Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Home Occupation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies home‑occupation exception for Ashley’s Flower Farm, forwards appeal to city council
Summary
The Gunnison Planning and Zoning Commission voted March 26 to deny an exception request from Ashley’s Flower Farm (150 E. 200 S.) under the city’s home‑occupation/land‑use standards and forwarded the matter to the City Council for review on appeal. Staff had advised denial under current code language; the commission also asked council to review home‑occupation rules.
The Gunnison Planning and Zoning Commission voted March 26 to deny a request for a home‑occupation exception by Ashley’s Flower Farm and to forward the matter to the Gunnison City Council for review. The applicant, who identified herself as Ashley Sanderson, said she began growing cut flowers in 2020 on about a quarter acre behind her house and now sells bouquets and subscriptions locally.
The commission’s discussion focused on how the city’s home‑occupation and business‑license rules intersect. City staff recommended denial under the land‑use standards so the applicant could appeal the matter to council. “I recommend that we deny the request for the flower growing business at 150 East 200 South based on the findings and conditions,” staff said during the hearing.
Sanderson told the commission she markets bouquets at a local market and through a new website, ashleysflowerfarm.com, and that she is testing season‑extending methods such as a high tunnel and a possible greenhouse. She told commissioners the operation currently uses roughly “around a fourth of an acre” and that she is not pursuing high‑volume commercial production but does sometimes sell buckets of stems to a local florist.
Commissioners sought to reconcile two strands of the municipal code: the land‑use standards that constrain approval by the planning commission and a separate council authority to waive business‑license requirements as an exception (for example, for agricultural enterprises producing commodities for sale on the premises). City staff advised that, because the planning commission could not approve the exception under the current home‑occupation standards, the required process was to deny the application at the commission level so the applicant could seek a waiver or exception from the City Council.
After discussion, the commission voted (motion seconded) to deny the request and forward the record to City Council for appeal and potential waiver. The commission also voted separately to ask the City Council to review and clarify the city’s home‑occupation and business‑license exception language to reduce ambiguity about activities such as on‑premises agricultural sales and market pickups.
The commission’s action does not prohibit Sanderson from seeking council relief; staff said the applicant may present the case at the next council meeting and that staff will note the commission’s concerns and any support in the council staff memo. The applicant was instructed on the appeal process and thanked for attending.
