pertaining to building, fire safety, and health codes.
B. Lot size, building size, setbacks, and lot coverage con-
form to those applicable to the zoning district.
C. Signage, if any, will conform to the requirements
of . . . the zoning district.
D. Filing of a Child Care Registration form with the
city. . . .
E. At least one on-site parking space must be provided
for each on-duty staff person.
F. An on-site vehicle turnaround, or separate entrance
and exit points, and passenger loading area must be
provided.
G. A solid fence at least six feet high must be installed
along each side- and rear-yard lot line.
H. No structured area for active play or play structures
may be located in a front yard or within 10 feet of a
side or rear lot line.
I. The site must be landscaped in a manner compatible
with adjacent residences.
J. No structural or decorative alteration that will alter
the residential character of an existing residential
structure used for a child mini-day caze or child day
caze center is permitted. Any new or remodeled struc-
ture must be designed to be compatible with the
residential character of the surrounding neigh-
borhood.
K. A child mini-day care center or a child day care cen-
ter shall not be located within 300 feet of another child
mini-day care center or day care center, excluding any
day care center that is an accessory use in a commu-
nity service fatility. . . .
Salem, Oregon
[Editor's note: Oregon state !aw preempts loca! regulation
of child care homes. Salem's ordinance, therefore, deals only
with child care centers. See Table 1 in the report for a sum-
mary o f the Oregon statute. ]
DEFINITIONS
Chi(d day care center means a facility that provides child
care or kindergarten for 13 or more children.
Child day care home means the home of a child care pro-
vider for 12 or fewer children.
118.170. CHILD DAY CARE CENTERS
Where permitted as a specific conditional use in a residen-
tial zone, child day care centers shall be developed and
operated in compliance with [sections of the ordinance] to-
gether with any other conditions imposed on the conditional
use approval. . . [N]onconforming residential structures
shal] not be extended, altered, or expanded to accommodate
more than 30 chIldren.
118.180. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Nonvaziable Standards
The following minimum standards shall apply to the opera-
tion of any child day care center. The applicant has the
burden of proof in demonstrating compliance, and failure
to meet nonvariable standards shall constitute grounds for
denial of the specific conditional use permit.
1) Centers in residential structures. No more than 30
children may be accommodated by any child day care
25
center in a residential structure at any time. Off-street
parking shall be provided according to the Following
schedule:
Children Off-Streef Parking Places
13-18 2
19-26 3
27-30 4
2) Centers in all structures.
A. Lot size. Lot size shall meet the requirements of
the zoning district in which the use is situated.
B. Off-street loading. One space per 25 children.
C. Sfreet access. No alley-only access shall be per-
mitted.
D. Streetlocatzon.Inaresidentialzone,nodaycare
center shall be located along any dead end or cul-
de-sac street on which a day care center is car-
rently operating. In any case, the boundary of a
parcel or loE conEaining a day care center in any
structure shall be separated from the boundary of
any other parcei or lot containing a day care cen-
ter by not less than 400 feet or 800 Eeet measured
along the shortest street-traveled distance, which-
ever is greater.
General SEandazds
The following development standazds shall apply unless
otherwise modiEied upon a showing by Ehe applicant that the
proposal as modified complies with the comprehensive plan;
that there is a public need for the modification; and that
reasonably likely adverse consequences of the proposed use
and development to the immediate neighborhood are
reasonably minimized. Failure to meet a general standard
whose modification is not justi#ied shall constitute grounds
for denial of the specific conditional use permit.
1) Off-streetpnrkingrequirements, nonresidentialstruc-
tures. Provision of off-street parking for day care
centers in nonresidential structures shall be as required
by [ordinance provisions in the section covering off-
street parking, loading and driveways].
2) Street location. Child day caze centers shall be located
only on arterials and cotlectors designated on the
Functional Highway Classification Map of the
Salem-Keizer Areawide TransporEation Plan.
3) Screening.0atdoorplayareasa]ongcommonprop-
erty lines with residential uses shall be screened with
not less than a six-foot-high sight-obscuring fence,
wall, or hedge.
3. Directory of State Agencies That License Child Care Facilities
(current as oF fall 1989)
ALABAMA Sacramento, CA 95814
Family and Children's Services 916-322-5538
64 North Union St.
Montgomery, AL 36130-1801 COLORADO
205-261-5785 Day Care and Home Licensing
Department of Social Services
ALASKA 171717th St.
ChIld Care Licensing P.O. Box 18100
Box 805 Denver, CO 80202
Juneau, AK 99801-0630 303-294-5943
907-465-2105
CON~iECTICUT
AI2IZONA Day Care Licensing
State Health Department Department of HeaIth Services
Office of Child Care Licens'ing 150 Washington St,
411 North 24th St. Hartford, CT 06106
Phoenix, AZ 85008 203-566-2575
602-255-1272
DELAWARE
ARKANSAS Licensing Llepartment
Child Development Unit 330 East SOth St.
Children and Family Services Wilmington, DE 19802
P.O, Box 143~ 302-736-5487
Little Rock, AR 72203
SO1-371-2198 DISTRICT OF COLLiMBIA
DCRA/SFRA
CALIFORNIA 614 H St., NW, Room 203Z
Community Care Licensing Division Washington, DC 20001
744 P St., Main Station 17-17 202-727-7226
26
FLORIDA
Depaztment of Health and Rehabilitative Services
and Families
Division of Children and Youth
1317 Winewood Blvd., Bldg. 8
Tallahassee, FL 32301
904-488-4900
GEORGIA
Child Caze Licensing Section
Department of Human Resources
OfFice of Regulatory Services
878 Peachtree St., NE
Room 607
Atlanta, GA 30309
404-894-5688
HAWAII
Department of Social Services
Public Welfaze Division
P.O. Box 339
Honolulu, HI 96809
SOS-548-2302
IDAHO
Department of Health and Welfare
450 West State St.
Boise, ID 83720
208-334-5702
ILLINOIS
Department oE Children and Family Services
406 E. Monroe
Springfield, IL 62701-1381
217-785-2958
INDIANA
Child We]fare Division
State Welfare Department
141 Meridian St., 6th Floor
Indianapolis, IN 46225
317-232-4440
IOWA
Department of Human Services
Division of Adults, Children, and Families
Hoover State Office Bldg.
Fifth Floor
Des Moines, IA 50319
515-281-6074
KANSAS
State Department of Health and Environmene
Child Licensing
900 jackson St., lOth Floor
Topeka, KS 66620-0001
913-29b-1240
KENTUCKY
Division for Licensing and Regulation
275 East Main St.
CI-IR Bldg., 4th Floor East
Frankfort, KY 40621
502-569-2800
LOUISYAAiA
Division of Licensing and Certification
P.O. Box 3767
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
504-529-1681
MAINE
Department of Human Services
Licensing Unit
State House Station 11
Augusta, ME 04333
207-289-5060
MARYLANA
Maryland Dept. of Human Resources
Office of Child Caze L'acensing and Regulations
3I1 W. Saratoga St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
301-333-0193
MASSACHUSETTS
State Office for Children
150 Causeway St.
Boston, MD 02114
617-727-8956
MICHIGAN
Department of Social Services
Office of Children and Youth Servites
300 South Capital Ave., Ninth Floor
Lansing, MI 48926
517-373-3426
MINIVESO'IA
Department of Human Services
Division of Licensing
Space Center, Sixth Floor
St. Paul, MN 55101
612-296-3971
MISSISSIPPI
Division of Special Licensing
Depaztment of Health
P.O. Box 1700
Jackson, MS 39205
601-460-7740
MISSOURI
Department of Mental Health
Division of Family Services
Licensing Unit
P.O. Box 1527
Z002 Missouri Blvd.
Jefferson City, MO 65102
314-751-4279
MONTANA
Bureau of Social Services
P.O. Box 4210
27
HeSena, MT 59604
406-444-3865
IVF,BRASKA
Nebraska Department of Social Services
Eazly Childhood Program
301 Centennial Mall South
P.O. Box 95026
Lincoln, NE 68509-5026
402-471-9205
NEVADA
Child Care Service Bureau
505 East King St.
Carson City, NV 89710
702-SSS-5911
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Division of Public Health Services
Bureau of Child Care Standards and Licensing
Health and Human Services Bldg.
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301-8584 _ _
603-271-4624
NEW JERSEY
Division of Youth and Family Services
One South Montgomery St.
CN 717
Trenton, NJ08625
609-292-0616
NEW MEXICO
Department of Health and Environment
Hazold Reynolds Bldg.
P.O. Box 968
Santa Fe, NM 87501
505-8Z7-2416
NEW YORK
State Department of Social Services
Office of Child Day Care, Section lOC
40 Pearl St'.
Albany, NY 12243
518-473-0435
NORTH CAROLINA
Depaztment of Human Resources
Division of Facility Services
Child Day Care Section
701 Barbaur Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27603-2008
919-733-4801
NORTH DAKOTA
Children and Family Services
State Capitol
600 East Blvd.
Bismarck, ND 58505
70I-224-3580
OHIO
Child Care Regulatory Unit
Department of Human Services
Columbus District Office
899 East Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43205
614-466-3822
OKLAE~IOMA
Depaxtment of Human Services
Licensing Unit
P.O. Box 25352
Oklahoma City, OK 73125
405-521-3561
OREGON
Department of Human Resources
Children's Services Division
198 Commercial St., SE
Salem, OR 97310
503-37ti-317S
PEN[VSYLVANIA
Department of Public Welfare
Office oF Policy Planning and Evaluation
Day Care Division
P.O. Box 2675
Harrisburg, PA 17120
717-783-2206
RHODL ISLAND
Department for Children and Their Families
610 Mt. Pleasant Ave.
Providence, R102908
401-457-4540
SOUTH CAROLIlVA
Depaztment of Social Seivices
Day Care Division Regulatory Unit
P.O. Box 1530
Columbia, SC 29204
803-734-5740
SOUTH DAKOTA
Depaztment of Social Services
760 North Illinois St.
Pierre, SD 57501
605-224-9323
TEIVNESSEE
Department of Human Services
Citizen's Plaza Bldg.
400 Deadrick St.
Nashville, TN 37219
615-741-7129
TEXAS
Department of Human Resources
P.O. Box 2960
Austin, TX 78769
512-450-3011
28
~~
Department of Family Services
150 West North Temple St,
Salt Lake City, UT 84103
801-538-4100
VERMONT
Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services
I03 South Main St.
Waterbury, VT 05676
802-241-Z158
VIIZGIIVIA
Department of Social Services Licensing
8007 Discovery Dr.
Richmond, VA 23229-8699
804-281-9025
WASHIIVGTOIV
Division of Children and Family Services
Mail Stop OB-41
Olympia, WA 98504
206-752-0204
WEST VIRGINIA
Department oE Human Services
1900 Washington St. East
Charleston, VJV 23305
304-348-7980
WISCONSIN
Division of Comiriunify Development
Office for Children, Youth and Families
P.O. Box 7851
Madison, W~ 57307
608-266-8200
WYOMIfVG
Department of Health and Social Services
Division of Public Assistance and Social Services
Hataway Bldg.
Cheyenne, WY 82002-0710
307-777-6891
4. Policy Implementation Principles of the American Planning Association
on the Provision of Child Care
FINDIIVGS
Affordable, conveniently ]ocated, and quality child care
is one of the most pressing concems of contemporary family
]ife. According to 1985 Census figures, women workers
make up 44 percent of the TJ.S. labor force. In 1985, 62.3
percent-nearly two thirds-of all women with children
under 18 years of age worked outside of the home. The most
rapid increase in the rate of labor force participation since
1970 has been among women with chfldren under the age of
three. In 1985, 51 percent of these mothers were in the
workforce. Additionally, most of these mothers worked full
time (about 82 percent of employed single mothers and 68
percent of employed married mothers). .
In 1956, over half of all children under 17 (34 miliion) had
mothers in the work force. An estimated 7 million of these
children aze "latchkey," or feEt unsupervised for at Ieast part
of the day. Child care is clearly a national problem calling
out for some form of federal support. In addition, planners
can aim at state- and local-level policies and actions that
would enhance the provision of quality child care.
In 1982, the most common rype of arrangement chosen
by working parents was family day caze homes. Family day
care is provided by an adult working at home and typically
caring for four to seven children. Local planners can play an
important role in facilitating theprovision of family day care
by working to amend zoning to permit such a use by right
in some residential districts. Local planners aze also increas-
ing the availability of child care by working with developers
to provide affordable space.
Adopted by the Chapter DelegateAssembly, Apri128, 1987, for ra8fica-
tion by the APA Board of Directors, Septemberl9, 19$7
POLICY IMPLEMENTATIOIV PRINCIPLES
APA Chapters advocate the inclusion of chiid care poficies
as part of locai comprehensive plans and/orsocialseroice
plans.
APA Chapters entourage communities to consideramend-
ing local zoning ordinances to remove obstacles to the pro-
vision of regulated group and family child care in alI zoning
districts.
APA Chrzpters encourage communities 1o negotiate with
devel opers and to of fer incentives to pro uide space for child
care in all types of projects, both residential and commer-
ciaf, new construcfion, and reuse.
Reasons for these principles include consideration of the
following:
The impact of child care shortages is most acutely felt at
the local level. A recent survey of pazents seeking child
care in five New York counties showed the number one
problem to be finding a center that was conveniently
located. Many communities are aiready acEiveiy engaged
in improving the availability of child care for their resi-
dents. For example, in Hartford, Connecticut, developers
can receive an FAR bonus in exchange for providing space
for day care. Prince George's County, Maryiand, has
amended its zoning to include a special ;,., <r::on for child
care facilities in excess public school buildings undergo-
ing adaptive reuse. Palo Alto, California, includes, in its
comprehensive plan, a variance permitting expanded site
coverage in industrial zones when the additional building
space is used for child care. It should be noted that, al-
29
though much attentiott is being Eocused on the provision
of child care at work, surveys consistently s6ow thaf most
parents prefer that their children be in small facilities close
to home.
APA National and Chapters support legislation providing
for child care needs assessment and planning to be funded
at the federal, stafe, and local Ievels and to be performed at
the state and local levels.
APA National supports legislation, such as fhat proposed
by Congresswoman Schroeder of Colorado, which would
require the granting of reasottable maternity and paternity
Ieave to any parent who requests it and guarantee tHat his
or her job will be protected during Yhat period.
APA National supports legislation that would provide
health care bettef its, including coverage for pregnancy and
postnataI care for all women.
Reasons for these principles include consideration of the
following:
The United States is the only industrialized nation that
provides no job protection or child care support for work-
ing parents. American women have no statutory entitle-
ment to job protection, maternify leave (or Fathers to
patemity leave), health coverage for themselves and theSr
newborn, or access to affordable, convenient, and quality
child care. The majority oE women (80 percent, accord-
ing to the National Commission on Wor[cing Women)
work in low-paying, low-status jobs. Neazly two thirds
(63.6 percent) of all minimum wage earners are women.
Twenty percent oE mothers in the work force, or over 6
million women, are the sole support of their Eamilies.
Without public policies in support oE parents, we as a
society run the risk that many of today's children wil]
not receive the necessary care to grow into productive
adults.
APA National and Chapters support any national and state
legislafion that moves toward the goaT of providing ade-
quate funding forsafe, convenient, and affordable child care
opportunities for all children.
30
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held be£ore the
City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on April 21, 1994 at 7:30 p.m.
at 7500 west 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested
citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing or submit written
comments. The following petitions shall be heard:
1. ~se N~_ ~-y4=~"; A proposal to amend Wheat Ridge Code o£ Laws,
Chapter 26. Zoning Code reZating to right of legal protest for '
Special Use Permits and Day Care Centers as Special Uses within
residential and agricultural zone ctistricts.
2. wz-94-4: An application by General Management Company for
approval of an amendment to the Planned Commercial Development
£inal development plan for the Applewood Village Shopping Center
located at approximately 3600 Youngfield Street. Said property
is legally described as follows:
PARCEL 1
A PORTION OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION
29, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., DESCRISED AS
FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POTNT 654.32 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF
THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 29, AND 60.00 FEET EAST OF
THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 29; THENCE N 00~51.8' W PARALLEL TO THE WEST LINE OF THE
EAST ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 29, A
DISTANCE OF 667.82 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER
OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 29, THEN N 89~28.1' E
ALONG THE SOUTH LIN& OF THE NORTH$AST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET; THENCE N
00~51.8' W PAi2ALLEL TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE
NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET;
TAENCE S$9~2$,1' W PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF
150.00 FEET; THENCE N 00~51.8' W PARALLEL TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST
ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONS-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 29, A DISTANCE
OF 135.19 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
WHOSE RADIUS IS 182.OQ FEET AND WHOSE CHORD BEARS N 37°51.1' E, A
DISTANCE OF 227.66 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE N 76~34.0' E
ALONG THE SOUTHEI2LY LINE OF WEST 38TH AVENUE, A DISTANCE OF 701.69
FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RIDG$VIEW ACRES THIRD FILING, A
PLATTED SUBDIVISION IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF JEFFERSQN COUNTY,
COLORADO; THENCE S 00~43.5' E ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID RIDGEVIEW
ACRE$ THIRD FILING, A DISTANCE OF 670.33 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 29;
THENCE S 89~28.1' W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF TI-IE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER
OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUAf2TER OF SAID SECTIpN 29, A DISTANCE OF 0.67
FEET TO A POINT WHICH IS 885.00 FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST
ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QtTARTER OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE S
00~51.$' E PARALLEL TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST ON$-HALF OF THE
NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 1162.99 FEET
~
TO A POINT 160.00 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE S 89~31.7' W PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH
LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF
192.34 FEET; THENCE 500~51.8' E PARALLEL TO TIiE WEST LINE OF THE EAST
ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 29, A DISTANCE
OF 130.00 FEET; THENCE S 89~31.7' W PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 342.66 FEET TO
A POINT 350.00 FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE
NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 29; THENCE N 00~51.8' W PARALLEL
TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 600.00 FEET; THENCE S 89~31.7' W
PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 29, A DZSTANCE OF 150.00 FEET; THENCE N 00~51.8' W PARALLEL TO
THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 29, A DISTANCE OF 24.32 FEET; THENCE S 89~31.7' W
PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 29,
A DISTANCE OF 140.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING
AN AREA 29.969 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
Sandra Wiggins, Secretary
ATTEST:
Wanda Sang, City Clerk
To be Published: April 5, 1994
Wheat Ridge Sentinel
<pc>pnzoa943/wz944
PUBLZC HEARING SPEAKERS~ LIST
CASE N0: ~nA-94-3 DATE: 04-21-94
AEflUEST:
~
~
~
~
A proposal to amend wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26.
Zoning Code relating to right of legal protest for Special
Use Permits and Day Care Centers as Special Uses iaithin
residential and agricultural zone districts.
; SPEAKER'S NAHE ~ ADDRESS (PLEASE PRINT)
~ i~j 2 Y'Gi., ~~) Y~~ ~'t,~ ~ j
I
; ~U~fl~J ~~D~
;~~- t~ ~,. ~ v~r ~ t ~~
,
, ~~p ~! p 0`
i -~'k.1~T~YY'~~:n. , ~Jn ~V-C' 9na.u h~ ~
i ~~.¢~;w~..f
, /~i s .~/ bC >~1_h ~n ,.€'%s~.P ~
~ / ~'::- G`
W~~ ~~~~~
; v
i ~/~~\ ~ a ~ L
~,-~'~/.~'l ~`G/ r~~~l~ ~ ~r''.~:~
; J
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ "
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
I
~
~
~
~
~
~
f
Posltion Qn
(Please
IH FAYOR ;
~ I
,
~
,
'
~ '
,
X .
s
x i
'~ ~
~
i
x '
~
~\
~
Request;
Check) ;
OPPUSED ;
~
~
_~
,
;
,
;
,
,
,
~
~
.
~
~
~
;
~
~
i
;
~
l~
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
FROM:I~ Glen Gidley, Director of Planning & Development
RE: ' Council Bill for 1st Reading/Special Use Permits -
Legal Protest - Day Care Centers
DATE: ApTil 28, 1994
Planning Commission considered the attached proposed Counci2 B311
at a public hearing heid on April 21, 1994. A copy of their
resolution and draft minutes is attached. I have also attached a
copy of the sta£P report given to the Planning Commission £or
your reference.
In summary, Planning Commission recommends approval of the
proposed revision to apply the legai protest provision to Special
Use Permits. However, they recommendod against deleting "Small
Day Care Centers" and "Day Care Centers" £rom the residential
zones as proposed in Sections 2 and 3 0£ the Council Bill.
GEG:slw
attacriments
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Bob Middaugh, City Administrator
FROMlen Gidley, Director of Planning & Development
RE: DAY CARE CENTERS
DATE: June 6, 1994
Council has asked that this matter be placed upon the June 20
study session agenda for discussion. I have previously provided
Council with photo copies of a report entitled Zoning for Child
Care, APA-PAS Report No. 422. (May 9 & June 13 CC packets). This
report is very informative and may help Council in their
discussions. I would like to point out several things that the
report discusses:
1. Regarding LOCATION (page 11), it is recommended that day care
centers should be allowed in all residential zones, based
upon specific standards and criteria.
2. Regarding USE APPROVAL & DESIGN STANDARDS, I believe that
Wheat Ridge has adequate review process and development
standards in place to meet the recommendations set forth and
discussed on pages 9 through 15 of this report. Our review
process requires a Special Use Permit. This is a very
thorough process that involves specific findings and
conclusions relative to ordinance criteria, a public hearing
process that allows for substantial public input, approval by
adoption of an ordinance, and revocation procedures should
problems occur after approval.
Regarding DESIGN STANDARDS, Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning
Ordinance sets forth extensive predetermined design standards
for development within each zone district, as well as across
all zone districts. Each district provides standards for
building height, setbacks and lot coverage. Parking
standards are set forth Section 26-31 that deals with access,
lot design, buffering and numbers of spaces. Landscaping
requirements are set forth in Sec. 26-32. Sign standards are
set forth in Sec. 26-410. In addition to those minimum
standards set forth by the Code of Laws, Planning Commission
& City Council have specific authority to review a site plan
for any requested Special Use (e.g., Day care Center), and
impose specific design, development and operational
conditions upon approval of a Special Use. This takes into
consideration the differences between locations, surrounding
uses, existing development characteristics, topography,
public facilities such as streets and sidewalks, etc. The
point is that every case is different, and Planning
Memo to Bob Middaugh Page 2
June 6, 1994
Commission and City Council may impose very stringent
conditions and standards that may be different between
locations, based upon the facts in each case.
For comparison purposes, we contacted the following cities and
found that they permit child care centers in residential zones as
indicated:
LITTLETON: requires a Conditional Use permit with approval by
Planning Commission. Specific standards are: play areas must be
screened or buffered from adjacent properties; must provide a
safe drop-off area.
LAKEWOOD: allowed in medium density and high density residential
zone districts (similar to our R-1C, R-2A, R-3, R-3A & PRD zones)
as a Permitted Use, no public hearing required. Not allowed in
low density residential zone districts. No specific standards.
THORNTON: allowed as a Specific Use Permit in low density
residential zones (like our Conditional Use), approved by
Planning Commission. Allowed as a Use by Right in medium and
high density residential zones. No specific standards.
AURORA: Large day care centers (over 12 children) not permitted
in single family zones, but allowed in two-family and multifamily
zones as a Conditional Use, approved by Planning Commission.
Small Centers (7-12 children) allowed in single family districts
by Conditional Use permit, and in high residential zones as a Use
by Right. No specific standards.
ARVADA: Permitted as a Special Exception in all residential
zones by the Board of Adjustment. No specific standards.
GEG:slw
.f
AGENDA ITEM RECAP
QUASI-JUDICIAL X
Yes No
PUBLIC HEARINGS
_ PROC./CEREMONZES
_ BIDS/MOTIONS
_ INFORMATION ONLY
AGENDA ITEK TITLE:
SUMMARY/RECOM
CZTY ADM. MATTERS ELEC. OFFICIALS MATTERS
CITY ATTY. MATTERS ,$_ ORDINANCES FOR 1$T READING
LIQUOR HEARINGS ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING
_ .PUSLIC COMMENT _ RESOLUTIONS ~
Council Bill for lst Reading relating to Special Use
Permits, Legal Protest and Day Care Centers.
MENDATION:
Refer to attached memo.
~.~
ATTACHMENTS: BUDGETED
1) Gidley memo ITEM: Yes No
2) Planning Commission Minutes
and Resolution rund
3) Staff Report to Planning Com. Dept/ACCt #
Budgeted Amount $
Requested Expend.$
Requires Transfer/
Supp. Appropriation
Yes No
MOTION:
I move for adoption of Council Bill No. on lst Reading, a
public hearing be set for June 13, 1994, and order the Council
Bill be published as required by law.
l., r '
~ !
CITY COUNCIL MTNUTES: May 9, 1994 Page -5-
Christine Moyer. 1700 Glen Gary Drive, Lakewood, owns property at 3250
Flower Street; she asked that this vacatfan be denied because the
residents of Field and Flower Streets have not had sufficient ingress
and egress on their streets for many years; leave it as is, it may be
, used in future years when the lake recedes; camplete an effiefent
turn-around for both streets.
Kit Kimball, 3290 Fie1d Street; spoke in favor of the vacation; her
property will be directly affeeted by the vacation, but she feels it
will be in the best interest of the residents ta vacate; it will enhance
the area and people with sma1.1 children were in favor.
Don Donner, 3385 Flower Street; spake in favor of the vacation; he will,
lose parking places in theif driveway, but feels it is a worthwhile
sacrifice to have a turn-around.
Publie Works Direetor, Bab Goebel, 7500 W. 29th Avenue, answered
Couneil's questions and concerns.
Motian by Mr. Edwar~s that Council Bill 51, a request for approval of an
unused portion of Fie1d Street, extended between Field Street extended
between Ffeld and Flower Streets, be vacated for the follawing reasons:
1. There are no utilities in the right-of-way.
2. No properties have aceess from the right-of-way.
3• Planning Commission recommends approval.
With,the condition tHat turnarounds on Field and Flower Streets are
provided in aecordance with Section V of the staff report.
He also noted for the recard that the legal description will be as read
into the recard tonight, not as printed in the Ordinance; seconded by
i4rs. Behm; carried 8-0.
Item 5. Couneil Bill 52 - An Ordinance amending Section 5-76 of the
Code of Laws of the City af Wheat Ridge, pertaining to y~,~y~
_ . : ~ti~3ot~rn in g-="`~.`~p~'~~~'. - , . . . -
Couneil Bill 52 wa:, introduced by Mr. Edwards; title rea~ by the Clerk;
Ordinance No. 964 assigned.
Motian by Mr. Edwards for approv'al of Council Bill 52 (Ordinance 964);
seconded by Mr. Eafanti; carrie3 7-1 with hlrs. Worth voting no. Mrs.
Worth stated what we really need is better emission control and
enforaernent of i3ling ordinanees, rather than punishing people with
fireplaces. This is a minor part of the pollutian.
ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING
_ item 6. Counefl Bil1 48 - An Urdinance amending the Zoning Ordinance of
the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge relating to ~s•~-+'
~+ ~`d
~ Couneil Bill 4$ was introduced by Mr. Edwards on first reading; title
read by the Clerk.
.~
CITY COUNCIL MLNUTES: May 9, 199~ Page -6-
The following speakers were swot~n in by the Mayor:
Shaundel Goode, 3363 Jay Street, requested that Couneil amend the
Ordinance ta give adjacent property owners the right to legal protest
when special permits are applied for. in addition she asked that
Couneil pass a separate ordinance dealing speciffcally with special use
permits. She suggested that day care be removed from this Ordinat~ce;
there are no restrictions placed on ~~aycare whieh may want to locate in
residential areas and this.is not right. Other cities have ordinances
that deal specifically with daycare in residential neighborhoods.
Jhvr~ee Burkepile, 6285 W.'35th Avenue, asked that the right to legal
protest. be included in the Pawnshop Or~dinance; she also asked that
daycare be addressed in a separate ordinance.
Dick Dahl, 3220 Ingalls Street, also asked that the right to legal
protest be given whenever an applicant applies far a special use permit;
requested that daycare be removed,from the Pawn Shop Ordinance and that
a separate ordinance address daycare with specifie restrictions in
residential neighborhoods.
Norma Faes, 6215 W. 35th Avenue, recommended that a separate ordinance
be drafted and considere~ regarding legal protest for all special use
permits. if Couneil chooses to add legal pratest to the Pawn.Shap
Ordinanee it should be made clear that this would apply to each and
every special ~~se per~mit application. A1so, she recommended that
Daycares be removed from the ordinance dealing with Pawn Shops and that
a separate ordinance be dr'afted and considered dealing only with
Daycares.
Geraldine Faes, 6205 W. 35 Av=nue, requestad that Sections 2 and 3 be
deleted from Urdinanee No. 945. She stated that a rightful public
hearing has not been held an daycare faciliti,es either. at Planning
Commission"o'r tiy'"City""~,ouncil to determine how they will affect the
City and residential areas.
Susan Seeds, 6147 'r!. 35th Avenue, stated she is in agreement with the
previous speakers regarding adding the right to legal protest,
especially for special use permits, and requested' removing daycare
centers from the Pawn Shop Ordinanee, and recommen~ed that a separate
ordinanee be ~rafted dealing only with daycare centers.
Narm Burk~ile. 6285 W. 35th Avenue, stated he favors the right to legal
protest; and requested that the Pawn Shops and Daycare Centers be
considered in two separate o~^dinanees.
Mr. Gidley stated and entered for the record and carrecte3 the staff
raport to the Planning Commission and to cor~rect the table shown on the
averhead tonight. He incorreetly indicated that ~aycare centers are not
allowed, or were not allawed in residential zone districts prior to
passage of Ordinanoe Na. 9~5, when in actuality Daycar~e centers of all
types have always been allowed in any residential zane district as an
aceessory use to a ehurch.
;,
~, ~ •
CITY CGUNCIL MINUTES: May 9, 199~ Page -7-
City Attorney, Kathryn Sehroeder, clarified that the City's positinn is
that Daycare Centers and Pawn Shops are included in the Special Use
Ordinance. Speakers referred to the Ordinance as the "Pawnshop
Ordinance", it really is a Special Use Ordinance.
Mr. Hall suggested that wherever the word "changes" appears in
Couneil Bill 48, it be rsplace~ with "Special Use Permits" ta avoid any
confusion. He alsa suggested that under Section (5), subparagraph (a)
be strieken prior to publication.
Motion by Mr. Solano to hold an Executivs Session under Section
5.7(b)(1)(A) of the Charte~^; seconded by Mr. Siler; carried $-0.
EXECUTIVE SESSION WA5 HELD.
Motion by Mr. Edwards for the adoption of Council Bill ~t8 on first
reading, with el.arifying changes in the legal protest section
recommended by staff, a public hearing be set for June 13, 199~, and
arder the Couneil Bill be published as required by law, and be effeetive
upon approval by City Council; seconded by Mr~s. Worth.
Mr. Sf2er will reluctantly vote against this because he feels it might
send a message to the courts that the City has made a mistake on the
pravious ordinance.
Motion by Mr. Solano to eliminate Sections 2. and 3.; seconded by Mr.
Hall; carried 5-3 with Couneilmembers Worth, Edwards, and Fields voting
no.
Vote on original motion as amended carried 6-2 with Mr. Eafanti and Mrs.
Fields voting no.
Motion bv Mr. E~war~s to hald a Speci.al Study Sessi9n with public .
testimany to discuss Special Use P=rmit and Daycare Usage for children
and adults in residential areas; seconded by Mr. Solano; carried $-0.
DECISIONS. RESOLUTIONS, AND MOTIONS
Mr, yiddaugh introduced K~vin Nichols and Janet Stromberg from the
Jefferson County Planning Department, who presented a slide program on
the praposed complete reworking of the Coonty's Comprehensive Planning
process.
Item 7. Amendment to 199u Capital Improvement Fund. (Applewoad
Shopping Center).
Mr. Middaugh presented the staff report and answered Couneil's questfons.
Motion by F1r. Edwards that the City Administrator be authorized to
prepare amendmen.ts to the 1994 Capital Improvement program for City
Couneil review and approva2 regarding Capital projeet needs in the
vicinity of Applewood Shopping Center; seconded by Mr. Solano; carried
$-~• Mrs. Worth made a statement that no 38th Avenue money was to be used for
this project.
~~~~t~t,~ Ll~~' ~
CITY COUNCIL NINUTES: June 13, 1994
Page -8-
Mino~^ Subdivision
Motion by Mr. Solano that Case No. MS-94-1, a request for approval of a
two-l.ot minor~ sut~division, for property located at 4217 Xenon Street, be
approved for the follcwing reason: 1. All requirements of the
Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following condition:
Minor legal descriptioa errors be corrected; seeonded by Mr. Solano;
carried $-0.
Item 2. CouneiZ Bill ~18 - An Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinanee of
the Code af Laws of the City of iJheat Ridge relating ta
Couneil Bi11 48 was introduced on second reading bv~°`~~ Edwards, wtzo
also read the title. Ordinance No. 970 was assigned'by the Clerk.
Motian by Mr~. Edwards for the adopticn af Council Bill 48 (Ordinanee
970); seconded by h1r, Solano; carrie~ 8-C.
Item 4. Council Sill No. 58 - An Or3inanoe regulating the possession
of drug injectian devices and possessicn, sale, manufacture,
~elivery, or advertisement cf ~rug paraphernalia.
Council Bill 58 was intraduced o:t second reading by Mr, Edwards, who
also read the title. Ordinance P1o. 971 was assign,ed by the Clerk.
Motion by Mr. Edwards for the a~option af Couneil Bill 58 (Ordinance No.
971) with the correction in Section 16-132 after the word
..veterinarians "or persons who laWfully utilize injeetion devices for
the sole purpose of provid.ing medical treatment ta their pets or•
livestock"; seconded by Mr. Solano; carrisd 8-0.
ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING
Item 6. r,ouncil Bill 60 - An Ordinance providing ior the approva7. of
rezcning from Agricultural-One ;A-i) an~ Residential-Two (R-2)
ta Planned Commercial Uev.elapment (PCD) and for the approval of
an outline an~ final 9e~elcpment plan on Iand Iocated at 4650
Kipling Street, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State
of- Cblorada. --
(Case ilo. WZ-q4-2) (Johnny Ketelson Reereation Vehicles)
Council Bi11 60 was introduced by Mr. Hall on first reading; title
read by the Clerk.
Notion by Mr. Hall that Council Bill 60 be approved an first reading,
ordered published, public nearing be set for Monday, July 11, 199~+
at 7:00 p.m. in City Couneil Chambers, Munieipal 81dg., and if approved
on second reading, take effect 15 days after final publication; seconded
by M~^. Solano; carried 8-0.
r
S T U D Y S E S S I O N A G E N D A
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
JUNE 20, 1994
7:00 p.m.
Item 1. Discussion on "Day Care."
TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR JUNE 27, 1994
P.H. C.B. No. 59 - Model Traffic Code Amendment.
Appeal from Ballistic Video - Continued from June 13, 1994.
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
JUNE 20, 1994
The lity Council Study Session was called to order by Mayor Dan Wilde
at 7 00 p m Councilmembers present Vance Edwards, Jean D Fields,
Even Siler, Rae Jean Rehm, Clauiia Worth, Tony Solano, Donald Eafanti and
Dennis Hall were absent Also present city Clerk, Wanda Sang, pity
Administrator, Robert Middaugh, t,ity Attorney, Kathryn Schroeder,
staff, and interested citizens
The City Council previously voted to have public comment by the citizens
at this meeting
Item 1 Discussion on "Day Care "
Susan Seeds handed out a sample ordinance on Day Care She stated that
she went through the ordinances from state of Washington, State Statutes
and also looked through the City of Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, and
drafted a general ordinance that would apply to any Day Care located in
Wheat. Ridge
Kenneth Lamkin thanked Council for allowing public comment and
.discussion, and stated that he senses there is a need for day care
within the City of Wheat Ridge, but believes that it would be
important to actually have the demographic data available to peruse
that would indicate how many children there are. within the City and the
availability of day care It seems that there are a lot of people
outside of the City that are utilizing services within Wheat Ridge
Joan Smith, Director of Family First Resource and Referral, Red Rocks
Community College, presented her background and expertise in placing
families in adult day carp She stated that, they are a non-profit
auxilliary organization of Red Rocks Community College Red Rocks
Community College supports them by giving them space, they are not
State-funded
Susan Walker, Senior Resource Center, shared her expertise on Adult Day
care
Jhyree Burkpile, stated and made the point that. Day Care Centers for
children are businesses and do have an impact on residential neighbor-
hoods
Janice Jensen, concurred with previous speakers and wishes to see
guidelines developed that are comprehensive and concise for applicants
STUDY SESSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 1994 PAGE -2-
Norman Burkpile, concurred with the previous speakers and asked that the
Community Development Department come up with a Comprehensive Plan
specifically addressing Day Care which encompasses the whole city
There was 3-3 tie vote for staff to draft an ordinance including the
suggestions and concerns expressed by the speakers to cover a
comprehensive plan on Jay care Mayor Wilde broke the tie by voting no
Meeting adjourned at 9 33 p m
Wanda Sang, City erQ~S
Sample Ordinance for Wheat Ridge, Colorado
DEFINITIONS
Child care. Is a comprehensive care service for the child when the parent or guardian
is employed or otherwise engaged and unavailable to care for the child. A child care
center may operate for 24 hours in a day, yet the child is cared for at the center for less
than 24 hours in one day.
Child care center, small. Provides less than 24-hour care for 7-12 children between
the ages of 2 and 16 years.
Child care center, large. Provides less than 24-hour care for 13 or more children
between the ages of 2-1/2 to 16 years.
Infant Nursery. Provides less than 24-hour care for children between ages of 6 weeks
and 18 months.
Toddler Nursery. Provides less than 24-hour care for children betwen the ages of 12
months and walking independently and 36 months.
Day care home, small. Provides less than 24-hour care for not more than 6 full-time
children plus 2 children before and after-school.
Day care home, large. Provides less than 24-hour care for not more than 7-12 full-time
children.
Section 2. CHILD CARE HOME, SMALL
A small child care home may be permitted by right in all zoning districts permitting
residences, (provided that):
A. State licensing standards and requirements are met.
B. Lot size, building size, setbacks, screening, and landscaping shall conform to the
pertinent portions of the zoning code.
C. Structure shall meet building, sanitation, health, traffic safety, and fire safety code
requirements.
D. No structural or decorative alteration that will alter the character of an existing
residential structure or be incompatible with surrounding residences is permitted.
E. A Child Care Registration form is filed with the city on a yearly basis including the
following information:
1. Complaints received by Social Services which are on public record.
2. Total number of children enrolled.
Z
K ~
Section 3. CHILD CARE.HOME, LARGE f\
A large child care home may be permitted in all zoning districts permitting residences
only upon issuance of a special use permit subject to the following conditions:
A. State licensing standards and requirements are met.
B. Lot size, building size, setbacks, screening, and landscaping shall conform to the
pertinent portions of the zoning code.
C. Structure shall meet building, sanitation, health, traffic safety, and fire safety code
requirements.
D. If located on a major arterial street, an off-street drop-off/pick-up area must be
provided.
E. Parking shall meet all zoning requirements.
F. Signage shall conform to the zone in which it is located with the exception of R-2
and above where the only signage permitted shall be one (1) nonilluminated,
nonreflective, nonobstructive wall or arcade sign which does not exceed two (2)
square feet in area. Signs will be approved by the zoning administrator and shall be
permitted only after a sign permit has been obtained.
G. No structural or decorative alteration that will alter the character of an existing
residential structure or be incompatible with the surrounding residences is permitted.
H. A Child Care Registration form is filed with the city on a yearly basis including the
following information:
1. Complaints received by Social Services which are of public record.
2. Total number of children enrolled.
Section 4. CHILD CA14E CENTER/INFANT NURSEI~Y/TODDLER NURSERY, SMALL
(7-12 CHILDREN) /
A small child care center/infant nursery/toddler nursery may be allowed in all zoning
districts only upon issuance of a special use permit with the following information
submitted by the applicant and used by the planning commission and city council in
considering approval of a special use permit:
A. A site plan of the site indicating property boundaries and area location and extent
of all existing and proposed buildings; parking and circulation areas; landscaping and
buffering, fences, walls, etc.; recreational facilities and open space; location of ADA
ramping; or any other physical features that might help identify the expected character
of the proposed facility.
B. State licensing standards and requirements are met including the following
information received from the State of Colorado Department of Social Services at the
time permit application is submitted:
1. The fact that the agency has licensed or is preparing to license the facility.
2. Report by Social Services building inspector stating building meets all state
requirements for ages requested by applicant.
3. The number of children at any one time on the premises.
4. Hours the facility will be open.
5. The ages of the children.
C. Lot size, building size, setbacks, screening, and landscaping shall conform to the
pertinent portions of the zoning code.
D. Structure shall meet building, sanitation, health, traffic safety, and fire safety code
requirements, including the Uniform Building Code and ADA requirements.
E. No active play area is to be located in the front yard or within 10 feet of side or rear
lot line.
F. If located on a major arterial street, an off-street drop-off/pick up area must be
provided.
G. Parking must meet all zoning requirements.
H. Signage shall conform to the zone in which it is located with the exception of R-2
and above where signage shall be one (1) nonilluminated, nonreflective,
nonobstructive wall or arcade sign which does not exceed two (2) square feet in area.
Signs will be approved by the zoning administrator and shall be permitted only after a
sign permit has been obtained.
1. No structural or decorative alteration that will alter the character of an existing
I. No structural or decorative alteration that will alter the character of an existing
residential structure or be incompatible with the surrounding residences is permitted.
The facility shall not create negative impacts for the residential neighborhood.
J. A Child. Care Registration form shall be filed with the city on a yearly basis including
the following information:
a. Complaints received by Social Services which are of public record.
b. Total number of children enrolled at the center.
5
y
Section 5. CHILD CARE CENTER, LARGE
A large day care center may be allowed in R-3 and lower zoning districts only upon
issuance of a special use permit with the following information submitted by the
applicant and used by the planning commission and city council in considering
approval of a special use permit:
A. A site plan of the site indicating property boundaries and area location and extent
of all existing and proposed buildings; parking and circulation areas; landscaping and
buffering, fences, walls, etc.; recreational facilities and open space; location of ADA
ramping; or any other physical features that might help identify the expected character
of the proposed facility.
B. State licensing standards and requirements are met including the following
information recieved from the State of Colorado Department of Social Services at the
time the permit is requested:
1. The fact that the agency has licensed or is preparing to license the facility.
2. Report by Social Services building inspector that building meets all state
requirements for ages requested by applicant.
3. The number of children at any onetime on the premises.
4. The approximate ages of the children.
5. Hours the facility will be open.
C. Lot size, building size, setbacks, screening, and landscaping shall conform to the
pertinent portions of the zoning code.
1. Screening. Screening of outdoor play areas and/or parking lot along
common property lines with residential uses shall be screened with not less than a six-
foot high sight-obstructing fence, wall or hedge.
D. Structure shall meet building, sanitation, health, traffic safety, and fire safety code
requirements, including Unified Building Code and ADA requirements.
E. Street location. Large child day care centers shall be located only on arterial and
collector designated streets.
1. If located on a major arterial street, an off-street drop-off/pick-up area must be
provided.
2. Large child day care centers may be allowed in R-1, R-2 zones as an
accessory use only in school; church or other community oriented facilities.
3. City Council may allow large day care centers as a special use permit in
Planned Residential Developments.
F. Parking must meet all zoning requirements.
G. Signage shall conform to the zone in which it is located with the exception of R-2
and above where signage shall be one (1) nonilluminated, nonreflective,
nonobstructive wall or arcade sign which does
Signs will be approved by the zoning administ
sign permit has been obtained.
not 4eed two (2) square feet in area.
ator and shall be permitted only after a
H. No structural or decorative alteration that will alter the character of an existing
residential structure or be incompatible with the surrounding residences is permitted.
The facility shall not create negative impacts for the residential neighborhood.
1. Dispersion: No child care center may be located within 1.000 feet of another large
child care center. This would include the expansion of an existing child care facility,
but would exclude the accessory use in a community service facility.
I. A Child Care Registration form shall be filed with the city on a yearly basis with the
following information:
a. Complaints received by Social Services which are public information.
b. Total number of children enrolled at the center.
J. If holder of permit is in viuiaiiuo i ui any of the above requirements, the holder has 90
days to come into compliance. Failure to meet compliance within this time period will
constitute grounds for revocation of permit.
K. A Special Use Permit shall be granted for a five (5) year period at which time the
permit shall be reviewed by Council, unless applicant has failed to meet above
standards before the 5 year period. Failure to meet standards may constitute grounds
for revocation of permit.