Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 03-01 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 84004 Applicant: Oliver Stoutland Location: 3118 Lawrence Road Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to conduct a drafting home occupation with one nonresident employee in the basement of the residence at 3118 Lawrence Road. Under Section 35-406 of the Zoning Ordinance, any home occupation involving a nonresident employee requires a special use permit. The property in question is zoned R1 and is surrounded by other single-family homes. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he describes the opera- tion. lie notes that the hours of business would be from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. , with some possible overtime, Monday - Friday. Access to the work area in the basement would be via the rear 62or which leads immediately to the basement. One nonresident employee is requested under this application. (The applicant also seeks two additional employees under Application No. 84005) . There is room for two cars in the driveway. Customer traffic is expected to be light. Standard drafting equipment will be used. Printing will be done at a printing service. Staff see no problem with the proposal made under this application. There should be no noise or parking problems. The level of traffic should also be minimal . Approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1 . The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is nontransferable. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any N+iolations .zhereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off - treet on improved space provided by the applicant. 4. Special use permit approval acknowledges no more than one nonresident employee on the premises at any given time. 5. A 10 lb. fire extinguisher shall be installed in the basement work area prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 3-1-84 1 1 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 84005 Applicant: Oliver `Stoutland Location: 3118. Lawrence (toad Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-406 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow up to three nonresident employees in the drafting home occupation which is the subject of Application No. 84004. The applicant has submitted a separate letter pertaining to the variance request (attached) . The letter briefly states that the reason for the variance is that Mr. Stoutland's drafting company cannot compete in a shrinking market if it has to pay for professional office space in a commercial zoning district. Mr. Stout- land expands on the problems of the business on a second page (see attached) . Mr. Stoutland also states that he will expand his driveway to accommodate extra cars if the variance is granted. Mr. Stoutland's letter really does not address the Standards for a Variance. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a vari- ance any use that is not permited under this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere in- convenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. c. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. d. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighbor- hood in which the parcel of land is located. The hardship alleged in this case is not related to physical surroundings, topo- graphy, etc. The conditions of the variance are not unique to this parcel of land and certainly could be applied to any home occupation needing more than one employee to be economically viable. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of the ordinance and was not created by a person having an interest in the parcel of land, however, the ordinance provides only for limited use of the residential property for business purposes. Finally, the granting of the variance may or may not be detrimental to surrounding property depending on the level of traffic and provision for parking. 3-1-84 -1- Application No. 84005 continued The requested variance is dissimilar from other variances in that it does not seek relief from a physical dimension requirement, but from a level of activity require- ment. In a sense, the request is similar to a use variance which is illegal under state law. However, it does not necessarily amount to a use variance if the employ- ment of three nonresidents in a home occupation can be found to fall within the general understanding of .a residential use. At present, it does not. Whether this request is considered a use variance or a standards variance, staff believe it should not be granted. Any relief from the current standard should be accomplished only through an ordinance amendment, if at all . Regarding an ordinance amendment, we would note that the number of children allowed in a day care operation in a single-family home was raised to 10 in 1982. The number of students in group instruction home occupations was also raised to 10 at that time. Perhaps this is an indication that more nonresident employees could also be tolerated. However, employees .are often involved in more intense activities than students or children. Would it be appropriate to allow 3 nonresident employees in a small engine repair operation, a barber or beauty service, a saw sharpening service, a day care operation or an insurance business and the like? We recommend that the Commission carefully consider all the implications of any ordinance change and keep in mind that the basic concept behind the home occupation provisions is that the business or profession is clearly incidental and secondary to the resi- dential use of the property. A value judgment has been made in our Zoning Ordinance that more than one employee goes beyond this "incidental and secondary" threshold. 3-1-84 -2-