2019-047 Denying a Request for an Accommodation to Operate a Sober Home Located at 101 Oakwood Road 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
the Property as a spiritual lodge, convent.' Because of this, City staff directed him to
rill 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,
the"Act"), as amended 2;
'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
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this 41 day of June,2019.
ATTEST:
Amy Domeier, City Clerk Jason Gadd, Mayor
4