VII.3. 101 Oakwood Road Reasonable Accommodation Request; Riggs1
583923v4HP145-43
June 4, 2019 Council Report 2019-064
101 Oakwood Reasonable Accommodation Request
Proposed Action:
Staff recommends that the Council adopt a resolution denying the requested accommodation
sought by Kevin Stanton, on behalf of ninety n ninety, LLC for the property at 101 Oakwood Road
(the “Property”) based upon the information contained in this staff report and the findings of fact
and conclusions included in the draft resolution.
Overview:
The Applicant, Kevin Stanton, on behalf of ninety n ninety, LLC, has submitted two requests to
the City. The first was an application for a rental license for a single-family home at the Property
(originally requested as a spirit lodge convent). The second was a request for an accommodation,
as allowed by federal law, to allow up to 17 persons to reside at the Property.1 The Americans
with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), along with the Fair Housing Act (the “FHA”), require that
cities make “reasonable accommodations” to existing policies which they determine are necessary
to provide an equal opportunity to housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Under
the ADA, alcohol and drug addiction is considered a qualifying disability, subject to various
limitations (e.g., the individual must generally be sober in order to claim disability status). The use
of “reasonable accommodations” to zoning code restrictions related to family size are a commonly-
employed tool relied upon by sober home operators, and these types of accommodations have,
when appropriately supported by record evidence, generally been upheld by the courts.
Accommodation requests are not required to be automatically approved. In reviewing an
accommodation request under the FHA, the City should employ a burden-shifting analytical
framework. The Applicant must first provide a city with sufficient evidence which supports a
conclusion that the accommodation is both “reasonable”2 and “necessary”. That is, that without
the accommodation, the person with a disability will not enjoy an equal opportunity to housing.3
For the reasons outlined herein, city staff has concluded that, based on the evidence in the record,
the requested accommodation is neither reasonable nor necessary. Assuming that the Applicant
meets this burden, in order to deny the request, the City then must point to rebuttal evidence which
establishes that, despite the necessity of the accommodation request, if approved the
accommodation would be unreasonable because it would constitute a fundamental alteration or
would constitute an undue burden.
City staff has made at least 11 attempts to work with the Applicant regarding Applicant’s rental,
code enforcement issues and accommodation request. Given the size, scope, and complexity of
1 The Applicant later supplemented this request to seek approval for up to nine residents.
2 An applicant may simply provide evidence that an accommodation request is facially reasonable, in which case the
burden shifts to the city to produce rebuttal evidence that shows that the accommodation would create a fundamental
alteration or would impose undue financial or administrative burdens.
3 This analysis is generally highly fact specific and must be made on a case-by-case basis in light of the information
and evidence presented by a particular applicant.
2
583923v4HP145-43
the request, City staff in the areas of zoning, building and fire safety, and other areas have identified
potential concerns and potential steps that would need to be taken by the Applicant pursuant to
various laws and regulations. Frankly, at this point the Applicant has not provided the City with
sufficient evidence for staff to compile a comprehensive list of various issues associated with these
requests. City staff also received a notification from Hennepin County who, as the local health
authority, has issued a cease and desist order to the Applicant based on his failure to satisfy various
requirements, including the need for a commercial kitchen, in County ordinance and state law
based on the number of individuals proposed to be housed on the Property.
On or around May 10, 2019, the City sent the Applicant a detailed letter asking several follow up
questions in an attempt to better understand the proposed use of the Property. The goal was to
work with the Applicant to identify the breadth of issues, and to determine what, if any, path
forward existed. What the City received in response was a copy of the letter that included short,
handwritten responses to the questions posed. In reviewing this letter, City staff gained very little
additional information supporting the request for an accommodation. In addition, on or around
May 29th, the Applicant delivered to City Hall an amended response to the City’s letter which, as
far as staff could determine, simply amended the Applicant’s request from 17 persons to nine
persons to be allowed to reside on the Property.
City staff also scheduled an inspection, pursuant to section 407.07 of the City Code and section
405 of the Property Maintenance Code, of the Property for May 23rd. The purpose of this
inspection, like the letter, was at least in part to better understand the issues posed by the
Applicant’s request. However, on May 22nd, the Applicant notified City staff that he was
unavailable for the inspection on May 23rd, and that he was not willing to allow City staff to
complete an inspection of the Property. At or around the same time, the Applicant voiced his belief
that he did not need a rental license from the City based upon his proposed activities, and that he
wished to not move forward with that application at that time.4
Application of City Code:
One of the purposes of the City staff’s attempts to better understand the Applicant’s proposed uses
was to better determine the scope of the accommodation being requested. Under federal law, the
City can be required to modify any of its policies or practices where necessary to give effect to the
ADA and FHA. Based upon City staff’s limited understanding of the proposed operations, the
following policies and procedures would need to be modified in order to allow this operation to
exist in this location5:
1.An exception to the zoning code which would allow for more than four unrelated
individuals to live together in the R-1-C zoning district (up to nine, according to the
Applicant’s latest request).
2.A potential exception to the City Code’s parking requirements for single family houses. It
is unclear based upon the Applicant’s submissions how many residents of the home will at
4 Because City staff was unable to fully understand the scope of the proposed operations to be carried on at the
Property, and because the Applicant did not submit his withdrawal request in writing, City staf f felt it appropriate to
continue with the denial of the rental license application for the reasons outlined in the materials associated with that
separate agenda item.
5 Attached to the staff report are additional materials which further outline these, an d other, code provisions which
would need to be modified in order to satisfy this request. The list included herein is not inclusive, and these lists
represent City staff’s conclusions based on their limited knowledge about the proposed operation of the P roperty.
3
583923v4HP145-43
any time keep motor vehicles at the Property. Experiences in other cities would suggest
that some of these individuals may not drive. However, City staff has previously received
several complaints about the overcrowded parking on the Property, and the Applicant has
not provided any information about how he plans to address those concerns when having
up to 10 motor vehicles serving the property (nine residents plus one on-site manager or
staff person). City Code would generally require at least seven off-street parking stalls for
this proposed use of the Property, and the Applicant has not provided any details about
how, or whether, he could accommodate such a need.
3.Given the proposed density of the Property, applicable regulations would likely require an
active fire suppression sprinkler system to be installed.
4.Egress windows will be required to be installed in each at-grade or below-grade sleeping
room.
5.The home will need to be modified to meet various accessibility standards.
6.An exterior exit from the second floor (i.e., a fire escape) will be required.
7.The Applicant will be required to obtain a lodging license from Hennepin County, which
may include a licensed commercial kitchen.
Staff Recommendation:
The question before the city council is whether to approve an accommodation which would allow
the Applicant to operate a sober home facility at the Property. As noted above, federal law
provides that the City must make reasonable accommodations to its policies and procedures where
necessary to afford an equal opportunity to housing for individuals with a disability. Based on the
information provided by the Applicant, and the record as a whole, staff recommends that the city
council deny the accommodation request for the following reasons:
1.The Applicant has failed to provide any evidence which would indicate that the request to
operate a residential facility for up to nine unrelated individuals is facially reasonable.
2.The Applicant has failed to provide any information which initially proves that such an
accommodation is necessary. The Applicant has failed to point to any specific barriers
which exist that inhibit a disabled person from having an equal opportunity to housing in
this neighborhood, or in the City generally. The Applicant has also not provided any
information which would suggest why nine residents is necessary, rather than four as the
city code currently allows. The record is void of any evidence which would establish a
prima facie case that the requested accommodation is necessary.
3.Because the Applicant failed to satisfy their obligation to make a prima facie case related
to the necessity of the requested accommodation, the City is not required to provide rebuttal
evidence related to the reasonableness of the requested accommodation. However, given
the significant scope and impact of the requested accommodation, it is appropriate to note
that City staff also believes that the requested accommodation is unreasonable because it
would constitute a fundamental alteration to the surrounding neighborhood and would
likely create a financial and/or administrative burden on the City’s services.
4.As noted herein, City Code would generally require six off-street parking stalls to serve
this Property given the proposed use. The Applicant has provided no evidence regarding
how they propose to manage up to ten additional motor vehicles associated with this
Property. The surrounding neighborhood is residential in nature, with limited on -street
parking available. The Applicant’s apparent reliance on on-street parking to serve as the
parking for the increased density of this Property constitutes a fundamental alteration to
4
583923v4HP145-43
the neighborhood, and will interfere with other residents’ ability to utilize that parking as
well. Additionally, parking up to ten additional motor vehicles associated with the Property
on the street is likely to create additional burdens for City staff during snow-removal
operations during the winter months.
5.City staff has already received several calls regarding various code violations at this
Property. It is therefore likely to assume that the City will continue to receive complaints
regarding the ongoing use of the Property if an accommodation were approved. While
some portion of these calls represent a typical responsibility of City staff (i.e., respo nding
to resident’s concerns and complaints generally), the anticipated logistical issues,
compounded by the apparent lack of a detailed plan of operation provided by the Applicant,
are likely to create a significant and undue administrative burden for Cit y staff in the
volume and scope of complaints that is anticipated.
6.The proposed use of the Property also highlights several life safety concerns for both the
prospective residents and emergency services personnel. A primary function of a local
governmental entity is to ensure the safety of its residents, and one method used to
accomplish that is the adoption and enforcement of various safety codes. Here, the
Applicant has not provided any evidence about how they plan to comply with these codes.
Additionally, without having an opportunity to inspect the Property, emergency services
personnel are unable to know what, if any, additional life safety risks are posed to both the
residents, and to city personnel who may be called to respond to an emergency sit uation,
such as a fire.
Based on the foregoing, city staff recommends that the city council adopt Resolution Number
2019-047, denying the Applicant’s request for an accommodation pursuant to the Fair Housing
Act, based upon the findings of fact and conclusions contained therein.
Attached Supporting Materials:
Exhibit 1 – April 5, 2019 Letter regarding ordinance violations
Exhibit 2 – April 10, 2019 Rental license application – spiritual lodge convent
Exhibit 3 – April 25, 2019 Code violation letter
Exhibit 4 – May 3, 2019 Corrected rental application – single family home
Exhibit 5 – May 10, 2019 Staff letter –accommodation information request and notice of
rental license denial hearing
Exhibit 6 – May 22, 2019 Response to staff letter regarding accommodation information
request
Exhibit 7 – May 29, 2019 Amended accommodation request
Exhibit 8 – Memoranda outlining additional code violations of proposed use
Exhibit 9 – Copy of Cease and Desist letter issued by Hennepin County
Exhibit 10 – Resolution Number 2019-047
5
583923v4HP145-43
EXHIBIT 1
6
583923v4HP145-43
EXHIBIT 2
7
583923v4HP145-43
EXHIBIT 3
8
583923v4HP145-43
9
583923v4HP145-43
EXHIBIT 4
10
583923v4HP145-43
11
583923v4HP145-43
12
583923v4HP145-43
EXHIBIT 5
13
583923v4HP145-43
14
583923v4HP145-43
15
583923v4HP145-43
16
583923v4HP145-43
EXHIBIT 6
17
583923v4HP145-43
18
583923v4HP145-43
19
583923v4HP145-43
20
583923v4HP145-43
21
583923v4HP145-43
22
583923v4HP145-43
23
583923v4HP145-43
24
583923v4HP145-43
25
583923v4HP145-43
26
583923v4HP145-43
27
583923v4HP145-43
EXHIBIT 7
28
583923v4HP145-43
29
583923v4HP145-43
EXHIBIT 8
Information Related to Accommodation Request
The Basic Life Safety requirements below would be required regardless of the request for
accommodation.
By adopting the 2015 Minnesota State Building Code and the 2006 International
Property Maintenance Code, the City of Hopkins has Building Code and Construction
Standards in place in an effort to ensure health and safety, and preserve the quality of
our neighborhoods and protect our community and residents. Due to the fact the
building use and occupancy classification has changed from Residential Code IR C-1
Dwelling Single Family to Residential R-3 Congregate Living Facility in the Commercial
Code, the following items will need to be investigated and addressed if the reasonable
accommodation request is approved:
1. MN licensed architect would need to review the existing building condition and
submit building plans for the required upgrades
2. Fully monitored NFPA 13, OR 13-R fire sprinkler system is required
3. Water line servicing the building may need to be upgraded to support the required
sprinkler system
4. Emergency escape and rescue windows required in each sleeping room
5. Walls separating sleeping units in the same building shall be constructed as fire
partitions
6. One accessible entrance is required
7. One accessible route from the accessible entrance to primary funct ion areas
8. Accessible signage
9. Accessible parking
10. Accessible route connecting the accessible parking to the accessible entrance
11. One fully accessible sleeping unit
12. Accessible laundry
13. Accessible kitchen
Fire requirements to allow requested accommodation:
The Occupancy would be changed from an R-1 to a Congregate Residence which
would change the housing from Single Family to an R3. An R3 occupancy would
require at a minimum:
1. A sprinkler systems in the structure;
2. An exterior exit off the second floor; and
3. Exit signs and emergency lighting throughout the structure.
Public health is handled by Hennepin County in Hopkins. Hennepin County
Environmental Health requires a food and lodging license for this use. The County has
issued a cease and desist order to the property.
30
583923v4HP145-43
Zoning Violations for 101 Oakwood Road
1. Violation of the City’s Code Section 530.05, Permitted Uses in the Residential Districts.
The subject property is located within the R-1-C zoning districts.
Permitted uses in the R-1-C district are limited to 1 Family Detached Dwellings and Hopkins
Owned Park & Rec properties.
City Code Section 515.07, Subdivision 86 provides the definition of Family. Family: an
individual or two (2) or more persons each related to the other by blood, marriage, adoption,
or foster care, or a group of not more than four (4) persons not so related maintaining a
common household and using common cooking and sanitary facilities.
The applicant has indicated there are currently nine (9) unrelated persons residing at the subject
property in which violates the City of Hopkins limit of no more than four (4) unrelated person
residing in a single family dwelling.
2. Violation of City Code Section 550.01 Subdivision 9 – Number of Vehicles.
If there are three or more persons residing at a single family dwelling who have valid
Minnesota driver’s licenses showing the residence address, then the total number of passenger
vehicles allowed to be parked outside is increased to a number equal to the number of licensed
drivers residing at the property, plus one passenger vehicle.
Complaints to the City indicated the site had more vehicles than allowed under this standard.
Based on the information supplied by the applicant, City staff cannot determine compliance
with this standard.
3. Violation of City Code Section 550.05, Subdivision – Required Off-Street Parking.
One and Two-Family Dwellings are require to provide at least one parking space for each
dwelling unit of 1200 square feet or less and two parking spaces for each dwelling unit over
1200 square feet, plus one additional parking space for each two roomers accommodated. A
garage will fulfill this requirement. A building permit may not be granted to convert a garage to
living space unless other acceptable provisions are made to provide the required parking space.
According to Hennepin County, the subject property is approximately 4,800 square feet in size.
According to the applicant, nine (9) unrelated person reside at the subject property.
Based on this information, the subject property is required to provide at least six (6) off-street
parking stalls (2 stalls for a dwelling over 1,200 square feet and 4 additional stalls for the 8
roomers).
Based on the information supplied by the applicant, City staff cannot determine compliance
with this standard.
31
583923v4HP145-43
EXHIBIT 9
Public Health Department
Epidemiology and Environmental Health Epidemiology: (612) 543-5230
1011 South First Street, Suite 215 Environmental Health: (612) 543-5200
Hopkins, MN 55343-9413 FAX: (952) 351-5222
Date: May 29, 2019
OPERATOR:
NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST
ESTABLISHMENT: Kevin J. Stanton
Ninety N Ninety LLC
101 Oakwood Road
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO DISCONTINUE ALL OPERATIONS OF FOOD
HANDLING AND STORAGE FOR OPERATION OF OVER FOUR PEOPLE. DISCONTINUE
LODGING OPERATIONS FOR OVER FOUR PEOPLE. EFFECTIVE JUNE 6, 2019.
Your food and lodging establishment has been found to be operating without a valid Hennepin County
License.
In order to be compliant, you must remove residents over the number of four from this establishment.
Then a food facility plan must be submitted for review in accordance with MN Rules 4626.1720 and
Hennepin County Ordinance #3 Section 6: 6.2 to 6.4. Additionally you must apply for a license, in
compliance with the requirements of Hennepin County Ordinance 3, Section 4: 4.2 and MN Rule
4626.1755.
A lodging facility plan must be submitted for review in accordance with MN Statute 157 and Hennepin
County Ordinance #6, Subsections 7. Additionally you must apply for a license, in compliance with
the requirements of MN Statute 157 and Hennepin County Ordinance #6 Subsection 3.
A plan review application can be found at: www.hennepin.us/planreview (third link at the bottom of
the site). Once the plan is approved, an application and invoice will be sent out for licensure.
You may not reopen this establishment for more than four people until you have obtained a valid
Hennepin County license, and City of Hopkins Approvals. Failure to comply with the orders stated in
this Notice to Cease and Desist by June 6, 2019, may result in additional enforcement action.
Sincerely,
Joseph W. Jurusik
Supervising Environmentalist
32
583923v4HP145-43
cc: Mandi Veith, Environmentalist
Julia Selleys, Supervising Environmentalist
Lori Lynn, Hennepin County Licensing
Chris Kearney, City of Hopkins Building Official
33
583923v4HP145-43
EXHIBIT 10
[to be added]
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION 2019-047
A RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR AN ACCOMMODATION TO
OPERATE A SOBER HOME LOCATED AT 101 OAKWOOD ROAD
WHEREAS, the applicant, ninety n ninety, LLC, a limited liability company formed under
the laws of the state of Minnesota (the “Applicant”), submitted a written request for a reasonable
accommodation for the property located at 101 Oakwood, Hopkins, MN (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. On April 5, 2019, City staff sent the Applicant a letter outlining information which the
City believed supported allegations of ongoing code violations occurring on the
Property, chief among them is the fact that more than four unrelated individuals are
residing on the Property in violation of City Code, sections 515.07, subd. 86 and
530.05;
2. Based upon initial conversations with the Applicant, he had identified a desire to use
1
the Property as a spiritual lodge, convent. Because of this, City staff directed him to
fill out a rental license application;
3. On April 22, 2019, City staff from the Engineering, Inspections, Community
Development, and Fire divisions met with the Applicant, in person, to discuss several
code-related concerns that City staff had based upon their basic understanding of the
use being proposed by the Applicant for the Property;
4. On April 25, 2019, City staff issued a code enforcement letter documenting the April
22, 2019 meeting, and further outlining the alleged ongoing code violations. The letter
further scheduled a code enforcement inspection for May 23, 2019, and requested that
the Applicant submit an updated or new rental license application which listed the
appropriate category of use, a single-family residential home;
5. On May 3,2019, the Applicant provided an updated rental license application. The
Applicant further requested that the City process a reasonable accommodation request
pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act and Fair Housing Act (collectively,
2
the “Act”), as amended;
1
It is noteworthy that the Applicant initially explicitly indicated to City staff, on several occasions, that he had no
intent to operate a sober home facility on the Property. Based in part on this, City staff viewed the proposed activity
as a form of rental lodging, and therefore proceeded with the rental license application procedure.
2
The Applicant’s request for a reasonable accommodation consisted of his request for a “reasonable accommodation
form”, which the City does not have. The Applicant then provided reference to the city of St. Paul’s reasonable
accommodation process as one justification for his request.
1
6. To comply with the City’s obligation under the Act, the City sent a letter to the
Applicant on May 10, 2019, with several questions which were intended to garner
additional information necessary for the City to process a reasonable accommodation
request;
7. On May 22, 2019, the Applicant called City staff to notify them that he would not be
available for the inspection scheduled for May 23, 2019. Staff attempted to reschedule
but were unsuccessful. The Applicant also indicated at this time that he was no longer
interested in obtaining a rental license application, but instead would like the City to
provide a reasonable accommodation to allow him to operate a sober home for up to
17 residents. The Applicant provided additional summary information about the
proposed operations of the Property;
8. On May 29, 2019, City staff received an updated response letter from the Applicant
which, as far as staff can determine, simply amended the original response to request
up to nine, as opposed to 17, residents to reside on the Property.
WHEREAS, the City Council addressed the rental license application as a separate
action, pursuant to the requirements of section 407 of the City Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED based on the information provided by the
Applicant, the City Council hereby denies the requested accommodation – to allow the Applicant
to operate a sober home consisting of up to nine unrelated persons residing together on the Property
where the City Code allows for no more than four – based upon the following findings of facts:
1. Based upon the Applicant’s request, the proposed use – a sober home – would classify the
Property as eligible for a reasonable accommodation under the Act. Specifically, houses
which provide communal living to individuals with alcohol addiction have been found to
be eligible for reasonable accommodations, as chemical dependency is generally a
qualifying disability under the Act.
2. Pursuant to the Act, the Applicant bears the initial burden of establishing that their request
is both reasonable and necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to
housing. If the Applicant makes the requisite showing, the City may consider evidence
that the requested accommodation would constitute a fundamental alteration to its policies,
or in the zoning context the neighborhood, and/or whether the requested accommodation
would constitute and undue financial or administrative burden on the City.
3. The Applicant has provided no material evidence to support a finding that the request is
reasonable as a matter of law. While an applicant may contend that their request is facially
reasonable as a sufficient means to satisfy this obligation, in this case the Applicant has
failed to provide even a basic assertion or evidentiary support for the position that the
request to allow up to nine unrelated individuals to reside on the Property is reasonable
where the existing City Code only allows for four such persons to reside thereupon.
4. The Applicant has provided no material evidence which would support the request for an
2
accommodation in this case. Specifically, the Applicant has failed to articulate any
rationale for why allowing up to nine individuals to reside on the Property is necessary to
afford persons with a disability an equal opportunity to obtain housing as those rights
experienced by individuals who are not disabled. The Applicant’s written responses to
the City’s request simply state that the proposed accommodation will satisfy the “need for
after clinical treatment housing.” However, the City Council concludes that this statement,
viewed in light of the entire record, is insufficient by itself to support a finding that the
requested accommodation is necessary.
5. An accommodation to allow up to nine residents to reside on the Property would constitute
a fundamental alteration to the surrounding neighborhood. In response to the City’s request
for information about the number of residents who will reside on the Property and who will
also keep motor vehicles on the Property, the Applicant simply stated that “\[t\]hose that
have valid license\[s\] and registration\[s\]”. Based upon the size and proposed density of the
occupancy on the Property, the City Code would require at least six off-street parking stalls.
However, the Applicant indicated in his responses that these vehicles would largely utilize
on-street parking. The Applicant refused to provide a site plan showing any off-street
parking available on the Property. However, given the residential character of the
surrounding neighborhood, providing on-street parking spaces for up to nine additional
motor vehicles will constitute a fundamental alteration to the neighborhood. Such parking
would also create an undue burden on City services, particularly in the winter months
where the City is routinely engaged in plowing the snow from the streets surrounding the
Property. City staff has also received several complaints from surrounding neighbors
regarding parking issues near the Property since the Applicant began utilizing the Property
in its current manner. While it is reasonable to expect that City staff will be required to
deal with various neighbor complaints on a day-to-day basis, the number and frequency of
complaints received regarding this Property, coupled with the Applicant’s failure to
provide any information related to mitigating the legitimate public concerns raised thus far,
indicate that the administrative burden placed upon City staff to monitor and respond to
such issues should the accommodation be granted is extraordinarily high.
6. Based on the foregoing, the City Council has determined that the requested accommodation
is neither reasonable nor necessary and is therefore denied. Further, the City Council finds
that if the accommodation request were reasonable and necessary, the evidence supports a
finding that the accommodation, if granted, would constitute a fundamental alteration of
the neighborhood and would further create an undue administrative and financial burden
for the City, and therefore must be denied.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Hopkins that all recitals set forth in this Resolution are incorporated into and made part of this
Resolution, and more specifically, constitute the express findings of the City Council.
3
th
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this 4 day of June, 2019.
ATTEST:
______________________ _______________________
Amy Domeier, City Clerk Jason Gadd, Mayor
4