Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 2021-40 Denial 6222 Braeburn Circle RESOLUTION NO. 2021- 40 DENYING A REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION TO INCREASE CURRENT RESIDENT OCCUPANCY FROM PERMITTED 6 RESIDENTS BY STATE STATUTES TO 10 FOR A CARE SERVICES GROUP HOME /GENEVA SUITES RESIDENCE, 6222 BRAEBURN CIRCLE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 The Planning Commission was asked to consider a request from the owner Geneva Suites (Geneva) for a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA or Act) to increase resident occupancy from six residents as permitted by State Statute to ten residents. 1.02 The subject property is located at 6222 Braeburn Circle, consisting of a 5,500 square foot single dwelling zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. The current use, which is a six resident group home, is a permitted use for this District under Minn. Stat. §462.357 subd. 7. At this address, Geneva has a Housing with Services Certificate from Minnesota Department of Health, HFID: 33436, and offers Assisted Living Services and Dementia Program through an agreement with a licensed home care provider. 1.03 If granted this accommodation, the applicant would then remodel the six-bedroom facility to add an elevator and add four more bedrooms on the lower level. 1.04 On April 14, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended denying the request to increase occupancy from six to ten residents. Vote: 6 Ayes and 1 Nay. Section 2. FINDINGS Denial is based on the following findings: 2.01 Under the United States Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), a city practice, policy, or ordinance cannot explicitly treat members of a protected group differently than others who are similarly situated, cannot disproportionately exclude or otherwise harm the housing opportunities of a class of persons protected by the FHAA, or refuse to make reasonable accommodations in land use rules when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. A reasonable accommodation is a change, exception, or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice or service that may be necessary for a person with a disability to have an equal opportunity to use a dwelling. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-40 Page 2 2.02 The City of Edina’s Planning Commission has denied the requested accommodation, a change from six residents to ten residents, because it is found to be unreasonable and not necessary under the FHAA. 2.03 The issues of whether this group home should be allowed to operate in its current location, whether this group homes provides a valuable resource to the community, and whether this group home affirmatively enhances the quality of life of disabled persons by lessening the effects of their disabilities are not in dispute. The City acknowledges and supports the fact that this group home and the many other group homes in our City provide a valuable resource to the community and enhance the quality of life of disabled persons. The sole question is whether an increase in residents from six to ten at this location is reasonable and necessary under the FHAA. 2.04 The Planning Commission was required to consider the request in light of the following FHAA framework: 1. Whether there is an Existence of a Disability. Most residents of this facility may be afflicted by memory loss, Alzheimer’s Disease, movement disorders, or Parkinson’s Disease. Under the FHAA, residents who have these diagnoses do have a physical or mental impairment that substantially impacts a major life activity which means they do have a disability and are covered persons under the FHAA. 2. Whether the Accommodation is Necessary within the meaning of the statute. The proposed accommodation to increase occupancy from six to ten residents was not shown to be necessary because the application failed to show that increasing the limit to ten persons is necessary to provide additional enjoyment, benefit, or use of the residence for disabled persons. a. In the context of the FHAA, demonstration that an accommodation is “necessary” requires a showing that the desired accommodation will affirmatively enhance the quality of life of disabled persons by lessening the effects of the disability. The applicant did not show, either in the application materials or at the hearing, that increasing the resident limit to ten would provide more enjoyment, more use, or more medical advantage for persons with disabilities. In fact, the applicant indicated staffing would remain the same from six to ten residents with no additional staff at any one time on-site to assist with the increase in occupancy. b. Applicant presented insufficient evidence indicating why the increase from six people to ten is necessary as determined under the FHAA. Applicant presented no evidence to indicate how allowing ten residents at this location would enhance the quality of life or lessen the effects of the disability in a way that allowing six residents does not. 3. Whether the Request is Reasonable. In determining the reasonableness of the accommodation request, the Commission applied its collective judgment to following FHAA criteria: a. Whether the Accommodation Will Fundamentally Alter the Zoning Scheme. If a requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the zoning scheme of the RESOLUTION NO. 2021-40 Page 3 neighborhood, then the accommodation requested is unreasonable and need not be granted. • This area is zoned R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. The neighborhood is single-family or single-dwelling residential for at least ½ mile to 1 mile in every direction. There are no nearby parcels that are zoned to permit multi-dwelling units. According to the City’s Comprehensive Plan there is no intention to have multi-dwelling units anywhere in this vicinity in the future. • There are other group home facilities in this neighborhood that also are limited to six residents and are operating successfully. • Under state statute, this change would result in the property being classified as a multi-dwelling unit rather than a single-dwelling unit. This change would lead to greater traffic, greater demand for on-site parking, and greater demand for street parking on Braeburn Circle and surrounding streets due to an anticipated increase in delivery workers, visitors, emergency vehicles, and staff. • From January 1, 2021 to April 19, 2021 there have been 11 emergency calls received by the City originating from the applicant’s property on Braeburn Circle. The 11 calls during this time include: o 6 calls for “sick person” o 1 call for “falls” o 1 call for “chest pain” o 1 call for “theft” o 1 call for “disturbance” o 1 call for “missing person” • This represents an unusually high volume of calls by the standards of the neighborhood. Increasing the number of residents in this group home by 66% would likely result in a commensurate increase number of emergency calls. This demand for this one property is outsized compared to neighbors in the immediate and extended vicinity, and not in character with the zoning scheme of the neighborhood. • Currently, the parking needs of the six resident facility overflows off of the applicant’s property and onto the street. Increasing the number residents will only increase the demand for street parking and consequentially impact more of the neighborhood. • Vehicle trips generated by the group home will increase, further eroding the single dwelling residential character of the neighborhood. The increase in number of occupants could increase traffic associated with the group home including: employees arriving and leaving some of which are dropped- off or picked-up by waiting vehicles idling in the street for extended RESOLUTION NO. 2021-40 Page 4 amounts of time. There also will be an increase in deliveries, service vehicles, emergency service calls, and visitors • The parking plan submitted by the applicant indicated that cars will stack within the driveway in three rows. If nothing is available, residents, staff, visitors, maintenance crews, and delivery drivers will park in the street. The 66% increase of residents within the home will have an increased demand on the traffic flow and on-site parking and increase street parking, altering the character of the neighborhood, and creating the appearance of a commercial- medical use within a residential zoning district. • Edina City Code provides that maintaining, protecting, and enhancing single- unit neighborhoods as the dominate land use is a primary objective of the zoning code. Sec. 36-2-Objectives. • The property, if permitted to have four additional residents, would be the only multi-dwelling unit property in this broader neighborhood. This would change the feel and intended design of this single-dwelling zoning district namely due to the increase in traffic flow and parking demands. • The increase to ten residents would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. Therefore, this request for an accommodation is not reasonable. b. Whether the Accommodation Will Impose an Undue Burden and Expense on the City. If the accommodation imposes an undue burden and expense on the city, then the accommodation is unreasonable and need not be granted. • As mentioned above with respect to traffic flow, there is already great demand for emergency service calls to this property and increasing the number of residents by 66% will necessarily increase the demand for these City-provided emergency services. • The request will impose an undue burden and expense on the City. Because there will be a direct and substantial increase in the demand for emergency services provided by the City. • The increase to ten residents would result in an undue burden and expense on the City. Therefore, this request for an accommodation is unreasonable and need not be granted. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-40 Page 5 Section 3. DENIAL: NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina, denies the request for an accommodation under the FHAA to increase resident occupancy from the six residents as permitted by State Statute, to ten residents. 1. The City supports the fact that this group home provides a valuable resource to the community and enhances the quality of life of disabled persons. Further, the City is proud to have a number of six resident group homes in our single-dwelling unit districts. 2. The proposed accommodation to increase occupancy from six to ten residents is not reasonable because it would fundamentally alter the zoning scheme due to the change in neighborhood character. Namely, the increase in the volume of traffic and parking will alter the essential residential character of the neighborhood. 3. The proposed accommodation to increase occupancy from six to ten residents is not shown to be necessary under the applicable legal standard because six disabled persons currently derive enjoyment, benefit, and use of the residence, and there was an insufficient showing that increasing the limit to ten residents is necessary to provide enjoyment, benefit, or use of the residence for disabled persons. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on June 1, 2021. ATTEST: Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 2021-40 Page 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of June 1, 2021, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this ____ day of __________________, 2021. _________________________________ City Clerk