Request for a Home Occupation Permit to Operate a Youth Horse Ranch at 7202 181st Ave NW; Case of Robin Veach Fitzgerald (Second Chance Youth Ranch)

The City has received an application from Robin Veach Fitzgerald for a Home Occupation Permit to operate a youth horse ranch at 7202 181st Ave NW. Because of the transaction with the public/customers and level of traffic anticipated to be generated, City Code requires the application to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council following the procedures for reviewing a conditional use permit.

In accordance with State Statute and City Code, Staff attempted to notify all property owners within 350 of the Subject Property of the Public Hearing via Standard US Mail. A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Anoka County Union.

Second Chance Youth Ranch is a proposed horse ranch geared toward children that would operate on a single-family parcel located at 7202 181st Ave NW. Activities offered in the program include service chores, arts and crafts, outdoor games (horseshoes, bean bag toss, etc.), building projects (dog houses, picnic tables, etc.), horse grooming, handling, and riding. Additional background information on the proposed use can be found at www.2ndchanceyouthranch.org. In addition, according to the Applicant, the proposed use is modeled after the Crystal Peaks Youth Ranch, with background at www.crystalpeaksyouthranch.org. Please note that the details of the Crystal Peak Youth Ranch are intended as background information only, and is not the specific business model for the proposed use.

The Applicant anticipates approximately six (6) to eight (8) attendees of the program at any one given time, with one (1) volunteer per attendee assisting. At the Planning Commission, the Applicant stated that she would desire to host two (2) sessions per day and operate no more than four (4) days per week between Monday and Friday (no weekend activities).  The Applicant would keep six (6) to eight (8) horses on the Subject Property, which would be allowed eleven (11) horse per the City's animal ordinance. The Applicant anticipates an additional five (5) volunteers for general assistance. Total persons on the Subject Property related to the home occupation would be approximately twenty (20). The Applicant anticipates peak traffic at approximately fifteen (15) vehicle trips per day, which would occur one (1) to two (2) days per week.  The Subject Property would be allowed a maximum of twenty (20) vehicle trips per day under standard administrative review.  The City Council does have the ability to increase the maximum VTD through this Permit process. 

The Applicant is in the process of completing a detached accessory structure on the Subject Property. The structure would be used for equipment related to the operation of the horse ranch such as feed, tack, equipment, and tractors.

Staff has asked that the Applicant provide a sketch of the Subject Property that indicates locations of structures, fencing/pasture areas, and location of manure storage areas. This is a requirement of City Code. The site plan shall also indicate locations of off-street parking areas, which shall be appropriately surfaced per City Code.  The Applicant submitted a sketch plan at the Public Hearing, herein attached to this case.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 1 and there were several questions/concerns raised from nearby property owners.  The two main concerns were related to whether the proposed use would include any lodging and/or counseling on site as well as potential vandalism.  The Applicant stated that the home occupation does not and would not include lodging or counseling services and that there would be a one to one ratio between volunteers and attendees, which should eliminate any concerns of vandalism.  The Planning Commission reiterated to the Applicant that should any lodging be contemplated with this use in the future, they would be required to request an amendment to the Home Occupation Permit, which may or may not be approved.  The Applicant acknowledged this and stated they understood.  The Planning Commission does recommended approval of the request with amendments to the findings of fact as drafted.

All costs associated with processing the Application are the responsibility of the Applicant.

MOTION #1: Motion to recommend that the City Council approve the resolution adopting findings of fact related to the request.

-AND-

MOTION #2: Motion to recommend that the City Council approve the resolution granting approval of the request, contingent upon compliance with the City Staff Review Letter dated November 23, 2011, based on findings of fact and declaring the terms of the same.

-OR-

ALTERNATE MOTION #2: Motion to recommend that the City Council deny the resolution granting approval of the request, contingent upon compliance with the City Staff Review Letter dated November 23, 2011, based on findings of fact and declaring the terms of the same.