The URL can be used to link to this page

1990 Comprehensive Plan , � � ,,. -. ti , • e. __. ._..� ..__� .__..__...� �/ �c,i0� �7'/� 7'�/�/.�.�� •� - _ _. __ _ _ � ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS City Officials Mayor Jerre Miller — Councilpersons Donald Milbert Paul Slaton Paul Lohmann _ Eugenia Arimond City Manager William Craig — City Engineer John Strojan Building Inspection Ray Kohnen City Attorney Joseph Vesely City Planninq Commission Chairman Fred Eaves — Richard Loberg Donald Milbert Robert Miller _ Robert McDonald Bertin Bisbee Judy Reinehr — Planning Consultant James l�. Hawks and Associates February 1980 � COMPREHENSIVE PLAN for CITY OF HOPKIPJS February 1980 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Land Use P1 an. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Popul at i on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Protection Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 — Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Publ i c Faci 1 i ti es. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 � Transportati on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Community Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Comprehens i ve Sewer P1 an. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Plan Implementation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 General Acti vi ti es. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Offi ci al Control s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106 — Housing Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Capital Improvernents Frogram. . . . . . . . . . . . .114 Comparison of Methods P.vailable for Financing. .116 _ Caoital Improvements Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Capital Improvements Budget. . . . . . . . . . . 125 Appendix — I I.S.D. 274 School Census Data II Projections by Traffic Assignment Zone III Proposed Full Share Goals for Low and Moderate — Income Housing IV Handling Procedures for Local Sewer Policy Plans V Hopkins Financial Data � — INTRODUCTION _ Hopkins is a well established and accepted community, a community persons enjoy as their home town. However, it is kno��n that improvements are possible, that the population's characteristics have changed, that decisions must be made relating to change and that Hopkins relative position in the metropolitan area is altered each day. Concern must be shown and judgement applied toward shaping development and redevelopment and preparing a planning framework for the futurc. With such a program, it will be possible for residents and businesspersons to — blend with and assist in deciding the future. The "General Development Plan" for the City of Hopkins is herein presented to — the citizens , Planning Commission, and City Council for their use in making decisions toward the orderly growth of the community. Social , physical and economic elements are involved and it is anticipated that this Plan, along with other supporting reports , will aid those persons responsible for making decisions . A city is many things to many people, but for our context it is the accumulation of many hundred of man-hours of effort and thousands of dollars of investment as applied over the years to carry out the hopes and aspirations of its past and + present citizens. Thus it is evident that the city is the product of many small and large decisions made day by day over a long period of time. — Comprehensive planning is a continuous process whereby a general plan is deve- loped and maintained to encompass all of the land within the corporate limits, and to indicate the relative and coordinated relationships between various _ uses of the land so as to reduce conflict, provide for ef ��icient movement and improve livability. The city must also be �iven a coordinated and relative setting within the metroF�olitan area for it is more important now than in the past that Nopkins be a successful working �art of the larger region. The planning function of Hopkins must be, as it has in the past, a continuous program of research, analysis, education, coordination and inspiration to resi- — dents and businesspersons . It should also be oriented toward maintaining a realistic and workable "General Development Plan" and the carrying aut of the same. The plan, as herein presented, is not intended to be a rigid set of rules _ and blueprints for the development of Hopkins, but rather it is intended to pro- vide direction , relationship and scale for making decisions relating to the goals. ' Each persons in Hopkins has an investrr�ent in the future, This investment may include a house, land, a business structure, a job or providing a more pleasant and suitable community in which to live and/or work. This planning program is — designed to help protect these investments and to guide f�iture development along lines that will compliment the desired elements and eliminate those conditions which do not improve livability. The program is not one to maintain status quo, _ but neither is it for change for change's sake. 1 The General Development Plan attempts to answer the basic question "What kind of a community do we want Hookins to be in 1990 considering the ohysical , — social and economic assets provided in 1980?" The answer to this question will form the base for developing municipal goals. It will be vital to everyone wanting to erect a building or redevelop a parcel of land, In order to assure — "the kind of community we want" , each proposed development must be considered in the light of its effect upon the entire community as well as the effects upon adjacent and nearby property. � + Public officials, businesspersons and citizens can and should cooperate toward attaining the goals. Basic Objectives of the Plan — The General Development Plan for the City of Hopkins is intended to: 1 . Establish the proper relationship between development within the _ City of Hopkins, the surrounding communities, and the entire metropol i tan area. 2. Indicate a coordinated and appropriate design for the use of — land within Hopkins to reflect the asnirations of the residents. 3. Provide an understanding of existing community facilities anc� — proposed adjustments which will be needed to supaort projected change. 4. Provide economic indicators and ideas for continued growth, for _ efficient movement of goods and people within and around the city, and means for imQroving the living and working environment, 5. Provide a framework for judging aroposals and desires for imoroving — living conditions , improving leisure time facilities, employment opportunity and utilizing availa6le resources to improve the urban environment. .. Y — I. THE LA"JD USE PLAN - Population (Prepared October 1978) - Land Use (Prepared October 1979) , _ - Protection Areas (Prepared October 1979) - Housing (Prepared February 1979) INTRODUCT IOPd During the early 1960's the City of Hopkins �repared and adopted a Compre- — hensive Plan t•�hich has acted as a guide for community arowth for the last 15 years. Since ado�tion of the olan, certain goals and policies used as a basis for the ori,inal plan have chanaed. Therefore, the current nlannin� effort has been undertaken to undate the �lan and to �rovide a document which will guide the city's growth through the year 1990. _ Since the adoption of the 1965 Comprehensive Plan, the structure of Hopkins has become more firr!ly established and as a result the rer�aining land use decisions fall within a narrower hand of choices. The Land l!se Plan con- tained in this renort basically documents the existin� lanc� use structure — and �rovides �olicy and nrograms to enable the continued aro��vth and mainten- ance of the city. The pro�osed changes are basically "refinements" or an up- date to the existing �lans. The Land Use Plan is a com�ilation of many factors that influence the manner in which a city develo�s. It is a function of the city's oonulation base and _ their needs , its housin� stock, er�oloyment opr�ortunities , quality of existing land use, neighboring community structure, influence of other governmental jurisdiction and r�any other factors. The Land Use Re�ort is structured to address the following general topics : - Characteristics of the nooulation � — - The land use system � - The environment (Protection Areas ) - Housing 2 POPULATIO�J ANALYSIS The population analysis is a description of the numbers and types of people that inha6it Hopkins . To formulate and update the development plans for — the Ci;ty necessarily requires an "understanding of the numbers and social characteristics of tfie people in the community. Pooulation distribution by age grouo, for example, is a matter of importance to many �areas of community _ life; it affects 6oth the kinds and amounts of social services needed by a community, it fixes the demand for schools and geriatric faciliites and to some extent determines the financial abillty of t�e community to support these faci.lt'ites. The scope of this report is designed to provide a portion of the basic factual information upon which an update of the Co�prehensive Plan nay be — accomplished, The report is intended as an update of the 1965 oopulation report contained in tfie Comorefiensive Plan. Primary data sources include the 1970 Census (now 8 years o1d1 , Metropolitan Council estimates , ISD 274 � school census data for 1971 and 1978, and other miscellaneous current infor- mation to bring the 1970 base data into a current perspectiye. 3 Backqround and Pooulation Trends The first settler arrived in what is now Hopkins in 1853, one year after the signing of the Traverse Treaty with the Sioux Indians . Each year there- after additional families came to the area until a settlement of 1500 had developed by 1890. One of the first significant developments was the rail- — road in 1871 and a few years later the threshing machine factory in 1887. The settlement was incorporated as "West �1inneapolis" in 1893 even though the depot indicated it was the community of Hopkins. Some 35 years later in 1928 _ the name was changed to the "Village of Hopkins". In 1947 the name was again amended to the "City of Hopkins" . Thus , what we now find in Nopkins as our City represents the results of hundreds of individual plans , effort and invest- ment over the past 125 years , estimated to have a value of $292,580,796. The realization that we have a City over 100 years old, that decisions to locate a street, build a store or construct a home were not casual , but sound within the framework of data available at the time helps to understand and appreciate � — the heritage of Hopkins . The original incorporated area was three square miles or some 1920 acres . Since — 1893 the owners of abutting land have agreed to become a part of Hopkins through annexation until we now have +2600 acres . Most of the annexations have occurred since 1940. The original proximity of Hopkins was a rural village center beyond the Minneapolis-St. Paul urban area. By 1945 Hopkins was on the edge of urban growth and now we are classified as part of the urban service area and com- —' pletely surrounded by incorQorated land. During this 125 years Hopkins has experienced a steady growth in population; 1930 (3834) , 1940 (4100) , 1950 (7595) , 19G0 (11 ,370) , 1970 (13,428) . The Metropolitan Council 's April , 1978 estimate — of population for Hopkins was 15,1�0. On page 3 of the 1965 Planning Report on Population, the following characteristics for 1980 were indicated: 1 . LJe will gradually experience a decrease in a number of shcool age children. r 2. We will experience a net loss in the number of persons in the young labor force (21-44) . 3. l�e will experience a gradual increase in the middle age group (45-60) . 4. We will experience an increase of over 62 group. 5. We will experience fewer numbers of people per household. 4 As will be shown in this report all of these predictions have materialized except for No. 2 which was destined to change due to the large number of apartments constructed. — The 1970 Census indicated that 40% of Hopkins population was under 18 years of age compared to 40� for Golden Valley, 32% for St. Louis Park, 43% for Minnetonka and 37� for Edina. In Hopkins 9,6% of the population was over _ 65 as compared to 8.6% for St. Louis Park, 7.4% for Edina , 4.7% for Minnetonka and 3% for Golden Valley. It would appear from this data that Hopkins in 1970 had a normal percent of — the population under 18 and above normal 65 and over. Before we accept that position, however, the numbers should be discussed. Hopkins has a smaller population than Golden Valley. St. Louis Park, Minnetonka and Edina, thus — one unit creates a larger percentage change. Hopki�ns is an older community with houses of such age that a family could have raised children and become elderly as a long time resident. In 1945 Hopkins was a full service community _ and available to accommodate the housing needs of the returning military persons . Between 1940-60, 2151dwelling units were constructed. In 1960-70 another 1191 dwellings were built. Since 1970 Hopkins has constructed 1965 dwellings and removed 101 . Hopkins is a desirable and popular community i�n which to live. The adoption and following of a housing policy to provide a variety of dwelling types made it — possible to appeal to a full range of ages and economic capabilities . Hookins has a higher percentage of those persons over 65 because of its housing and because it has assumed a responsibility for the elderly. The City has two _ nursing homes accommodating 311 persons and a home for the elderly plus three floors in the high-rise for some 150 persons. In addition the City has some 1 ,100 homes constructed prior to 1940 compared to the newly developed communities of Golden Valley, Minnetonka, Edina and St. Louis Park. The younger population in Hopkins in 1970 appeared to be about the proper per- centage but during the past 8 years it has decreased. This decrease may be — explained by the occupancy of the housing stock many of which were occupied dur- ing the 1940 to 1960 period when it was socially acceptable to have 3-6 children. It is now some 20-35 years later, the children have grown to adults and left — home, leaving mom and dad in a family size house. This has reduced the family factor from 3.4 in 1960 to 2.2 today. A special survey of census tract 233 was made last year which contacted 1 ,064 heads of household and it indicated 438 of the 1 ,064 or 41X were 62 years or older. We are in a cycle where it is reasonable at this point in time to expect a lower percentage under 18 and a higher percentage over 50. -' lJe are now concerned with 1990 and 2000. The Metropolitan Council has projected a low fertility rate and a population projection of no growth to a slight growth to a possible loss . This is a very important factor, as the resultant popula- — tion structure will require that the types of services , land use and financing programs may be different. 5 Hopkins is primarily developed but it does have a number of parcels which are vacant and zoned residential . Should only this land be developed without — speculating on which structures might be razed and rebuilt to increase the density as permitted under the zoning ordinance, the city could add some 1 ,000 to � 1 ,200 new dwellings. Utilizing our present family factor of 2.2 this would add some 2,200 to 2,600 additional persons. Applying this to the metr� projection of very little growth would mean that our family factor would have to become even smaller. Comparing this possibility to some othe r 80 metro communities, the only one having a smaller family factor than Hopkins in 1977 was Minneapolis. The big question, however, is will the present housing stock of Hopkins appeal to the younger families when the present occupants no longer need their home? _ It is not very reasonable to assume that a couple over 60 will move and the house will be reoccupied by another couple over 60, thus it appears that Hopkins population make-up is on or near a cycle which will become younger and with an _ increasing family factor. The typical fami]y which by census definition is a working husband, housewife and two children may not hold true for since the mid 1960's the family has — changed--most married couples intend to have no more than 1-2 children. Approx- imately 20� of the home buyer's are now single. How long this trend will re- main true has all of the demographers in a state of flux. The recent birthrate figures nationally indicate a slight increase although the rate is still one of the lowest since records have been kept. Whether it will rise is a big unknown although many social and financial changes are tending r to limit families of over two children. The mandatory acceptance of a wife's salary for loans has encouraged families to utilize the borrowing power and thus comnit the working wife. A.D.C. and semi-social acceptance of births — out of wedlock and an increasing divorce rate are causing one parent families. Energy cost is also becoming a factor in selecting a home and is causing a trend to return to close-in locations for bus, employment, shopping, etc. — Such programs as the urban homesteading where �omes are sold for $1 .00, 3X renewal loans or grants for insulation are lending strength to this movement. The question, however, still remains: Will the young adults in the next 10 to 20 years continue to have small families? The economic factors mentioned above will have some effect in keeping families small . The strongest factor, however, is attitudinal : Whether, the young adults again will , by choice, — have larger families in the near foreseeable future at this point is only speculation and an unsuitable premise on which to predict Nopkins' future. 6 The population referred to so far is the resident population. Hopkins is also an employment center ��ith so�e '6,00� jobs and this nu�ber is expected to increase to ?0,000 6y 1990 and 21 ,500 by the year 2000. Thus , the actual daytime population is larger than at night, The service demanded by such a condition is larger and more expensive than a typical community. Population and its characteristics are the determining elements for which we plan the community. The indicators to date point to the conclusion that -- Hopkins is currently in a cycle of an aging pooulation, fewer children, grow- ing young adult population, an� a generally declini �g family size. The data and analysis included in the following sections further explore the popula- tion base of the City and how it is likely to change over the next 10 to 20 years . The implications of this potential will require consideration in all aspects of tfie planning effort: 7 Pooulation Characteristics A. Age and Sex As indicated by the Population Pyramid Graphic on the following page the — gradual aging of the Hopkins population continues . The �opulation Pyramid Graphic traces the age composition for the years 1950 , 1960 and 1970. School census data taken in September 1978 has been utilized to update certain portions of — the data. The following observations are made from the population pyramid graphic and are related to other events and trends taking place within the community: *A substantially higher percentage in the 15-24 age group over the 5-15 age group is indicated for 1970. This is significant to the health of the community and is quite different than the pattern shown in 1950 and — 1960 where the post-high school population left the community soon after graduation. The apartment construction during the 1960's has been the biggest contributor in permitting this age group to stay and others in — this age group to in-migrate. *In-migration in the 15-24 and the 25-34 age groups also shows on the 1970 — pyramid as evidenced by the increases over the 5-14 and 15-24 age groups in 1960. The increases in these age groups provides Hopkins with 35% of its population in the primary age for new family formations and producing children. However, the percentage of pre-school and school age children in the community continues to decline indicating that this population is predominately unmarried and/or are married awaiting children or have chosen to have few or no children. *The pre-school age segment of the population continues a steady decline, dropping from 11 .5% of the total population in 196� to 7.6% in 1970. By — 1978 the 0-5 population grouo accounted for only 4.3% of the population base. _ *1970 shows a significant increase in the elderly population over levels shown in 1950 and 1960. The population over 65 years old accounted for 9.6% percent of the population base in 1970 of which 5.7� were female. — *The relatively high percentage (21 .4%) of the population in the 45 to 54 and 55 to 64 age groups in 1970 indicates a continuing high number of persons entering the ranks of the elderly over the next 20 years, and — tfierefore a continued high demand for elderly services . *The age group encompassing 10 years with the lowest percent of the popula- _ tion in 1970 is the 35-44 age group. However, the population of young adults 20-34 is quite large and represents a new cycle of population growth , if attractive housing opportunities in the community are available to encourage them to stay. 8 Hopkins 197� 55 & Over 3 Senior Citizens I 55-64 Mature Labor Force + 1960 45-54 � t..,.. ,.,. _ � 35-44 � Young u 25-34 ; Labor Force 1950 15-24 — 5-14 � School Age under 5 � Pre-School . � IIf I�tflfN�1 I _ male female - Metropolitian Area - i970 - 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 PE2CENT OF TOTAL POPULATION �.�.�..o�....,..�. i � Age•Sex Distribution _ The Population Pyramid Graphic also shows the �970 '�letropolitan Area Population Age-SeX Composition as a comparison. The following obsrevations may be made in com�aring the 1970 population pyramids of the Metro Area with Hopkins ; *Hopkins has a larger percent of population in the older three groups than the Metro Area. Hopkins has 31% of its — population over 45 years old compared to 26.4% in the Metro Area . *The ��etro Area population composition is a true pyramid with each age group smaller than the next younger group, except the under five year old group (even when doubled in size) . The smaller under — five year old group is indicative of the lower fertility rate in the last five years preceding 1970 and all evidence points to a con- tinuance of the lower fertility rate. *Hopkins has a higher young adult population than the metropolitan average. *Hopkins has only a somewhat smaller group in the prime child raising age of 25 to 44 (1 .3% difference) yet this group in — Hopkins has produced an under 14 population of only 24% of the population compared to 30.6% for the Metro Area . This indicates that Hopkins prob�ably has a larger single population and/or — a larger percent of this age group is housed in apartments. i Tt may be concluded from the preceding observations that Hopkins has a major segment of its population (_31%) as elderly and in the mature labor force. The aging of this population represents a challenge to the community — in the delivery of services to this group, A very large young adult popula- tion is also becoming quite evident and represents a far different set of needs, Unless this young adult age grou� becomes permanent settlers in _ the community and recycles the single family housing base back to basic family units again, we will continue to see a decline in tF�e pre-school and school age population in the community. It was observed from the 1978 school census data that only 41% of the single family dwellings in — Hopkins contained persons under 20 years old, compared to 63% in 1971 . The actual drop in single family units with children was 540 units or 36%. The number of school age children will continue to decline unless these — single family dwelling units are acquired by the young adult group and again used to raise children. 10 B. Family Size and Fertility — The average family size (as measured by persons per dwelling unit) has dropped considerably since 1�60. According to the census of oopulation and housing, Hopkins in 1960 had an average family size of 3.42 and in _ 1970 the family size �ad dropped to 2.77, The 1978 sc�ool census and Metro Council Housing Unit Estimates indicate the current family size at 2.22 persons per dwelling unit, one of the lowest in the Twin Gity metropolitan area. One reason for this low family size is that.only 279 children under — five years old per 1 ,000 population of women between 15 and 44 (see table.) Further, the number of households with children has dropped from 2,651 (51 .6q of total �ouseholds) in 1971 to 1 ,741 (24.8� of total households) in — 1978. As previously stated the family size will continue to drop until the single family house base again beco�es occupied with young adults raising children. — Table 1 Comparative Fertility Rates 1970 _ Community Fertility Rate Edina 272 — Hopkins 279 St. Louis Park 361 Minnetonka 376 _ Coon Rapids 527 Circle Pines 480 — Source: 1970 Census 11 C. Marital Status — The following table conpares the marital status of Hopkins 1960 and 1970 populations . _ Table 2 Marital Status - Hopkins . A Comparison of 1960 and 1970 Populations 1960 1970 — Percent of Total Percent of Total Number Plarried Couples Number htarried Couples Married Couples 2,659 3,221 With own household 2,644 99.4q 3,146 97.7q l�lith own children under 6 992 . 37.3% 839 26.Oq With own children under 18 1 ,772 66.6% 1 ,628 50.5� — With husband under 45 1 ,413 53.1% 1 ,564 51 .4% Persons under 18 years old 4 ,404 - 3,978 - Unrelated Individuals 611 23.0% 1 ,�19 44.1q Source: U.S. Census of Population (1960-1970) Table 2 indicates that there were 3,221 married couples in Hopkins in 1970, up 21� from 1960. This increase in married couples corresponds with an 18o increase in the population. In spite of the increase in families the number of persons under 18 years old decreased as did the families with children under 18 years old. As — shown only 50.5% of the married couples had children under 18 years old compared to 66.6% in 1960. This reflects both �an aging of the married couples (empty nesters) in the community as well as increase of younger married couples without children. The table also shows a 132� increase between 1960 and 't970 of unrelated individuals residing in the City. In 1970 unrelated individuals were 44.1% of married couples compared to only 23q in 1960. The primary contributor to this condition was the apartments constructed during the ' 60's that enabled more of the single individuals to stay in the community. Further, as the community population ages , widows and widowers become a larger part of the population. The trend toward a higher ratio — of unrelated individuals to married couples is expected to continue into the near foreseeable future. D. Occupational Structure The occupational structure of City residents provides a general indicator of education level , income and probable values as related to community development. 17_ The following table compares the occupations of Hopkins residents to the Metro Area, Minneapolis , and suburban Hennepin County. As shown on the table, Hopkins ' labor-force characteristics fall between the Central City of Minneapolis and suburban Hennepin County. For example, the percentage of Group l employment is much higher than Minneapolis but lower than suburban Hennepin County. Further, Group III employment for Nopkins is quite similar — to suburban Hennepin County, but much lower than Minneapolis . Probably the most characteristic factor in Hopkins ' occupational structure is the relative balance between the three major occupational groups which is indicative of its — broad base of income, educational , and age levels . — Table 3 _ Occupations of Hopkins Residents (Non-Farm) Metro Suburban �� Hopkins Area MP1s • Henn. Co. — No. % % % � Group I (Professional , Managerial ) 1 ,992 30.2 27. 3 23.0 32.3 Group II (Sales , Clerical ) 2,152 32.6 29.4 31 .6 28.8 _ Group III (Draftsman,Foreman , Operatives , Service Workers , Household Workers , Labors) 2,442 37.1 43.3 45.4 38.9 Total employed, 16 years old & over 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: 1970 U.S. Census of Population and Housing �� Excludes Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal , Edina, — Minneapolis , Minnetonka, Richfield and St. Louis Park 13 1 } 1 1 I I I 1 Tabl e 4 I 1 I I I I I I I I CHARACTE�tISTICS OF THE POPULATION HOPKINS AND SELECTED ARF�S 1970 Place #� ** Population Characteristics Hopkins Hennepin Co. Metro. Area Suburban St. Louis Park Fdina Mirmetonka TOTAL POPULATION ' 1960 11,37� g42►g54 1�48z,o30 586,9� 43,310 28�501 25►�3? 19?0 13,,t,28 9b0,080 1,874,3� 973,�3 �+g,�g3 1�+,�46 3 5�776 Per Cent Increase 15.3 12.7 22.9 39•2 9•7 35.2 30.0 NUt�IDER OF HOUSEHOLAS 19� 3,245 259, 5�+9 1}40,805 151,�10 � 12,201� 7,7z2 6,435 1970 3, Sg3 3o9,7a� 579,7z8 267,263 i2,k83 11,575 8,510 Per Cent Increase � 9•4 17•� 23•9 � 76•9 2•2 32•3 24•3 ?opulation Per Household 1970 2.83 3•09 3•23 3•� 3•06 3•3g 3•85 i�DIAN FAMILY INCOME 1970 iz,o13 11,805 11,357 12,8ok 12,k83 19,494 15,066 � with income le�s than $3,000/yr. 4.6 6.5 4•9 2.9 3•7 2•1 3•3 � with income over $10,000/yr. 65.0 63•1 72•9 72.1 b9•g 7g•9 �•g Per Cent Population under 18 yrs. ,�.0.1 33.6 k0.1 1�1.2 32•3 4p•5 1+3•4 Fer Cent Population 18 - 6k yrs. 50.3 56.7 51.1 51+•2 59•1 52•1 51•9 Per Cent Population 65 yrs. and over 9.6 9.7 8.8 4.6 8.6 7•4 4•7 Per Cent Non-white .6 3•3 2.7 .7 .? .3 .b Per Cent Foreign Born 2.3 3•5 3•� 2.1 5•5 2•9 2.6 Fertility Ratio* 279 334 367 21�0 361 272 � 376 Years of Schoolin� Completed for Persons over 25 vears of age Elementary 1-8 years 810 90,239 125,107 l�.2,82k 3,4�+? . 1,399 1,7� High School 1-3 years 974 72,840 1k1,030 59,621 3,22g 1,3g9 1,534 1, years 2,507 1g5,�5 35g,973 191,691 11,101 b,892 6,262 College 1-3 Years 1,355 77,G�g 130,t►12 7k,49� 5,16k 6,12k 3,502 4 years or more 1,29�. 81,367 139,672 115,655 k,64g g,94g k,723 Median School Years Completed 12.7 12.5 12.4 12.6 12.6 11�.3 12.9 Per Cent Completed High School�Nbre 70.6 67.9 70.2 7k.1� . 75•8 gg•7 81•5 * Children under five years old per 1,000 women 15 to 1�9 years old # � City Metropolitan Area � �'�* "Urban fri.nge" areas for all metropol.i+,a� areas in Minnesota. E. Income _ As shown on the preceding table Hopkins ' median income in 1970 was �12,013. It is evident that Hopkins ' median income is somewhat higher than the Hennepin County and �1etro Area median income and somewhat lower than the suburban area and St. Louis Park median income levels . The communities of Edina and Minnetonka, however, show median income levels 62% and 25% higher respectively reflecting more homogeneous higher income suburban communities than Hopkins . The three census tracts in Hopkins showed median incomes as follows : Census Tract �232 $12,988 Census Tract #233 $10,�87 _ Census Tract #234 R13,286 The income levels shown for the three census tracts are also indicative of the development and the other population characteristics in those areas . The incomes in tracts #233 and 234 deviate approximately 10% from the median. For example, census tract .#233' s median income is 9.4% lower than the City median income. This area characteristically has the older housing, more apart- — ments and a more elderly population on fixed incomes . Census tract #234's income is 10.6% higher than the Hopkins ' median income and typically has newer higher valued homes and larger and younger families . The median income data provided by the 1970 census is only valuable on a basis of comparison of Hopkins standing with other communities and within the _ Metro Area. Si��e 1970 median family income in Hennepin County has increased 72% to $20,300� . Assuming Hopkins ' median income increased at the same rate its 1970 median income �,�ould be $20,700. F. Education — In terms of school years completed, the 1970 census of population indicates that Hopkins is quite similar to the Metro Area, Henneoin County, and suburban communities with the median school years completed at 12.7 years , Only Edina with 14.3 years completed is significantly higher than Hopkins . The percent of all persons in Hopkins over 25 years of age who have completed higF� school is 70.6� up 10.2� over the 1960 level . The percentage completed high school is quite similar to the metropolitan average, is higher than Hennepin County and — is lower than the state suburban population, St. Louis Park, Edina and Minnetonka . This standing is generally reflective of Hopkins heterogeneous population and typical of the Metro .Area as a whole in contrast to the homegeneous population — found in many of the suburban communities. — � Based on Sales Mana ements Surve of Bu in Power estimates of Effective Buying Income after Tax for Hennepin County of $17,174. That value was adjusted 18% to arrive at the estimated before tax income of �20,300. 15 I � �� A � � � � I�I�IIi�11 �� ___ �. ; �► , ��o��o��oo��o�ec�n�� m � . ��, °•. € � � !�!��IIIIIII�IIIIII �E p�� .,. �m fr� '�' ' �. ' � �E�1 Itl��I�AI��1111�� .� .�`' � � . ,,:�� :� .�,�� ' ��F��N��'� �� ' �' . �� e �' : i ��.� , ,. r� ; �� . � ��F� , �� ,� .,� m o ��. . �t� I ��C� �� . , �/� . � �� F�9Gl��['[��A ��- �� ►�� / � °'►� �� . :." � ��r .:�� " ..1�'�I�a��l� �� r��/ r�� +�% - �'� �l►�,'Z,,�i r�•��/� -- ;,��`� ;� � .�� s 1�. � f�t;l� �"'�..�..--�� ' •�k�� 11-'�� - _ i� ,�; . m , m ��P '- p,��"'��"." ,'-'d r.r; ; � �, , �� e' � � � �+,�`��A ��A! ��A� � �� '�' �,�3 .� �_ �!� �� ;eA� , �� •;..'�* .� . i � �'+�!L;1 7 ��1 �.:_. �r',s-_� , �*s+�e -�� ' .�J��i� i �f�+ .,a �� • t� � �, 3 �a� �_ �] ,s �� ■n�_�� 3t�� .. � � �� a�. � ee..eeo1�1��._ �' A � =.�`� � ►. �� !; m i'�'. � i� � :�',� �� -�� 'i�' .� ,�1``1��,�� ' � '�;��, ��II,1J, �10��i�� {� � �rr,:1�. � .�� +,. . �. ,.....-�;�� o�A.�:��o�� r � . , � rL� . :�� : .•- - :. � �--�� . : �c�� ,� .:- ��,�, ,a � � �A�1��6�6�e��l�I�� _ � � , ��► �.� � �,' �� 111� �!� /�1. �� !� '*� �� F��. � r.. ;�;. �;� �.1!",��, �� . , ;'�� .: �M- - • ' ' ' �il��lillfi�li��1 "'s � � ' . : ��.. �� i�C��'�� , '� ►. �� , � �'� �• . � . , � � �. -� , �--- �� b�� ti r : � �� t� ��c��..��e� -� r�� .� �► � .r � � �-� �`'�"' ��,��•� - � �� ;�, ' � ,��' • - � � 1 � � •.�4 ,� �� { � � � �� ,� � e� W�� W �� AA� � �� e� �� '� � �� .�,�� v��, � � �� . w . m� , � , ■r+�� ' . �� I �� 1. `�_�►_ �.+� � �. .� . I�Op� � � ._ ; � .- ,► �� C_'��iw�, �. .• � 7. . � ' . � i — �,� ��,��; . �" � I�IE�i� �, ��. � � �� •�r � �'� �� ' �� ► ►. �"`� �:� � �� r ��. :�_-__--_� �� `��' �� —��-�� s�� '� � `�� -;w� � �n�,. �:..� � ,i � F � „ .Alil � �� ;� � � �� , �,,�. � ,� � ��y 1`'�I,q�� . ` � R . . ( �i !� '�+*�vr , � �, �, � '`� � � i Q r�' �� I � „ �1 ..,.� � � � � ', !� , , 1 � � - , � . / `� ,� � � � �: � , . , , �_ , ., � ��-�.l � �� , ',. m�� , ��_ -- --- �,�� "�- _ — � �'-` � �� :� e Future Ponulation Planning for the future of Hopkins requires an estimate of the amount and characteris.tics of the population that will inhahit the City, The following _ estimates of the population base are based on the existing situation and the forces currently impacting the future. Changes in atti.tudes , life style preferences , unforseen economic occurances and the influence of City po.licy are not predicted although some potential emerging patterns are suggested 6y raising questions — as to their impact. — A. Number � As previously stated the estimated population of Hopkins for September 1978 _ according to the School Census Data is 15,189 persons . This population estimate is up 13.1q from the 13,428 as recorded by the 1970 Census of Population. The 15,189 population is down, however, from the Metropolitan Council estimate of 16,847 in 1975 and 16,492 in 1976. The reason for this drop is due to the — dramatic drop in the family size. This droo was so great between 1970 and 1977 that although 1965 dwelling units were added between 1970 and 1978 the population only grew by 1 ,761 or 0.9 persons for every dwelling unit added. — Based on the latest School Census Population Estimate and the City's estimate of 6,830 dwelling units the existing family size has dropped to 2.22 persons per dwelling unit compared to 2,80 in 197� a drop of more than one-half a _ person per dwelling unit in a matter of just 8 years . Can the family size continue to drop? In the near term, the projection is for a continued decline in the family size. — Currently, Hopkins age composition more closely resembles that of the City of Minneapolis than the �4etropolitan Area. As a result Hopkins has a large mature working force and elderly population base occupying a substantial portion of — its single family housing base. According to the latest school census only 41% of the single family dwellings in the City were occupied by families with children. Although young families will eventually buy these homes 31% of _ Hopkins ' population is over 45 years old. It is expected that a substantial portion of this age group will continue to occupy their single family homes for many more years as is the case in Minneapolis . Therefore, the attrition process and movement toward another child raising cycle lsvery slow. Further, — Hopkins also resembles Minneapolis ' age structure in the remainder of the population �yramid. Both have large young adult populations as a reflection of the apartment development (both communities have +55% multi-family housing) and — a relatively small percent of married population in the 25 to 44 age group as a result of out-migration and thereby resulting in a small pre-school and school age population. In conclusion, there is no evidence that family size will greatl,v increase by either change in attitude or through attrition of the housing base to younger _ and larger families . As a result the trends as projected by the Metropolitan 17 Council appear to be co rrect although the number is expected to be greater. In fact, at this point the school census data indicates that the family size has _ dropped faster than Metro Council has grojected and is approximately at a level the Metro Council has projected that Hopkins would reach and stabilize at by 1990. Will the family size continue to decrease in Hopkins? Probably in the early 80's, � then more on an upward trend, The next age group to �oin the empty nester cate- gory in the next 10 years is the 35 to 44 age group. This group is al►nost identical in siie to the elderly group (over 65) and therefore will continue — for the next 10 to 15 years the trend of under utilization of the single family housing base. Attrition to younger families will take place during this period at a slower rate than the creation of empty nester families, Therefore, a further _ decrease in the family size. One factor that could offset this would be an in- crease in children in the apartments, However, unless there is suitable single family hous.ing available within 3-5 years after these young families have their first child, most will seek suitable housing to raise t�eir families outside the — community. Given the factors just described we would estimate that the family size will — drop to below 2.2 persons per dwelling unit in the next few years and will stablize at between 2.10 and 2.4 for the next 10 to 15 years or longer. It is also estimated that vacant residential land in Hopkins will accommodate an _ additional +1 ,170 housing units. Given an absorption of 50 occupied units per year the existing household base of 6,830 units will be +6,930 by 1980 and +7�430 by 1990. Based on these family size estimates,. housing growth assumntions and a 4q vacancy the pro�ected population would occur as shown on the following table. � Table 5 Projected Population 1978�� 1980 1990 2000 Projected population @ 2.1/DU 15,189 14,550 15,600 16,650 Projected population @ 2•3/DU 15,189 15,940 17,090 18,240 Pro�ected population @ 2.4/DU 15,189 16,630 17,830 19,030 — Metropolitan Council �2� (3� (3� (3) Or�ection 15,180 15,800 16,000 16�000 (1 ) At 2.2 persons/DU (2) April 1978 Estimate _ (3) Based on Metropolitan Council 's own Housing Unit Estimate and Family Si ze Factor 18 The projections indicated aboYe are based on condition� aS they exist today. Changes in attitudes toward larger families and an increase in the birth rate — would have a long-term impact to increase the population in Hopkins . However, it will take 10 to 15 years tQ substantially reduce the number Qf childless households to facilitate a marked increase in population, B. Characteristics — During the next 20 years Hopkins populationwi11 be characterized by the following: — l . The elderly and the mature labor force (over 45�. will continue for the next 20 years to reoresent about one-third of the resident population. A large portion of this group will retain their single _ family homes and thereby occupy a large part of the single family housing base. 2 . The apartment housing base will con� �;�ue to attract a large number of — young adults from outside the community as well as permit Hopkins ' high school graduates to stay within the community, Much of this young population with roots in the Hopkins area would settle in — Hopkins with families if suitable housing opportunities for raising families were available. Tn the near foreseeable future most will out-migrate to nearby suaur6an communities witfi available single _ family housing. 3. The adult population between the ages of 25 and 45 in the next 10 years should stabilize at a somewhat lower percent of the population — than found in 1970 due to the limited supply for housing open to this group. _ 4. The pre-school and school age population base will continue to de- cline, however Tess dramatically over the next 5 years and to level or slightly increase in last half- of decade. ' _ 5. As the average age of the population increases , a larger percentage will he on fixed or limited incomes . 6, The under 20 population will drop from its current 22.3% of the — population to +17% by 1990.. � — C. Needs The purpose of the current planning program is to direct the policies and _ resources of the City to meet the specific needs of the population. Further, consideration will be given to pqlicies and programs that will encourage positive change to the population base in order to effectively utilize the 19 resources already provided. However, re-direction of trends is a difficult assignment and most of the City's efforts out of necessity will be toward serving the population as it exists . The characteristics of Hopkins ' future — population as previously described indicates major impacts on t�e services required by the City. � ?_� tAND USE �xis-ting Land Use _ The City of Hopkins in 1978 contained +2,600 acres , an increase of 81 acres since the 1963 land use �vas taken. The addition of 81 acres occurred in three separate annexations including the following: Meadowbrook Golf Course and past of Excelsior Boulevard (70.77 acres) , the mobile home park (7.86 acres) — and four lots on 21st Avenue South of TH7 (2.45 acres) . The area of the city is likely to remain basically static for the foreseeable future as all surround- ing property is contained +�ithin other communities. Ho�vever, four areas are — identified for boundary adjustment considerations . The map on the following page indicates the generalized land use patterns _ existing in Honkins in 1978. This is substantially the same general pattern found in the 1963 land use. The most noticeable changes which have occurred over the last 15 years are: — * Rlajor commitment of land to housing and permanent ooen space in south Hopkins. — * Infilling of apartments throughout the city including five buildings of six story or more in height. _ * Establishment of the Central Business District, removal of housing through redevelopment and construction in the Central Business District (CBD). — * Clearance and construction for County Road 18. * Expansion of sanitary sewer system capacity to estimated need to — year 2000. In contrast to the preceding changes are factors which have withstood change _ and have been maintained within the structure which existed in 1963. These include: * A single family housing base which has remained nearly constant in — size and overall condition. * Industrial base expanding �vithin the general limits of the established — Industrial District. * Commercial business expansion within the confines of the commercial _ area existing in 1963. * Bascially the same educational institutions except for the closing of South Junior High and conversion of the Kathern Curren School to — special education. * City ooerating on basically the same major t ransportation routes. 21 � � C��I+: • • • _ � � •��r. , :;' ' ` • :,;i i �`.i^ �'Y:� • �''O♦ ` ` , • �,• �� -_=1,r � ,. �.� ,1' y�Mii __� , �� . 'Y:F� �� 1: ��.F��'.^R�.�1 1.'� w��I��w I � . �� .. � �;�� .�•� I SI _ , _- �j11 =N�/'N�lil�e ' '''� .�i � , f � • � � � � � ' / . • - - , �/ -�;:�:�•�__�.::� % ��5:.•�:'';�:�;� � / :•a.�•=1:�. •i1 / -:��!,..�1�'s� i� / �■��;�,��:! / 'i�r':•.!_=3! �2iL�.�� _ ;:.�_ _ ` •':�!:":''�: :•�;;� ;:`,x � L::::: . . ,. P � :.:::::. , :::: . ,�} � ��'''�:♦ ��i . ��.� I � �ri ��`d'y, �. :.�\.•�Si.j �� t�1 ,. !� b�'� , � I • Y�/� T' " - ;i;�.'�� •.��' � _ ; ':S1��y��j�i'j `I ,�� • -ry: .: j:� �':..�� I �'��k•'�.;''�:�;'.: :ii�� n .:?y,.,.::='%�:;;:: i ...Y:•.M'• ��j �-�I�i. _ � •/ r%•..,. r,�:;:..� i � _ .: �� `\ � :�.��: ��. .i ��:=::�:,�: � �Si�i��Ni��,%•:• . -_'I„. •S�.::.�:3. � �N..�_. ��, . '_ �.:i�.�� . ��y�:�� ; � L I t�t�1��N�I��N�• �� ` f ��'11�� . . ��?y�!�.!��.li�. � . ,i.:. �. 3... ;r�,r.� r ,t.. . ,y�.l _ '�y:�.�K;3�,-`1,:�...''��y:.�^<. �� . � ��S r'��cf`�� ^��.. -- + ,.�...�i:;�r t y"' ...7.. �tF ��.�'p.t.+,'.*T'. y�'r�:,,,,,._.;_� •.i�"r�,,S"'`,.�,�y"+'r: ;Y;;;.K.+�`:�;::• ��: _ _ _, 1 -r��: ',;', ..�� - - :1;;-�` P1ai ntai ni ng the Corrnnuni ty Structure The cor�unity structure is a result of over a hundred years of individual — and collective develo�ment decisions. Although some of the decisions reflect the market and standards at the time of development, the community structure they form is relied upon by many of the city's residents and businesses. — Pressure, however, continually exists to riodify the community structure for the benefit of one group at the expense of another. The city has long recog- nized these pressures and has responded by substantially reinforcing the _ existing structure. The principle policies by the city that reinforce the integrity of the land use system are: * The city has encouraged rehabilitation of existinc� structures and — allowed the replacement of old single family structures in the central neighborhood �,►ith only one and two family structures, thereby pro- tecting the integrity of the sin�le family character of the neigh- — borhood. Pressures for multiple family housing as replacement of the old structures has been resisted and these uses directed to the fringe of the neighborhood in the high service area near the CBD _ and along Excelsior Boulevard. * Historically, Excelsio r Boulevard became the major transportation route early in the city's developr�ent and became the focus of corrnner- — cial and business activity. The develonment of�Highway 7 came later cutting through the residential section of Hopkins. The pressures to also cor.xnercialize TH 7 through Hookins have been strong. The city, — however, has maintained a residential , public use and semi-public use character along TH 7 through Hopkins except at the intersection of Co. Rd. 73 and TH7 where a small node of General Business Commer- _ cial was permitted. This strong stand has preserved the integrity of neighborhoods on both sides of TH7 through Hopkins. * The Central Business District has been defined as an area bound by —' llth and 3th Avenues North and lst Street North and 2nd Street South. The city maintained a policy that the !�rimary retail and service functions occur within this area and that it be concentrated to en- — able pedestrian circulation within the area. Pressures to expand the area of the CBD have been resisted on the basis of both creating a more intensely developed functioning Central Business Qistrict and � prohibiting the encroachment of business into the surrounding neighborhoods. * The amount of land within the industrial zoning district is slightly less than it was 15 years ago when the previous Comprehensive Plan was prepared. 4lithin the industrial area a substantial amount of in- fill has occurred as well as the removal of some non-conforming resi- — dential uses. The continuing conflict which must be addressed, how- ever, is the relationship of the industries and their expansion needs to neighboring housing at the edge of the industrial district. In _ some cases , the district boundaries are not ohysically defined by streets , railroads or other barriers and must be continually monitored by policy decisions for protection of both the housing and industrial use pattern. - 23 * Through the course of the city's growth, a number of small neighborhoods , — each with a distinct character, were created that are separated from � each other by non�residential uses , transportation 6arriers, etc. Pro- tectin� t�e Tntegrfity of these small neighborhoods and �roviding them — suff�cient sqcial and physical linkages to the remainder of the city must be conti�nuallx monitored by the city. Vacant Land Vacant land in Hopkins falls into two classes: (1) that which may be developed — for some urban use or, (2) that which may not be developed, Vacant land which may not be develo�ed is land specifically protected from development for some purpose such as a floodplain, natural wooded area, future road alignment, etc. — These will be discussed in detail in t�e Protection Areas Section of this re- port. The developable vacant land, however, is �rimarily privately owned and subject to the plans and control of the city. Developable vacant land accounts for less than 10% of the land in the city and it is found in all use categories. Although the amount of land which remains vacant is small ,it is very important and the competition between uses is intense, — One person views a site as the only expansion area while another views the same oarcel as the last o�portunity to locate in Hopkins and the city may also be considering the site as the location of a needed public use. Vacant sites zoned and suitable for housing are shown on the granhic on oage in the Household Projection Section of this report. This graohic indicates _ that the city can accorirnodate � 2QQ new units on this land. It should be noted that 200 units of the totaj are potential redevelopment properties (the mobile home park and the Junior High School site). The city has considered a oolicy of encouraging more single family units within the city and may — where possible act to decrease the density on some of these sites, thereby reducing the ultimate household projection somewhat, Due to the character- istics of the neighborhood and the sites, however, the potential to increase — the single family housing base is very small . The primary inventory of vacant land in the city is industrial . A total of 16 _ parcels of vacant land are located in Hopkins and a total of 51 .3 acres or 3.1X of the land area of the city. The map on the following page indcates the location of these properties plus the vacant commercial properties remaining. The following table is coded to the map and indicates the location and area of — each site. Industrial land in Ho�kins in recent years has been in high demand and is being developed at a rapid pace. The significance of this trend is an in- creasing employment base, which is expected to grow by at least 2,600 persons in — the next decade by the absorption of this land. This growth assumes that each acres of industrial land developed will add an average of 35 employees and does not account for the indirect emnloy�ent imoact or other segments of the local _ employment base (i .e. services and retail ). �n. Table Vacant Industrial Land Number Location Square Feet Acres 1 South of County Road 3 (Gelco) 187,500 4.30 2 NWC 5th Street Co. and 16th Avenue So. 24,000 0.55 — 3 SWC 5th St. S. and 16th Ave. South 170,500 3.91 4 South of 6th between 15th & 16th 229,600 5.27 5. ShcC 5th Street and llth Ave. So. 53,920 1 .24 _ 6. North portion of landfill 664,440 15.25 7, SW oortion of landfill site 600,600 13.79 — 8. NW corner of 7th St. and 12th Ave. So. 16,250 0.37 9. West side of llth between 6th & 7th S. 6,500 0.15 10. South of P4i1w.R.R. between 13th & 7th 846,000 19.42 11 . South of 5th St. between 7th & lOth S. 308,600 7.OB 12. SWC of Co. Rd. 18-Milwaukee Railroad R8,150 2.02 — 13. Jackson Ave. (east side)No. of M&SL RR 9,200 0.21 14. Excelsior and Van Buren 14,000 0.32 15. So. of 2nd St. & No. of Railroad 163,000 3.74 (�"assey Ha rri s) 16. East of Blake-North of St.Louis RR 160,000 3.67 — 3,542,260 S.F. 81 .3 acres - 25 - �_ _- i _ .u:, _ _, , �. = `_'f I'i 5'Sl� ?i'� �,r-_.__ _ . . ..... .. .. � . � ' , � , L:;'�: -G�'GG� _, o in�e �.r:l��a:�?%`';:._ i ,, ;, s�... �i ,. .' . � � ,,k ,: r, , �- �� . � � ... ` ....: . � R. .. A.,;. �8�. •-� . , � ,�••--_--T��'"� . . . , i ;I ' ' �.._ �.. ,.... ...4..��. f':. .� ' . ' �� t t �.. t i� � / �' � � � � � � ' � �� N ...� i�� „ �y, � . � � ,.,__ , . . :: y��'e"` � � '� � ., . � � . w :�, � . r tr� � � � r . �� w � ,t r t. �J' � �} � � � � ��n�y�rt -.icx ,�r:«.,.m r,++�. ` ..�� .. :� � .��14 \ �rt .,ii -'� . �, ,. :� i ; � � C. � � �] - � }e�++ ��`,:' . . � �-�7'\ ' '� .1Y�� . .�' H � �. � aK�h Xb�.�.� 1 ... _ ��• � , ; ��.�� R. rE.. � 1, ;eln �� r i I..�__^-----�� '� �... 1�( ��C, / �� # � � ��. yea �� c a I'_. , � �.n� �' ¢ +y� _ . .. , ; . �� '�.\ q ..y � ��.a� �j�. �, 3 F�":.� �y.,:�A � Ffrt"- . � � a t� ?� '.s } r..—_ 4_ w ' 1 �.m i x, ,�-� � �. � �r � 'j •� e . . . � _ i ��,. . � � , J '• + , , , . � . .. 1 � .�- � ' °.�.� � :�� - � , -m xa- n �' ��`..�'� ,. � . �� ; wr..s�:� +n � �-./ .,. .. . . � W ._. —'- :._ .. _ . � �� a �� r.� _, . ; �. � a�� ._..-...-•. � �, - .. . ,_ . . � ... [� , �', ^'�� ,r�:. , � �:,.:�w�" �M^f � ,�'..,�,1��, �� .._ 1 a � .._...._ ,..a � _ ,� :... '-� yy 1. �S �A�:. � �� .,v' �. r � . . � �' ' = �� ---- t .'�� ,�t,..`� a� • ��„j _ , �.. • ! '. ..�. ,/ ... �'E ' . ' ,.d�.�' ! 'n" t ��. � � /, . ._ * _ '•:.,�' >., . .. .,r. - - - l � .: .. „ ,. . : .,„. . , , .. :=« _- �- _ � �! ��. �-r-�--- � 7 � � � :ti,,,:'�� i- � (i �� p ;� � Z ,'t`"� ,r+ ^°a . . � ��,, �`.I i{, � ,.T�i'� � .,+ 'CIIIt i Y� , � � '� . R ev C �a[.� ��yr :-�y(a t� } � ' �i��' �r � � � t � : �` ' r ` � � , � � ::�.^;'�� 3 ' � � �� i ` {� ��, * ; ,F ^;f "r • � ` ��' � � '� mt • I� µ � �� .`. � ' , f',. ' " ` � .• ��'� t 4 S . �� ' � � . +� '• `� t ,� �°�� (`� � , �t �: �� . � .w�� .y'%- . �.tij� ' :� :. . . , �� .: t ,i .mas.. '� _ . . f� �8;�4" � � �.. i I- �� , , �' �:- � . .. .. ':�. � �. � � �� ,� .� t � � �� '� ' , . , } . � . +r�. w. o� t; ��: t {F `��F�� r " .._' � t �::: �;,,� ik 7f . � . ,, p� . � � . ! �� ' f. .-+� ��- "�"'. v i. � .� . '.[RRY$ "."31C ... - ' : •��. 1 �..1F . ,.... �. '� �:. , � ; � � .'_ ..,. , . J E� r' � � � � ' � "�.3 -� � � .. � � �. � � z: s � t �' 3 4 � �. � i 1 ' . ��i P� , ..... l' �� •- �Y' � . .� mnc.`. n � .■ � � ' ��• ' � �� . � '� Y x�� - �� a � �.� �. •- ,�" :�� ' � . ,; . . . ,�' � � � � --- - .. . ,. . � : - ' � - --- ._.r-_ - w.,., .,.: •< � _ �'•:, ,.,.. .�. ..—. .�.— :;� . , . _ ; ; ; ��-� M � , ..:: , ...� �� .�- � . : � �� ` � � F 9��. . `.� _ " •' � . p . . ., �. ��: •Y.F . ... I �..., _ _ u, ' � ..F. I ..M„� � ; '.. I L � � � t j �� • h � •T � I . � ,: �- ' ,' • I l.i . . . . � . . � , - / �r.d � . � �i ... ' ' .��-. .�:�� - . � .ty!: .. ; _. , .... .. .. 1 y ' . � G , i M I' .1'.'r '��,./��7, - , - � . .� � � - ,� ;.;� ; i ',f�y'_ ��-�� : � ; � : I Vacar�t industnal & S'' � `� 1" '-� i � "a . : ` n . . ' : f w� ��-'; ,� ... • � .� . �� COmmer'Cial Land :. ' s' s 4- _ _ \ � � � �-J "�� sn' �,. ` i �',R/YV��Q' �� , . �„*�\ �.... . , �e. � , , , �COfi'ttY1e1'Clal , , � � , , �; � , � n" t �'' ._.. I . ; �y,` '. . , Sf ,..... : •�..� , .._ ._-__ _..._ . . .x.. ( — �'r�� _ . , ^� i �-�.� , . ,.�,, ��t � ... ,. ` '� � � , �{ _ �. .:� : . . _ ,...—..,^._ � ..4_,��..,..—..—..�._._. . � , :;��' � �� — : , �� ,` ;, t , . _._ . _ . L.� ` ''� � � ,. " ,� . ...,; . : — Renewal Unlike the communities on the metropolitan urban fringe which primarily pre- _ oare plans for the initial urban commit�ent of the land, the City of Hopkins and other older substantially developed com�unities must continually address forces of change on the community structure and aging or obsolescence of � the existing land use. Since the adoption of the 1965 Comprehensive Plan, — Hookins has been active in renewal through the use of Federal , local goverr.- mental and �rivate resources. Th�se activities have incl.uded the following: — * Central Business District urban renevral project started in 1968 was financed in part by Federal Urban Renewal Funds . This ,project encom- passed three blocks and resulted in the removal of 81 structures. To — date four new major buildings including the City Hall , North4�est Bank, Medical Building, industrial building, a doa�ntown park and street imorovements have been built in the renewal area and two buildings� are proposed and a substantial amount of private rehabil- itation to existing structures have occurred. * Hopkins Industrial Park - In 7978 the City of Hookins acquired some — +28 acres of land at 5th Street South at 15th and 16th Avenues for purpose of the develo�ment of a seven lot Industrial Park. Eight residential units were acquired and relocated or demolished ard the _ area platted as an Industrial Park, The city financed the acquisi- tion and development of this area through tax-increment financing. All but three industrial sites have been developed with completion of _ the development expected in 1980. * Central Business District/North commercial area renewal initiated in 1977 has begun the renewal program in the CBD north of Excelsior — Boulevard. Accomplishments to date have included acquisition of some residential hor�es , sale of site to S�ner Valu, development of city pa rking lots ,and some private rehabilitation of buildings. This — activity was financed out of City of Hopkins Public Imorovement Revolving Fund to be paid back by long-term lease and by tax- increment financing. The future renewal activities of the city are projected to consist of scattered site tax-increment financed renewal (rehab or ne�v construction) in the residen- tial neighborhoods. Except for small target areas similar to the Industrial — Park or North Central Business District area, most renewal in the next decade will be on a scattered site basis. The initiative for these activities as well as financing is exoected to come from both the private and �ublic sectors. — Tax-increment financing will remain as the primary financing tool . 27 — Solar Access Planning A 1978 amendment to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires local govern- _ mental units to include "an element for protection and development of access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems" in their comprehensive plans. The purpose of these provisions is to prepare the Twin Cities area communities by 1990 to have available an alternative source if enery shortage. Solar energy ! represents on means of ineeting this energy supply shortfall . The guaranteeing solar access to each land use is predominately a local zoning function and therefore an issue for each community to address in context with their existing development — condition or status. Hopkins is predominately a developed community and will require a major effort _ in the collection of specific data on existing development conditions and characteristics to ascertain the potential benefit or impact of applying various types of policy or regulations. The data required will include but not be limited to an inventory of the following: * Building heights and lot placement. — * Lot size, dimensions and orientation. * Vegetation type, height and placement on lot. * Age of structure with respect to potential replacement of space and water heating systems with solar systems. * Potential for industrial and commercial use of solar systems. Given the preceeding data for Hopkins , it will also be necessary to achieve a — public understanding and educational effort to deciminate information on the state of the art in solar systems in order that the public may make prudent decisions as to the benefit of the various systems. • 28 Land Use Goals/Policies Plan The �lanning efforts of the last two decades have served the cor�nunity well . The Com�rehensive Plan has nrovided a guide to create and maintain a ohysical , — social and economic structure. The Comprehensive Plan on the following page is intended to refine that basic structure and provide additional indications of goals for the future. This granhic and the following goals and policies _ are the soecific pr000sals for guiding the community's land use groH�th and maintenance to the year 1990. The forr�at of the following section is identi- fication of specific city land use aoals by to�ic and followed by im�lementa- tion or monitoring policies. General Goals and Policies Goal : To maximize the choice of lifestyle o�portunities and build a community with amole choice of housing accommodations, job ooportunities, goals _ and services and leisure time activities. Policy: The city will preserve and strengthen the structure of diverse mix of land use through �olicy and prudent ap�lication — of its ordinances. Policy: The infilling of vacant parcels and rehabilitation of — existin� develo�ed land will be in accordance with uses s�eci- fied in the Comorehensive Plan. � _ Policy: The Com�rehensive Plan and other development control devices, policies and oractices will be continually monitored for effectiveness and assessed relative to their achieving the desired objectives. Goal : Provide a positive attitude toward the community's future which will perpetrate renewal and maintenance of the city's real estate. Policy: Incomnatible uses will be improved o r. removed where possible and the land reused in conformance with the Comorehensive Plan. �Poli�_c_�: The city will continue to �rovide incentive for rehab- i'litation of homes of low and moderate income families through use of community development and state arants and loans apolied " directly to the structure and by public im�rovement investment in target areas of the community. — Policy: The city will continue to use tax-incre�ent financing as a tool for renewal and will explo re inovative methods for its use. � �� . . , - — , , :,: i_ : ( � X : � ._ ._. __ . . �. � �Itl'S��O o . _ � � �/� , ��' � —. � __ ' ' � avrw�� 4a�rKf'J � ' �; : ,. : _. . :, '.l�r� l�1aS e�'4�d Sd ,::, — 1�l�S 4�1 S� � '' � �� 1�4�S�� ; �<.. ��d'�'8�#'�d �' %� _ I�� \ ii�� "�'�_':_"v ,. fr �G �s!0 s�8 I��]8� o d � — 1�i I�� ... �`za �� s � �� Sd .:::. Q`� � �� ,�� ' °:`' ;%- _ �d t!� Ie4�P!�i �► � ��,� , �. �;�� , , �, #f d�►W �11�'�N�' �� ,,� � - - � �� . .� � :�' � . � �,� , . ��:��, � . , j �. ,. a � , �' •~t �� ;� �, � '� �� ( __ �� > �� !. � � I �( � i � � � '��' ��° i�4 � �� .. ��\\- �..� � -;..� _ � ''�" �� ' : . <�� \�� •�. � �y Y �.�� . \\ � � S H� E- � �� `�..,� Sd ' d — �.�� ,F�� £� ` "�� - :� �w; X. �s�� : f , o. � � � ��. ? ,��:.j�. M ° . ; o � ,�� ' _ € - - ` ��+�[ . .,�, � � �. � H��,�� .� � ' �; � ' yt�t • . _ . . . � y �'.�.< I� � ' �.�' � E �� a` � p .� � � � a�.. zt, _' -,•" ,,,, t1� 'w'' `. �+�`'�. ' �� i �,� H� S3 �� '�`� ,, � ° _ e�,r� a , . � � :.: �. _ ._�;a � ,- — _�--- . _ : . . _ ,. . ._ , �.----...__ ._- ; �� o .�.� � , �� - � ,�;� ��:< ; p � ` � � � � , r _ � , , � ` ' _"`�:,- -• -�..�� :, � ' yr-g' � �� .�'� �.�''�� - �,�,e, ',�` �;� � ��. l' �� r � .Nt" . �. .. ��A i . .� � ; ,.» � _ - ,. i �' i•x.s w. *, .:.' ._�`�..� �� . � � n . . _. .,.� _ . _ ; . .. , . � - �. ��« ,� � } _ , ; . , �� , � . x �,� :� .; . , ,�_ �� — � �� - � �� r _ ; . , �._ �. � . � . o , . R .�.,_ �- � � ,� : , � - ! , � Ct'��."�� o � �� , .,�..�.<� a� �� _ . . , �� . �� t� � � �� c, , , , �� _ �. . . , `. � .. . . . . . • � `5 � � ,��T „ -..:. ,�. �. .. ... . �.. £ � � _. _.. . i t ^�;' 'fK. �'.."..`..mllf .,. .....F]U': ." .�.,.+r.. .... , t A:,�...s . ..,.a1 �.. I "J.;l�:^�r��t� ��s�;�;, o �5(nt�,l�uCL;s:; — j _ - -�:; } �.iCJ v1�3Q� �1'(,�`��, �.m" �. � F-,�<`%� � � � _. __ _ _ __ __ , , _. --_.__.� _.__..-..�,_ _..__----_,_.__. .., _.__w__ __. _�..�____�._.�.� t ,��-•�– _ I� �Q ¢a4rt off — "_,.�-- _ - � '�,��;- G410PC�OG74 , C.10�1G]C�404L�1 ,. M ��– � _ a . y _.�-- a^��n aa •�eor�r� �'�`��=y t"�_... . r ��. . ,�r='� �"� �� i F.- _ �� ' � � � � � L f_'� i-:�.� �� ,. `.�' __ - '_ . . . / ! � :(-3 � ��. - � ��/' � T_-_r��/ � 4 t� �� A� ,% �._� \ �3„ijFr� ��E�� ` �''� - � �),� � ��E-�1� � � � � _ � �':�„��}-��"� ��<:��: ^��' .� `...l� ` J'`' �l �i >1 . , i %' "'��"'�� ,_r�_r'�, F� �� , . ��•; �.r. ��-� -.'3' ��: ,l-�_ �w K ��i r �. 1�� . � ! �j'./� {l� � j��, k ��,ti ` l��,,,�,��,,�y ;� � [J �{ }� � ? �� .�, �t _ �i��..�� w;.ri::� �l-}- �� ' /_ I 1�. lf- -il'i j�' ��s�E. .� •.,y `R/ ��4 _ T(J" —r_ rt--�' ...i� � �• . ?�M"'_ � t � � . . , _ t ;:� j kL� , _r", ". , "a` ; �,_ ,- `�`�'' '` .:�..�.-.-,- i - -- �� Y-� �� ld r__ �...�-- , � �".�� '��. —.J ✓� I �` ,�� :��-" � � .; * s � � � � - �_�i -I��- _ ; .__� _ _ � � � , �� { ;� �.�i� i ---; :� , � �__ {��:�- —�= : ; � . _. , � ,. ,,_ . _ �_ , .; `_ _--y � \ J - ,��, i l — �f ,;—" ��•��.-�-rJ t1--Y � .. -y� �� Y '1�— . ✓� \\`� �-�_� �� .�I:. . �..� . . - � � — J� i ., ec= . �� y � —_�� ,, � � � {'� A � ��_1;____�-1��.._ - {, . ,� ' �j ,.;� - 1�' �'. _ '� �I ' z<1 -'r .�' � �.' � ..✓ ' ��i �, � /� -j�� C,^S i � � _ . {��. . ! � y�, 3- ��a� � -. .. � �tL.k� �.,�._,.�� , �� - �CF� { `#�� st - � � ,;/ w- - � � � l / : � � � ''� � . _ �� ,T�'F 3 f� ��c��a.�.3F_r� ��t�}" '� �� i \ �! �i�� * I ��a"�t-��, 1� yAti Y,J� � ��-�-�--��r^ ' /. � 't.["-� ." �� '�� -��` 1` _.� �,� 1�� '� �. ' �I � ^ ..�� •- �.�.:� :�e� - '�� 't� � " 1 .tr�c�." cr'�. 'a� ^� _ L: ��.1i �- :_� � �;��;�. } �- ��,�-�; �� -�� _lL '� I `�,� �; 3=7. ,G-�,�� ,x � �� ; , LLW;;J I �- r ��' ; `, �~ `� /` , ��I — � , :, ,: � � � ,. ; � � -r-,r-- �,.,;.�� ,,.�..r--��^^�" `��j .�� J �, . . I _�- �~r=- "..��..y�;; -�'��ril� w�� ' F��` _ ...... ±1� i __ �'��--i��. �� '�=� �_ ' :�� ; I . � : , . . --� ^�� " ;i f:," �� _� � �_■�� --.J - _ � , ir , _ , �, � - _- � = — _ . . . . ��. _.. �//. j - .. ...._'___ " ' � _r_ � �_ � i . �/" ��r"'A �, � � a� �� _ � .-� - � ,I a �� -�'.1v� 1.. _ -1 . . ., � �/ /� �Ii -� � ��'�F�� ' , I �; � i ..,' __. , � _ '--^-----� i�.� � _J� tT�— . � �'� t�r—lr'�f-1�l .�J !/ � �, �.—.. ... � , �._�T � . �.�—r.— �% t � � .;.�- � ,,; � -.-.-, ....._ . .... � f; a . , , -`�:� � -�� :-r-�( � :�-- �-e , w - , --- � 1990 _ ,.. �� 'x � � � _ � -��-, `�_ �'� �� j �;:,.•�_�� , �� - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ., . a , �' , , a.�� ! " �� `�� ' - AMENDMENT N0. 1 -, , - � � 30 . .- , : .�. _ . -- , a;:- . ,��.. , - g ,,. ,. : ; � ;- _ - - � ��, - I _ i . --- ; � 8/3/82 , � , _ �"� , ---�- _ ; _ .' I - --- -- ' � � � �--- ---- Business/Industrial �,� � --r,�---- - � , L____ _____ _ _; -, ,•' B2,3 & I1 _ �;��. , - r _ _- -_ �� I , . � ��. � , . - - - . i -� �- ;, t . . _ __� �a _ _�___�_ __ ----� ' �^ ' ; i i - — , E i n� � � ; ; I�-- _--- � i L� � I . � . i ---.. _._ i � \ � I i �—__'___. i .. �-. � f I ' � � �\\ • _.._ _.�_�_..r.--1 T—_�1_._.�_ �-T�—'.___i _-_" __ . � - —. f-__—____ — I �� I � . � ' I j __—� ' �� f � � I "___" _"__' i ' '. ,. ' . ' , i -� '� i I i � �__ ___' il � •. __� i , ___'."'_.'___....-�'\; � Policy: The city will continue to upgrade its housing and main- tenance code and will continually enforce the provisions of these regulations. Goal : To develop a community structure which may be conveniently governed and serviced and is free of land use conflict. Policy: The city will work with neighboring communities to pro- mote land use compatibility at the city borders. This will _ include attempts to facilitate the trade or acquisition of small isolated parcels. Policy: Certain uses of the land will be classified as non-conform- — ing which will be permitted to continue at the scale grandfathered into use but with the intent, that should change occur, that the new use will conform. Residential Land Use Goals _ Goal : To establish and maintain the solid tradition of home ownership within the City of Hopkins with the emphasis on achieving this goal with single family, two family, townhouse condos and zero lotline type of structures. — Policy: The city will prohibit the replacement of single family or two family structures with high density multiple family structures within the one and two family neighborhoods. Policy: There is vacant land within the city suitable for medium to high density housing due to neighboring uses, topography, soils and other physical reasons. The city, however, will through the develop- ment approval process encourage development proposals that incorpor- ate owner occupied housing. — Goal : Assure completion of the development of the remaining vacant land in South Hopkins as residential and open space use. _ Policy: Extensive floodplain areas within the Nine Mile Creek floodplain will be retained by the city giving density credit to the usable land. Industrial Land Use — Goal : To continue the development of an industrial land use base which provides employment to residents, augments the commercial economy and is an economically stabilizing influence on the community. 31 Policy: The city will actively participate in the retention of the industrial uses in the city through financial incentives, � planning assistance and physical and/or functional im�rovements to the industrial areas. Policy: The city will considerIndu�trial Revenue Bond financing — to enable the expansion of sound existing industries and to attract sound new industrial growth. _ PoliEy: The city when possible will continue to narticipate in the creation of industrial development sites from the available vacant land industrially zoned to provide new industrial growth onportunities. — Goal : Industrial land use within the city will be an attractive �art of the cityscape and will be developed and operated as desirable neighbors. — Policy: The industrial development within the city will be con- tained within the boundaries of the existing Industrial Zoning District. Policy: Standards for new industrial development will be upgraded and existing industrial developments will 6e encouraged to upgrade _ the existing image through removal or screening of unsigh�ly out- side storage, improved building maintenance and screening of major parking lots from neiahboring residential areas , etc. Business and Commerce Goals _ Goal : Provide a Central Business District �CBD� that is the focus of commercial goals and services for the Cjty of Hookins. Further, the CBD will contain some s�ecialized facilitjes and services of re5ional significance. Policy: The CBD core of commercial activities will be contained in the area bound by First Street North, Second Street South, Eighth ,avenue and Eleventh Ayenue. Policy: The CBD core will be developed as a high density/high intensitv use area with convenient vehicle accessibility and _ oriented toward internal oedestrian circulation. * Parking will 6e nrovided predominately by the CBD parking _ district in accordance with roaster plan for the CBD. * The city will encourage the develoament of multi�use/multi- story develonment in order to maximize space utilization and — interdependence between uses in the CBD. � 32 Goal : To provide General Business Areas of appropriate scale in such — locations as to be conveniently accessable and so designed that they blend with abutting uses of the land. Initial cost and maintenance of which facilities shall be the responsibility of the owner of the property included within the designated —' boundaries of such areas. Policy: All general Business Areas shall have appropriate — off-street parking and loading facilities, initial cost and maintenance of which facilities shall be the responsibility of the owner of the property included within the designated _ boundaries of such areas. �_P_�olic�: General Business Areas shall include a landscape p�anting area as a part of the overall comnunity aesthetic — program and landscape setting. — Public Facilities Goals : (Note: A detailed analysis of the public facilit.y system will be included in the Public Facilities Plan. The following Goals and Policies are specific to land use decisions relating to existing public _ properties. ) Goal : To assure that there is sufficient land available to accomodate fu+�are public service and facility needs. Policy: The city will work with the School District to assess the long term public land and facilities needs of the city and _ the School District to assure that land currently held is re- leased for private use only if neither public body has future need for the land or facility. Policy: The city will encourage the School District to establish a policy of leasing its currently unneeded school facilities to uses which will not substantially alter the school facility for — future use when age composition of the city changes and a school need is established. _ Policy: Continue to encourage the School District to retain all existing school property in Hopkins under School District owner- ship for the purpose of present and future educational service to Hopkins residences and to function as a vital social and economic — need to the citizens of Hopkins. 33 _ PROTECTION AREAS When the first settlers arrived at the location which has become the City of Hopkins, it consisted of hills, woodlands, streams , marsh and prairie. — Each of these elements are important and together they created the early envirnoment. However, having selected the area as an urban center it was not necessary or the intent to destroy the environment, but rather to re- — arrange the elements into a desired and functional urban environment. The process is still occurring as grades are changed, water is channeled or piped to other locations, trees are planted, land is set a�side for public _ use and other land is occupied. The natural eco-system has provisions within limits to help urban centers purify the air and clean the water. Man must however, limit his expectations — to acceptable standards of development and operation. If we plan to con- tinuously provide a water supply from pumping underground water, recharge areas must be assured which have been protected from pollution. This is but — one example, but it represents a concerned attitude on the part of Hopkins ' planning process toward a total urban atmosphere. i Water Resources The Protection Area Graphic on the following page indicates the water resources — existing within the City of Hopkins. Due to the high degree of development existing within the city, the water resources are somewhat limited. To a major extent they are controlled and influenced by the existing development — patterns and the standards of development. The following sections describe these water resources, their use and where appropriate, the level of control or protection currently provided these resources. A. Natural Water Courses and Floodplains The land in Hopkins lies primarily within two watersheds , Minnehaha Creek — and the north branch of Nine Mile Creek. The graphics on the following pages show the division line between the two watersheds with Minnehaha Creek flowing through Hopkins, while P�ine P•1ile Creek begins in Hopkins. 1 . Nine Mile Creek _ The north branch of Nine Mile Creek has its headwater at County Road 3 and 15th Avenue North and runs southerly through South Hopkins. The creek align- ment has been formalized and located within city Controlled strips of land fors�me 2,500 feet to where it crosses under County Road 18 into Edina. The — underground and formalized creek provides little retention area until the banks of the creek overflow into the adjoining floodplain. The floodplain in Hopkins provides water storage for some 198 acre feet of water and is — protected under the zoning ordinance as well as direct ownership and ease- ments by the city. _ Most of South Hopkins a decade ago was devoted to truck gardening and vacant land. Today it is the most recently developed residential area with full urban services and a large park plus floodplain and a newly created retention pond. This area also contains the largest acreage of vacant land in Hopkins — and two stands of trees protected under the Official Map Act. 34 , : __ _ ;,_, ;_ �� ,r�' �"� �� i �� ,_ .,--�-.� ( � i i — �� { � , �: � ,. � i- i "�Gt�^�� _ -,�� , � ��S�O P��a�IIAL � �� :,�;��-, -- sea.n� � _ , _--.--:---- —_e... ....,..--s,.,a-___.:_:—_.�: . ; �aa ��r ' � � : ._ ; , !� ► _ ___ ,;� ;,�� d -�- -- � (/� . .' . _ �. .. k�/ � � L I U11d'�J a�! `Ik'�M�!� . . . : � _ ;,;- • - . . . sule�dpoo�� .-__-..�----��- � - _ , _ _ � / r�= r i ~v s�s�no�J �',M I��N � � - - : _ � � �;::, � -. . a., � .., . .. , � . , . _.: f�� . . ' �� I '. ' - N 1 .�.i }.....o, 4... , (r � T�%�\ ��. � �{: � ,�� i a j •' � , �, �.i •Se3Jd UOI��d ` � � ; _ � - ; ,` ; �---�, _ � � . �.., �, � . �k a , , , : a , � �r � �� ,i__¢ � 'r:� . -- ��, , _ �.n,.. - �+" e- m *rn I� ,. . ,-i ' -4 ��, ; � . y ;l i � i `Z � � ; � � r�q� � ■�w.�e 1l�1t�w1 � ,�:1-'' I 'g: � t � I 'iv��vr�v*..�A1 t-'-. K 7 i�: �„ � � �r .. . I ; �y-�� , , , �T . I IA . . � .. . . � (� ��.� "` :,�£.��r. .• .� . L,.�_� ... ) � —�-'� �r .��J� � �'_ _ " � . � . � � �: � p � . �j � .:'� Y . r ,�.� . � � :y �. � . � '. _,.: ...... n ,.,, �:� �a`+�''�- .� . . . . �'J�� ' <��. «� ' ' ; r . ; � � � � �;a ., z• , �,... , . .... , �. . r. t-, l — � ' � �� ;�� x,,: ,' ;, ..�:.:_ ` ., _ __��r'-�`6' ,., :��3� al!W° ��u!N �; . =% ... � �---�------, ��° � ��, �� . ., ; -'' � �� y` . — . � .` . � ' # ` � 5 �� — � . ' - � � � i � t �'-� �',.W` � � � � ' t �' � `� �` �� x ` j I�� :-t?SZ'�'�*� i' � � ` . ' _� ` '>..• i � � ' — ,�.�-, r.'R t, � �"��I _ , _ . �,. „ r � y "�: �! ^ �, C � ' � . t � -�' � �,. ' t,�.a, � . .. '. 4 . F .` fY z ��T�� r. � � �R. �� . . - iY�'; �� . ___ . W 7�� - W 7� t: . �� .y ,� . � . . -�.—. —•--..—+•— _..,� `. �."'.� �S .�� 1 ;. � , ... I � I � � � ��.�. F . � �� 4 � 4�� yp •.•c ` v.r l #i `�' � � ^�\� � � �� la .Y, t � .�[.�,��. , : � �':� � �;� �.� : -� y,, f � , � ,� � � � � � � ,._�. .., . _ � � r � � . ..ry . _ . — �.. ..-•� � : . .� ,`� 1 , . ��, ,, ,� , r '' :�` � ' � , : . ,�� , . �._ , , ��, � _. . �•,:��. , - ` . :., . , '�, � . i , ' .. ,� y y U,: . . _ .. ,�� , t �i _ ..._ ,,: v'.�n • '' � ��. � � � �� ,1.,, � .. . u � � � o- : K� �' � * � ,�� r �"� .. . �� .-;�.,,.. .QZ'.� 'r j� �, � r` �Y .��J t ��,j � � � �ynp �... � � �'� � � � � - Yj � _ �/. � iYr� / � ' Y . "'" � ' - g q _ . � A � r, �' ,y� �,-• �t � � 9 R ;�� . j —x ,f.T " .. +.<? .,.. ... .. ,. .» , r.. .i � !i '4 �� ; � ��``,�� --" � . .. ��. .- '_, � - i ,.. . _ :- .:..Ls_._–_ �,. ;: . v .� ... . . ._,, �� ,�._..: . . ,,�.. , �., aa .�;na ��d � I ✓Y�� "f' r �.1 �� , '.. � �;�.J( a l�� ' �i�l 1 ;;,�,� � :r;,, 1.1d!.�15� kir�ld� ' ,� r.—�+.=; ..._ �n::. ., _ Hopkins intent is to establish the creek in a park-like setting with erosion controlled banks supported by a floodplain containing open uses such as parks, parking lots , community gardens , woodlands , pedestrianways and retention basins. Such development will create wildlife areas, erosion control , flowage — control , recharge areas , water quality, aesthetic setting and citizen use. The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District has an active Board which has estab- — lished policy, standards , and review procedures for urban development proposals within the watershed district. The city participates in this process by routing development proposals within the floodplain to the watershed district _ for their review and approval prior to action by the city. The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District's policies may be briefly summarized as follows: * Purpose of orderly handling of surface water including protection of —' storage capacity of floodplain, use of natural channel , retain natural marshes and prohibit construction of valuable structures in floodplains. — * Protect groundwater recharge areas. * Monitor water quality to meet PCA standards. * Protect creek from erosion and sedimentation. * Encourage recreational use of creek bank and surrounding marshes and lowlands . * Protection of wildlife habitat. — * Protect inte�rity of creek � (retention of natural water course, marshes and lakes). _ * Discourage utility crossing. * Encourage groundwater conservation to assure water supply for creek. — * Review municipal storm water plans and encourage upland storage and improve water quality of discharge. — * Discourage new bridge or culvert crossings of creek. * Review function of county ditches. * Control use of motorized recreation vehicles. The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District established in 1959 has worked on a — regular basis to coordinate the water and land use management for the water- shed district. It is Hopkins' intent to continue cooperation with their efforts. The primary tool which Hopkins has used in land use management — adjacent to Nine Mile Creek as well as Minnhaha Creek is the Floodplain District of the zoning ordinance. Generally, the provisions of the floodplain district prohibit use of land or structure unless it meets the following _ criteria: * Use will not obstruct the channel or unduly increase flood heights. * Use will not obstruct right of public passage and use of channel . 36 — * Use will not adversely affect land or water areas essential for protection of groundwater supply. _ * Approval of fill within floodplain will include provision for compensating storage. * Approval to permit public utilities , railroads , streets and bridges shall — not cause obstruction unless improvement is included as part of the flood management plan. — In addition to enforcing the floodplain ordinance, the city has also established a policy of acquisition of the floodplain areas where possible. Substantial areas in both the Nine Mile Creek and Minnehaha Creek Watersheds have been � acquired by the city and are utilized as possible open space areas for active recreational use. — 2. Minnehaha Creek The water course of Minnehaha Creek passes through Hopkins at its north edge — southerly of the Great Northern Railroad tracks and again downstream through eastern Hopkins from a bridge at Trunk Highway 7 southeasterly to the city limits just north of the Milwaukee Railroad tracks. The water course in — Hopkins is 3,400± feet in length at the north and 3,200± feet in easterr� Hopkins . Most of the area within Hopkins adjacent to the water course �n Hopkins is developed with urban use except for some 94 acres of floodplain associated with this water course. Also associated with Minnehaha Creek is open drainage ditch southeasterly of T.H. 7 and the proposed realignment of County Road 18 which drains into the creek. — Currently the recreational use of the creek in Hopkins is limited primarily to canoeing and one landing has been created by the abutting property owners just south of T.H. 7. The water in the creek is controlled by the dam at _ Gray's Bay at Lake Minnetonka and normally fluctuates from a full stream in the spring to a very small flow in the fall . The city has acquired abutting floodplain and established additional floodplain through zoning; however the configuration is not suitable for a trail corridor as suggested in the trail section of the Metro Recreational Open Space Guide. The banks of the creek through most of Hopkins do not lend themselves to development of a trail corridor but if such a decision was made, it would require a major resource — of money to acquire right-of-way. At this time such a corridor is not con- sidered appropriate to be included in the Comprehensive Plan. — The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District does not have a published plan, however, the city controls development within the floodplain ordinance (see preceding section) is in effect. 37 — B. Ponding Areas In addition to the floodplains of the two creeks, water storage is provided at a number of locations: a. The Knollwood Residential Subdivision located northeast of T.H. 7 and Fifth Avenue has two ponds with a control outlet to the east which — eventually enters Minnehaha Creek. b. Directly east of Hiawatha Avenue is a pond serving the area southeast — of T.H. 7 and the Great Northern Railroad which flows into Minnehaha Creek. c. Directly east of the high school is a pond serving the local area. d. East of Shady Oak Road and south of Second Street North is a pond serving about 14 blocks in Hopkins but has no outlet to either creek. e. In the southeast corner of Hopkins a pond was created in conjunction with Nine Mile Creek. f. On the Oak Ridge Golf Course are a number of ponds primarily for local drainage and to improve the design of the course. — C. City Wells The City of Hopkins domestic water supply is provided by five wells with an — aggregate pumping capacity of 8,400 gallons per minute from the Jordan aquifer. These wells are located in three general locations. Well No. 1 is located at County Road 3 and Ninth Avenue South and is adjacent to the city's 500,000 gallon overhead storage tank. Well No. 3 is located in eastern Hopkins west of Blake Avenue. Wells No. 4, 5 and 6 are all located along the south edge of the Oakridge Golf Course. _ D. Groundwater Recharge Areas The City of Hopkins is not located within the geologic areas to recharge the Prairie-du-Chein and Jordan aquifer which are the primary groundwater source + for the Twin City Metro Area municipal water supplies. Nowever, large open space areas including those shown on the water resources graphic do contribute to maintaining water table levels to maintain flow of the creeks and maintain — lake and marsh levels. The City of Hopkins has a total of 300+ acres of open space which contribute to the groundwater recharge, most of which are considered as permanent open space. 38 — Soils Soils by their engineering characteristics are a major determent of the urban _ use patterns and development timing. Currently most of the easily developed soils have been put to urban use. As shown on the Protection Area graphic on the following page, only two areas of the city have been mapped by the Soil Conservation Service as the remainder of the city is predominately — developed and consisting of disturbed soils. The two areas mapped by the Soil Conservation Service are �the northa�est area -- (40± acres) consisting of mostly marsh w�ithin the Minnehaha Creek floodplain . The city has purchased this area and it allocated its use to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The south area contains approximately 560 acres of mapped soils. A large part of this area is also developed and shown as cut and fill and fill land indi- cating areas of existing development. The major portion of this area, however, — is peaty muck or peat overlaying sand or loam. These soils have severe urban development limitations and are the primary reason that south Hopkins has lagged the surrounding area in development. A large portion of these peaty — soils have been acquired by the city for floodplains and park. The other areas of peaty soils have been incorporated as open space and parking for housing development as well as the site for the Hopkins sanitary landfill . , Within these peat areas, however, are a few islands of developable soil�. One of these has been developed with housing (Westbrook) and the other two areas are suitable for housing developed with concentrated building sites. ' The easterly of these two sites is Heyen Complex soils with only slight development limitations while the site in the southwest corner of the city contains a mix of soils of moderate to severe development limitation. Forested Areas The City of Hopkins contains two small hardwood forest areas in southwestern — Hopkins totaling 7± acres. The city through the use of the Official Map Act has protected these two areas from urban development. The easterly forest area is on a steep hill and was retained in its natural state when Westbrook — was developed adjacent to the site. The westerly site is still protected by the Official Map Act and is surrounded by undeveloped land. The city also maintains a nursery on Seventh Street South for the purpose of raising replace- _ ment trees for boulevards and planting for city properties . � ' � — � ,�,,� .. � �,�- __w� _ `iicti�# �,��r�r ;.r '�'I I _ G�c�, ,G�uG;�;� � �r��:Jl��a�;�'`}�°'= — � _ , _-, �. . _ „ .� ,.- v� , l:. __ _ _ _ _ ,,. ' ��,-��- • ...� . . .. . .. . __. ��.. . . �. �'� �I !14 , _' _ i .� �� .�-:� . i„' �, g p � : � ' � � �' =s . �` � t � ,.�,, � ,� � ° � � � - � -� , ; � .. �, �, � �. � , � , �;, ..,�... . ��. ,�, / L � . . .r I . . .. :, . I \'.; �� y��P.� ,.. � ,� . , ' .. �\�. l �- v` � h i 4 : : r .]b[�S . ' ' Y . . � . .�� w � � �;. ' � i � _.. . .,� . . �/ .... . :_ t . .. . .- M—'.—'�`. . 'rt' I r'�!�e � .A ��I.. ' ' � tr�:. � . , k _ : : , : . . : � E � � ' I I i s ..i ".I .YI�:. '.� �J .' . � � � 'I � �,. .: � �-_ ._.,, " � �� t � � � � ' �� ., , . � .�+r�\\'.� a:t�: . i .',,.;_�'"-�„'I. -�� ,ar•F'.� �' -:�u:.� � ' �'. 'v> � _ r �-------� � 1 !l ? y..�.m+.q ."�' � ' � ' — � '. �� ..� "� )� ;.(� f �-. i . . � � � . ..., .-. � � � .'A� .� ',� , _� . � � � / . 7�e.1..I M � � '. ..� . '.ac"w�nc W � ..../ � :� , .�,�..+.-.�...�..-. �-�• ' ^ . �.� � ��: . �,<4 d.. �"� .; � ... X� � ._ � . �-yw�r' �_... �' �w.�� _ �y, ��, �s.,.� � a . . �.._ � .� -"� � � �.� � � y, � . � ��y�, � [ �� a.,�...---'T r� ,. s 1 `.;+: � ° ' -�->, . 't+ d ._ b.: ��. . � .. -,k �_ s_ ,_ . ,. .. , ^ , r:n. .. .. � ..., .i �y ... y�_g. _ . . . //�-��;i . . : � '.. ; . :J � � ~' � � � �� . � �Y � l { � `_ • + � , �. � . .. �. � X Y:( �� _ t� �:_ �y i� � S ��. . . ; � : .. � �� ' - Y(> :� i � ' Ce . 4 � � i ' ��.. A? � 1..� � � � � �� % � ' E - p . � i „�< �; �s �,..+' e ��. j� s,, S� � ,�.f .'' 7 ,6 � .:� "��! - € � ' g .� f ."' �'.:r;a•,� :. � � 5 � " � 3 � � y � s `��` �� . x.;g � _ i � ,�.- \t ._.� f � # � � { � d �E _ � . . �t : . . ` g , • • , _� � � �� .-� i � :..t + ,� E 4 ;� , � ..�9' ._ . 1 , . � . , �.�. ,� --.. �, ��.- .� x!�n!... .... '�. i , ...� . .. ��. , : , _ �'.. ., p 1 r'•' , _ ... � �� -y---'�1 . , � "�� j � -�� F-'...i` ��' Z . �L j F _ ..T+r �� ' � �� _�.'� f 1-,'.,�� {r �r � ; : �. °� i ;� . F,�t�R.�" . . . .,`.ti ,..... �� .� T �a�, � � :.' 4 `. - . ,. . _..., _ -, 1 , i ± '� W — {� ':. -..:_ .. I+CLr9 .�YF .. .. �� -' � y� ,..� ..»'. _ F '� r— �j � `'" ,/ ��. j '3 � a � '� .. , .a„ �, ' �„^a � _ . � � -, � ' r�� n . : P I � ' `-- . ...., �- P + �� _,�;•�:. � .... i :. ' z � .-.!� 'd� � o . ...,. 'g , N � ... r , ':.,t, .. �. � '� . ..-i. . _. . ,x � . . . ..�•` , ` � , �, s -. y � � +�� 4 � , � , i _ . � . { . 4,.1, ` `` . N{� � 9 � '� . �� r � . . . _.T . �. �ry ��a[�: . " �-.�� . i :Y Y-. ..�_. � -.}e+�, � �.._ , _;�;;� : � :� ,. � , ��; I , . � :, �. ��, ' %- , I w r �.� E . , , � �,- � �_ , ; _ : � � � �� n � . . . . , - • � • . •� . . ,_,. _ - -� , __ ; , , , .,.. �z � .�� t" . . :.\ ~ , ` �� Pro�tection Areas _ -�„ � � � � � � � . �'� � - . "� � r a ��V ..... �':.:A:: s� , ,.� � /� . /i V�� AKIYL/�h7 � � ,� ;;, . � � Moderzrbe '; �� Se�r�e -�V ;, � � � , _ ,r ��,. ,�:: { , ; �� , � ._ ,. ,,, . _ — � `'� ,'�� '� � . � ..,,,.. - .. r , i j . _ '� � ( € ! Landfill Sites The Hopkins landfill located south of Seventh Street South on the west border ` of Hopkins has been operating as a landfill for ten years and has approximately one year of limited use remaining. The use of the landfill in recent years has been restricted to Hopkins residential and business thereby prolonging — its life. Refuse material in recent years has also been restricted to ori- marily paper refuse to reduce its pollution potential . The t�?innesota Pollution Control Aoency has established a program for monitoring the� effects of this _ facility for both water and air. The results of this monitoring� prooram will provide additional data in the future to the re-use potential of the site. The area known as Central Park located between Excelsior Boulevard and Second — Street South has been reclai�ed from a previous landfill site. No other landfill sites are proposed within the city due to both the developed — condition of the city and metropolitan regulations. Historical Sites — The Hookins Historical Society has identified numerous buildings built in Hopkins from the late 1880's through the early 1900's. Some of these buildings still stand. Only one building, however, architecturally and historically merits — preservation as a historical landmark; the ooera house located at 814 Excelsior Boulevard. The building is currently in use and is under no current threat of removal . It is oronosed that the city pa rticipate in the �rotection of this _ historic building through zoning and financially through support for rehabilita- tion grants and local funding. — Wetlands All wetlands within the city are within the boundaries of desTgnated floodplain — areas, and will continue to be protected thraugh the joint efforts of the City and the appropriate Watershed District. 41 HOUSIPIG ANALYSIS AND POLICIES PLAN The information provided herein is intended to be a part of Hopkins Comprehensive Plan and a step toward fulfillment of the charge legislated by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Housing is one of the more important elements due to the large percentaqe of developed land devoted to residential use. In most urban areas , the amount — of land in residential use is 30-50q of the total developed area . The type, quality and density of housing has a significant effect upon the - _ physical , social and economic structure of the community, The immediate physical environment of the home can often reflect the general character of the occu�ants and when such housing is viewed on a neighborhood or community basis , it can often provide an insight into the characteristics of the population. Individual owners and tenants are concerned with the appearance and amenities which set the general quality of the neighborhood. The maintaining and up- — grading of housing is a community responsibility whether defended from a purely humanitarian or pointed economic viewpoint. _ This report introduces housing data, housing goals and objectives which when amended or approved as written by the Council will become a part of the Comprehensive Plan . A. DATA SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Housing Distribution By Number And Type The housing which a metropolitan community provides is one of the principal factors in guiding the structure of its population. Housing for purposes of this report includes all of those structures so arranged as to provide a room or rooms where one or more persons can establish a home. Hopkins has had an adopted goal to encourage a variety �of housing as to — design, cost, size and style. Over the years this has produced one of the most intergrated housing inventories in the metro area . Hopkins has mobil homes , home for the elderly, single family homes on 40+ lots to 2A lots , — duplexes , garden apartments , highrise apartments , townhouses , flats , 236 financed low cost housing, rent subsidy and nursing homes . Utilizing the 1970 Census as an accurate base for the number of houses , said data was adjusted by utilizing City building records as well as field investigations . Based on the results of this effort it is estimated that in 42 November 1978 Hopkins had 6,830 housing units . It should be noted that others — have made estimates of the housing base that differ with the above number, however, we consider the methodology use at arriving at the 6,830 units the most accurate. As shown in Table 1 the housing distribution has shifted from a majority of single family units in 1970 to a majority of multiple family units in 1978 as a result of the construction of over 2,000 multiple family units during the last 8 years. This change was brought about by a strong apartment market in the early 1970's due to a large number of young people — entering the housing market and the shortage of suitable land for single family homes remaining in the City. Table 1 Housing Supply by Tyoe — 1910 and 1978 — Supply Built 1971- Supply 1970 1970-Plov.151978 1918 November 1978 Housing Structure Type # � # % Demolitions � Single Family 2,535 52.2 41 2.0 ( 89) 2,487 36.4 _ Duplex 534 11 .0 18 0.9 ( 40) 512 7.5 Multiple Family 1 ,680 34.6 2,024 97.2 - 3,704 54.2 — Mobil Home 108 2.2 20 0.9 - 128 1 .9 TOTAL 4,856 100.0 2,103 100,0 (129) 5,830 � 100.0% � Does not include illegal conversions or houses moved out of City _ Source: 1970 Census of Housing City of Hopkins Building Permit Records School Census Records (mobil home court) Since 1�70 only 41 single family homes and 18 duplexes have been constructed, considerably fewer than the 129 demolitions and more than 30 homes removed during this period. It should be noted, however, that owner occupied housing — has increased in the singles and duplexes and townhouses classified as multiples. The MetroQolitan Council Development Guide has produced housing projections — for the entire area with Hopkins ' figures being 6,900 for 1980 and 7,100 for 1990. Hopkins is within 70 units of reaching the 1980 projection and will be . past the 1990 projection by 1980 or 1981 . 43 �!�. � �� I�I�III�iII �� r � �.O�IgO��oo!��a�l�eG6q11 �1 -''� ;-�m �._ _ . _ � - . �� , �,��!��1l11111��11111 �E �t; `� '�i_ . . � �z t� .� ��... �� \ � �, J � � ��+�� . � . =� `��, .��E � '� �� .� . ��' �� , � ,,- .�e�� .��'�i�� e , ��-� �i �� , �� . • � �� , �� ,� ,� m o �,�,.. � . F �� :��ti� �;��E�. , �� ,. .. � �� i9Gl��E�� :� � o�� . � �, —. �� .: ;�e'!�, .,, �� q..�.��;�►/ ��.`�� yl�"��1� �,�+�'i r�•�e./, -' ;', ��'� ;.� +1� .•� � ��F�t;1��1i=;��.� _�'5..��.-��- i� � � m� t�f' ' �0 �'��`..', �.�� rE, ; ,�; m , ..� �,��i�� ,A! .t,�a ��+�! ��j � � �� A1� � ` �-.,�•.� � Irc,- � i , R..,�` �'�' �'� v+' r� �� "'w1,�il. � `•, � r' + � �i,• �.. .� ��IA�A � � � ��'� r"+�!�r� 1 `�'�� ,E�1 _==_. �- �.�'�$�a f�,� � . ��, �!„�„�1 - a � - �.��_�� 3t�� .., ��/ �� ,3 ,i► � ��;�. � e�'�eol�ll�._ �: � �� ,►�fr'� �i ��i��;� ��.�c-,��11!1�� 00��9i��,�� . -�+i�►:: , .�'�� "�,,,� ► �s�v'•�� !��,�� I�'�/L.� �1��' �, �,. _ .. - , �. �..�� .��; � ::��c�� , � i �1l�1��6�6�� lBI�� 'i, .�� ' •,' �1� �1l1! �� " 1�1 ��P�l�i� � ��I!� - r -� � I � �E�u�F��. � r •. � � :�;� ��.��•,�I��p., ��.� � , �r .� � � R, w .� tys�'�ir�� . 77�" . �il��il��l "�. , `j,,,�' � � ��'�� , .. �� ►. �� , , . �' �'� '."s�, . ,� � � � , � �, � � , � -� t �� . .. : r . . � . : �: � �� t� . , � .d� � re� -� ��► �� .a � . � .� . � �� . ►�� ..� -:��,,�,,, - � ,� ,�� • � � 1 � �' �4� , � ,� �:. �� W�� P� � � 1 , ��► .• �,: , �� "'�''.��: �i�� ' �� ' � ,. :�`�� ` � �, �- w � . . . m a Wd��p,�� ,�� . �� I 6�� •�, �_�,_ � � .� .� I�op� � .,_ : � �� '" " �� - ��:_'��1I�� . y i � � ..� ��; �' � �IE�i� � '�� ' .�r � �"� � � �� / �L 1 Q�` �i1 � ��,�!' �'` �i�v�—��-- � � � y ��—'� � 1 � � � 0 � �� `�-m� � ! ,�' '� � � �� c'� k ,� � � y � � '� � .� � ,� �, � ,�'�� ,a.��r �"�. , "� �� i��i . �. • y� `,� � R I �'r l�..�Y . '�,,.��y� , , � � � � : � ;� � ; .�. ``, I . � � , •� � ► l ► / �� ' , � , .; / v\--.1� ° ; �, � ,� �� `�--- ---�� - (�"�_ �"�� i '�`:� e Tenure of Housing As shown on Table 2 the ratio of owner occupied housing to renter occupied housing has decreased aporeciably since 1�7�, although there has been a slight numerical increase (103) in the actual number of owner occupied units. — Renter occupancy, however, has increased from 45.8q in 1970 to 60.7% in 1978 with a net increase of 1933 renter occupied units . This increase is less than the number of multiple family units added indicating that some of these — units were developed as ownership housing (ie. condo, townhouse) . Table 2 Ratios of Owner and Renter Occupied Housing 1970 and 1978 — 1970 � 1978 2 Change 1970-1978 No. % P�o. % No, Owner �ccupied 2,528 54.?q 2,631 39.3% + 103 Renter Occuoied 2,139 45.�q 4,072 50.7% +1 ,933 — Total Occupied Units 4,657 100,0� 6,703 100.0% 2,035 Sources : — � 1970 Census of Housing z 1�78 Survey of Housing Condition January, 1978 Data from the 1978 Hopkins demographic survey from both renter and owner _ occupied housing indicates that the length of residence in the current homes in the City averages less than 5 years �vith nearly 15q haivng moved into their unit within the last year, On the other end of the soectrum Hopkins has a high percentage of persons who have resided in their present residence — for 20 years or more (16.7%) and 29.5% that have lived in their residences for 10 years or more. � 45 � Table 3 Length of Residence �� ------------Percent of Households-----------� — Census Tract Census Tract Hopkins Length of Residence #232 & 234 .#233 Total _ Less than one year 20.5 5.9 14.9 1-5 years 47.3 42.1 45.1 6-10 years 9.5 12.2 10,6 11-15 years 6.3 8.2 7,1 — 16-20 years 5.1 6.6 5.7 21-25 years 4.5 6.9 5.5 Over 25 6.8 17.1 11 .2 100.0 100.0 100.0 (1 ) Based on a total of 2,490 responses out of an estimated 5,54g households questionnaires delivered or a return of 38�. Souce: Hopkins Demographic Survey _ Cost and Rental Range of Housinq The cost and rental range of housing in Hookins has shot�n a significant increase since 1970, caused by both inflation and the improved quality of the — housing base. However, a significant amount ofthe housing remains at cost affordable to low and moderate income families . Table 4 _ Cost and Rental Ranges of Housing - 1970 -------------Census Tracts-----, Hopkins — 232 233 234 Total Sf1SA Median Value of owner — occupied units $32,800 $18,900 $24,100 $22,400 $21 ,500 Me�ian Gross Rent of _ renter occupied units $ 145 $ 130 $ 171 � 144 $ 121 Source: 1970 U.S. Census of Housing n� Table 4 indicates median value for owner occupied units in 1970 was $22,400 compared to the Twin City Metro Area's (SP1SA) median value of $21 ,500. In —' comparison, the Sold hlarket Report published for August , September and October, 1978 by the Minneapolis Area Board of Realtor's from �lultiple Listing data indicates Hopkins had 60 sales in those three months with a median sales — price of $47,900. These sale prices included uoth new and used home sales and is probably quite indicative of the home values in the community. This would indicate that housing values have increased by +125% .since 1970. The _ sixty sales in August-October, 1978 also indicate the following characteristics : * Total dollar volume of sales $3,426,750 * Average or mean value (Hopkins) $ 57,133 (1 ) — * Percent sales under $40,000 2% * Percent sales under $45,000 33% * Percent sales under $50,000 53% — * Percent sales between $50,000 and $80,000 340 * Percent sales over $80,000 13% * Percent sales over �90,000 10% _ * Percent sales over $100,000 7Y As indicated by the preceding sales data, Hopkins offers a full value range of owner occupied housing with one third in the under $45,000 category and a —' balance of housing prices through the higher categories . This balance of owner occupied housing considered with a rental housing base of nearly 4,100 units with rents ranging from about �150 to $400 a month with a median rent — between $200 and $250 per month provides Hopkins with one of the broadest choice of housing in the Metro Area. _ Table 4 also indicates a median gross rent in 1970 of $144 per month compared to $121 in the total SMA. This difference in median rent in 1970 may be attributed primarily to the newer rental housing base existing in Hopkins at that time. It should be also noted that census tract 233 (see map) located — in the central area near the Central Business District has significantly lower median rents ($130) than the median rent of the City as a whole and especially census tract 234 which had a monthly median rental level of �171 . — As indicated by Tables 5 and 5 this pattern of lower rentals in census tract 233 com�ared to tracts 232 and 234 has continued to 1978. The data on Table 5 and 6 are derived from a demographic survey taken in Ho�kins in August and _ September 1978 and although they differ somewhat in rental and mortgage pay- ment data format between tracts 233 and the combined survey results reported for census tracts 232 and 234, the lower rental rates in tract 233 may be inferred by the comparison of the combined mortgage payment and rental data provided on the two tables. As shown the median payment for rent or mortgage was $125-�150 per month in tract 233 compared to a median rent or mortgage payment in tracts 232 and 234 of $250-�299 per month. This significant differ- — ence is reflected by the age and value of the housing stock in tract 233 and is the target area for the expenditure of Community Block Grant monies as discussed in the following section of this report. 1 The average value of homes sold during this same period as reported by all Minneapolis Board of Realtors Members in the metro area was $57,266 for i 6,654 sales. �7 Table 5 Range in Monthly Mortgage or Rent Payments (1978) — Census Tract 233 _ No. of Households With Rent or Mortgage Payment Amount of Payment No. Percent 0-$99 413 40.8% (1 ) — 100-149 139 (2) 13.7 150-199 133 13,1 200-249 145 14.3 250-299 70 6.9 $300 or over lr3 11 .2 1 ,013 100.0 — (1 ) Note: It is assumed that most of these families are homeowners who have very old mortgages or have a debt-free house. _ (2) Median � $125-$150 � Source: Hopkins Demographic Survey �t8 Table 6 — Range in P�onthly Mortgage and Rental Payments (1978) �� Census Tracts 232 and 234 " Total Households Amount of ,#Households(Mortgage) #Households(Rental ) Mortgage and Rental Payment .# % � � # % — $0-99 105 17.6 � 0.5 109 7.8 100-149 27 4.5 7 0.9 34 2.4 150-199 66 11 .0 142 17.7 208 14.8 200-249 64 10.7 275 34.2 339 24.2 250-299 87 14.5 254 31 .6 341 24.3 300-349 . 54 10.7 103 12.8 167 11 .9 350-399 55 9.2 16 2,0 71 5.1 — 400-449 44 7.4 3 0,4 47 3.4 450-499 30 5.0 0 0 30 2.1 — Over 500 56 9.4 0 0 56 4.0 — 598 100.Oq 804 100.1� 1 ,402 100.0% _ Median Payment $250-299 �200�249 �250-$299 r Source: Hopkins �emographic Survey 49 Table 5 also indicates the range of monthly mortgage payments for census tracts 232 and 234, As shown one-third of the payments dre under q200 per — month, which is probably more indicative of the age of the mortgage dnd the interest rate than the current cost of housing. Although the data for rents and mortgages are not separated for census tract 233 (Table 5) the high per- — centage of payments under $200 (_67,5%) would also reflect a long tenure in owner occupied homes , the lower general value of homes intract 233 as well as lower rental levels, � According to the 1970 Census and Table 24 of the ^1etropolitan Housing Guide, Hopkjns rdnks quite well inproviding a housing base in a range that is affordable for low and moderate income families. The following table com- — pares Hopkins housing base affordable to low and moderate income families with neighbor�ng communities. The table also shows that compared to its nejghbors , Hopkins �as a higher percentage of subsidized housing units (3.7��) . — Table 7 — St.Louis Golden Ho kins Park Minnetonka Edjna Valley ��pls • Metro Area — % housing base affordable to low income (1 � 15.60 6.9q 6.9q 1 .2% 2.7% 20.3q NA i % housing base affordable to moderate income(2) 51 .1% 44.3% 16.1q 8.3% 18,4% 36,7% NA % housing base in subsidized — units (3) 3.74% 2.21q 1 ,57% 1 .83% 3,27% 7,50% +4,4% _ (1 � % of units renting for �119 or less or valued at �12,500 or less in the 1970 census (2) % of units renting for $199 or less or valued @ �19,999 or less in the 1970 census (3) % of subsidized housing units constructed, purchased & approved in 1971. Source: Metropolitan Housing Guide: July, 1977. J� Existing Subsidized Housing Units and Active Programs Hopkins currently has 187 subsidized units consisting of 76 elderly units located in Dow Towers near the Hopkins Central Business Oistrict and 111 family units provided through three separate programs (see Table '8) . The — Village Apartments , developed under the 235 Program and the ?Oth Avenue public housing were constructed more than 5 years ago under programs that are not now actively used. Section 8 rent subsidies to renters in existing — housing units makes up the remainder of the subsidized housing stock. The Scattered Site Section 8 Program is an active program providing assistance _ to low and moderate income families , The sixty-one Section 8 units are scattered throughout the coromunity and unlike the previous programs that subsidized the development, this new program is a direct rent subsidy making _ up the difference between a "market rental " of the unit and 25% of the occupants income. This program is administered in Hopkins by the Metropolitan HRA and the Ho�kins Housing Assistance staff and to date has contracted 61 units . This program is designed to provide rent subsidies to both low and — moderate income families and individuals.� The number of families subsi- dized in Hopkins under this Scattered Site Section 8 Program is determined by an allocation made by the Metropolitan HRA and by the total funds and — allocations provided to that agency by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) . i Table 8 Existing Subsidized Housing Units - November 1978 Type of Program Subsidized Units — 236 - Uillage Apartments (.161 units-25o subsidized) 40 Public Housing-Dow Towers (Elderly) 76 Public Housing - 20th Avenue (Family) �p _ Section 8 - Scattered Site 61 Total Subsidized Units �87 Source: Hopkins Housing Assistance Office. � A low income family is defined as earning 50Y of the area 's median family income and a moderate income family is defined as earning 80% of the area's — median family income. 51 Based on recent funding level exoerience , it is anticipated that the Metro — HRA Section 8 Program funding level will provide Hopkins approximately ZO units per year for the near foreseeable future. In addition to this ongoing commit- ment to provide subsidies to existing units , the City has approved and the — developers have received a Section 8 allocation for 100 units in a develop- ment proposed to convert the South Junior Nigh School into 64 subsidized housing units plus the construction of 36 new units on the school site. The addition of the 100 units at the Junior High School site plus 40 scattered site units added in the next two yers will result in a total of +327 subsi-� dited units by the end of 1980 or approximately 4.5X of the housing base. — In addition to the subsidies to renters , Hopkins is actively providing assistance to low and moderate income homeowners . This assistance is either in the form of 3� rehabilitation loans or grants to low and moderate income — families funded by the Community Block Grant Program or by rehabilitation grants to low income families funded through the State of Minnesota Program. By policy the city has allocated 60% of its money to loans and 40X for grants . It should be noted that the Community Block Grant Funds are being used primarily in census tract 233 due to the requirements of that Program to use the funds in specific target areas . Table 9 summarizes the results of these programs and indicates the general magnitude of effort and money allocated for revitalization — of the housing base. Table 9 _ Other Housing Program Activities Activity Program Description Rehabilitation The city initially received a Community Block Grant in 1975 for a 5 year funding period to June 1980. A total of $600,000 was allocated for rehabilitation. Sixty -- (60) units have been completed, 7 are in the process and it is anticipated that another 8 will be rehabilitated before the program ends in 1979 for a total of 75 units . _ Approximately 60% of the completed units have been the 3X Block Grant Rehabilitation Loans with the remaining 40% in grants . Rehabilitation State of Minnesota rehabilitation grants to low income families totaling �60 ,000 have been used in combination with the Community Block Grant Program since 1975. Rehabilitation Community Block Grant (Small Cities Funding has been approved for a 3 year period starting in October 1978. _ A total of �700,000 has been allocated for rehabilitation or a total of 60 units (20 units per year) . _ Acquisition and The Community Block Grant (Small Cities Fudning) removal of deter- received in October 1978 has allocated $120,0�0 for this iorated housing purpose over the 3 year funding period. This will accommo- date one removal per year including the cost of relocation. � It should be noted that 40 new units of 3 and 4 bedroom townhouses Section 8 — units are proposed for development at Tyler and Van Buren. This proposal still requires city approval . 52 The basis for the level of funding which Hopkins receives from the Community Block Grant Program is the Housing Assistance Plan (H,A. P. ) which sets forth — specific numerical goals . In Hopkins ' case, a major emohasis has been placed on rehabilitation of existing units . Table 10 provides a summary of the types of low income households to be assisted between November 1978 and _ November 19�1 . Tabl e 10 � Housing Assistance Plan (H.A.P. ) Summary For — November 1978 - November 1981 _ P�umber of lower income households to be assisted Total to be Assisted 229 Homeowner (65� — Renter (164) Rehabilitation of units 130 — Homeowner (65) Renter (65) _ New Construction 89 Homeowner (0) Renter (89) r Existing Rental Units 10 — Source: Hopkins H.A. P. The H.A.P. goals , however, should not be confused with the "Fair Share" housing goals established for Hookins by the Metropolitan Council 's Housing , Guide. blhereas the H.A. P. objectives are basically an agreement between the City of Hopkins and H.U.D. for the level of assistance activity expected of Hopkins to continue receiving Community Block Grant Funds , the Metropolitan Council 's "Fair Share" allocation of subsidized units is part of the �letropolitan ` Council 's plan to spread the obligation of housing the low and moderate income families between the urban communities in the metro area . This "Fair Share" allocation is based on a detailed set of criteria and priorities set forth — in the Housing Chapter of the Development Guide. According to the Housin9 Guide, Hopkins ' "Fair Share" is 0.93% of the subsidized units in the �1etropolitan Area or a 3 year goal of 112 units and a 10 year goal of 929 units . 5� The Housing Guide is currently under revision and a hear�ng was held on the proposed revisions in July 1978. The current draft has dropped the 10 year goal and has added a "Full Share" goal which allocates a total 99,850 "Full Share" goal for low and moderate income housing for the P4etro Area. This � "Full Share" is generally defined as each community's share of low and — moderate income housing through the planning period (1990) of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, thereby allowing for the various timing potentials of the communities to plan for meeting these goals. The proposed� Housing Plan Amend- _ ment includes the following breakdown of Hopkins ' "Full Share" Goal : *Allocation Plan: Fair Share percentage of Pletro share 0.93� — *Subgoal for households currently inadequately housed 514 units � *Subgoal for new subsidized housing units 54 units � *Proposed total full share goal for low and moderate income housing 658 units As shown the "Full Share" goal of 668 units is considerably less than the 929 units allocated previously as the 10 year goal . This goal of 668 units for 4opkins represents 0.670 of the aggregate total of 99,850 "Full Share" — units for the Metropolitan Area. The Metropolitan Council anticipates meeting only 40� of this "Full Share" goal through normal State and Federal funding sources. The balance of the goal is anticipated to be met by each community — through establishing the capacity to utilize "bonus" funds when available, encourage new construction and/or provide locally funded programs . Potential methods for meeting these goals will be discussed in Section B of this report. Housing Conditions — As shown on Table 11 the Hopkins housing stock showed a significant increase in sound housing units between 1950 and 1970 while retaining about the same actual number of deteriorating and delapidated units . As a result the — percentage of housing considered sound increased from 95.9% in 1960 to 97.2% in 1970. Although a detail survey of housing conditions has not been completed since 1970 the 129 demolitions occurring after 1970 as a result of urban re- _ newal and miscellaneous reuse activities in the central neighborhood (Census Tract 233) it is estimated by the City Building Inspector to have reduced the unit5 in the dilapidated �ateaory to less than 10 and significantly reduced the number of deteriorating units . Of these 10 dilapidated units it is esti- — mated that only Z or 3 are candidates for demolition. Further the rehabilita- ti:on loan and grant program discussed in the previous section has brought a number of the deteriorated units up to code since 1970. � The subgoals are only used as a means of arriving at the "Full Share" goal and are not related to the r��ethod of providing the units , except that a — minimum of 54 new units sho ' d be provided. 54 Table 11 Change in Housing Condition 1960 - 1970 1950 1970 Change No. Percent yo. Percent 1950-1970 = Sound units 3,191 95.9 4,704 97.2 +1 ,513 Deteriorating units 117 3.5 106 2.2 - 11 Dilapidated units 20 0.6 27 0.6 + 7 Owner Occupied — deteriorating 78 » - 61 dilapidated 15 19 + 4 — Renter Occupied deteriorating 28 77 + 49 dilapidated 5 8 + 3 Source : U.S. Census of Housing It may also be noted from Table 11 that between 1960 and 1970 a significant reduction (.51 units) was made in the o►vner occupied deteriorating units as — compared to an increase of 49 deteriorated renter occupied units. Th15 shift occurred des�ite an actual net change of (-4) deteriorating and dilapidated units. This change may be a result of one of the following: 1 . Conversion of deteriorating owner occupied units to rentals 2. Rehabilitation of some of the deteriorated ho�eowner units to sound units while some of the sound rental units entered the � deteriorating category. 3. Removal of units in both categories by renewal and sound rental housing entering the deteriorating category at a faster rate. — a Combination of all factors listed above. It is believed that the current rehabilitation loan and grant program will — continue to keep the percentage of unsound housing in Hopkins to a minimum. One shortcoming of the current program, however, is that it is tied to the apalicant's income eligibility and ability to reoay the loan, As a result _ homes requiring major rehabilitation of �17,500 or more will fall outside the guidelines. To date 8 or 9 units have been turned down for rehabilitation because the high cost required for rehabilitation was beyond the scope of the program. Another type of program will be required to save these units or they — will have to be rehabilitated with private financing. 55 Another general indication of condition is the age of the housing base as - older housing has had a longer time for exposure to neglect. As shown on the following table, 1 ,111 units or 22.9% of the housing base in 1970 was built before 1940 (30 years old in 1970) . It is estimated that despite - the construction of 2,083 units between 1970 and 1978 thatap�rvximately 28� of the existing housing base in 197� is 28 years old or older (built before 1950) . A major portion of that older housing (+1 ,200 units out of 1 ,942 units) is in census tract 233 which is the target area for the Community Development Grant monies. This area will require continued rehabilitation and maintenance for the foreseeable future. Table 12 Year $tructure Built - By Census Tract Area ---------------------Housing Units------------------------ - Census Tract Census Tract Census Tract Hopkins Year Structure 232 233 234 Total Built P�o. % No. � No. � No . % 1969-March 1970 144 9.4 106 4,7 153 14.4 403 8.3 1965-1958 394 25.7 149 6.6 199 18.� 742 15.3 1960-1954 222 14.5 187 8.3 40 3.8 449 �.2 1950-1959 471 30.7 546 24.2 303 28.6 1 ,32G 27.2 1940-1949 221 14.4 456 20.2 154 14.5 831 17.1 1939 or earlier 83 5.4 815 36.1 212 20,0 1 ,111 22.9 1 ,535 100.1 2,?60 100.1 1 ,061 100.1 4,856 100.0 Source: 1970 U.S. Census of Housing Tvae, Amount and Intensity of Existing Land Use - Hopkins' land developed as residential use is 869.67 acres , some 1�8 acres more than 1963. The mix of residential land use has changed considerably with some homes being removed to consolidate industrial land, multiples r being removed under the urban renewal program for commercial , single family homes removed for multioles resulting in over 2,083 apartments since 1970. Hopkins' residential land distribution through the zoning ordinance consists of six districts with the R-1 Destrict being divided into four sub-categories . This program provides Hopkins with a complete intergrated housing base to -- accomodate all ages , singles , elderly, large family, nursing homes , subsidized housing, ownership and rentals . , 5r, In addition to the land already allocated to residential , some unoccupied property is available and if developed in conformance with the present — zoning ordinance wouldaccommodate approximately 1 ,300 dwellings . — Land Availability for Future Housin �uring the late 1940's and through the mid and late 1950's the major portion of _ Hopkins ' developed land area wes committed to single family and duplex construction. During the late� 1950's , 1950's and early 1970' s the predominant housing con- structed was medium and high density apartments. The apartments were deve- loped at that time due to favorable market conditions and an availability of — land that was not as well suited for single family housing. As a result an infilling of apartments occurred on much of the vacant land within the city and the single family housing construction slowed to less than 10 units per — year by 1967 and less than 5 units per year since 1972. Much of the remaining vacant land in Hopkins is suited for medium _ density housing and it is estimated that less than 25 single family lots re- main in the citq. The graphic on page 17, however, indicates that there still remains a significant amount of land that may accommodate low and medium density housing. As shown there are 19 sites available that can accommodate —' from 4 to 400 units for a total of 1 ,200 additional units . Although housing construction in Hookins has slowed since 1973 due to unfavorable market condi- tions , developers are now preparing to develop many of these properties. The addition of ±1 ,200 dwelling units to the City of Hopkins in the next few years far exceeds the Metropolitan Council 's projection of a n80 household increase _ between 1976 and 1990. Further, an increase of this magnitude in primarily apartment units would result in a total of ±8,030 units consistin� of approxi- mately 29� single family units 8q uuplex and mobile homes and 63% multiple family housing. Unless a substantial amount of this multiple family housing — is developed as condo�iniums for families , Hopkins will continue to see a drop in the household size and percent of home ownership. As discussed in the population report the household composition of the community will stabilize — for the next decade or more with a low percentage of children under 18 and a generally aging population. Increasing the �ercentage of apartments to the housing base will not increase the under 13 �opulation but will probably re- _ duce the average age of the population. In any case, the remaining land avail- able for housing is best suited for aoartment and medium density development and is unlikely to attract major single family housin� development. 57 — I�.-� Tllt CITY OR � �I HOPKINS , MINNESOTA ._—�J'�"�� N�NN��IM COUMT• _ _ �., ^" „ �--aF k- � .s.m � .... .m .� ,m ..,,� _ � .,...,_ i� � 1� � f '�f � - - � _t�: .,..�•_ 1 � ��'� Y .�_' � � ' � � li , �___ _ ;:�ID� �,M�� :�� +�� 20 ,�� '_� ,_`� ' '� � ��,r�`' ;� _ °g _ � � r..�^'� � 1 �I�.e.e n -`,_•:+�-�-- � '� __� ��`!f�: � r.�� {� q '- L��I I :� ��r y I I 1!I� �i �: �'��` �,.�r � � � �% _ �` ` , i' �(�:—�--,�' " � � -b � '�! ,�� d _ � �-�.� _ ��- � 1 �� , �, '� I f' ; __..�,. *�, 1`�� '� f�� i �� , �� ,; ,.�. � _ , � � ;:: �' �LL � � ld��' '' P � , . . . , _ ;� , �, � �,, � _ �� -� �,. _-_ � � ,� � —..� �..— - �— � C�'� ��- ,s r � `�� '! � � �� . � JL �._- �: � ' �a � ` �' { �{;` � = �� y � „ � I�s° ' ' � �'�, � � - § �� - = �..— � ,... �� _J�_ �,I �� :Q�lr � - � "`�'�� ...�'""`�.��_ �� F�_ �� , ��-�n � �� , ,�, , ...,�.... ..._ ` I��l ., � , � � .,. � 100 l� : �'��" �� A� ��=��; � _ _ �� :� .�.,�- � r�_� � �j`��` >� . . •�,t .., •• �,�� . aw� �'• � � . � „'_ . ' .. _ ��,�:;�. �� ,. �� --�� C ° , � , --� ,�. ._ �� .� � �� : � � II @ ��F : . ��1 j� ��C ';�� ;,. : '' . � � �L-'- � i rN'.r. � .iil..uz_ T �, r".. I �s, '��:;;...n� j �_ � _ ,� •i�� 'llii � � m � t � �; � '}j�� 1�{[�� ,� I'�„� _ '�y � i� �. I ; I',q,; � a� , �� __:,.. _i: y,�� II • _ I, � � (� �� b � - � / � -'�a'L.�� 3 ' � � � ,� II. � � ��*'.� �� '' �� ,�=' _ � W;�i2s _ - --� � � ° � �;�, 1 � �� - � � , _� I � 1 �:: ��` ' �� ° s=-.r---� `� � '� d`,-�, �L �F�`�� ! � � � �::� )_�� •' . _ � �� I��J �. � . ;.. � ' �f _� . ' - �vd,r�� .� +.� �� o ` .J^ �� }._�,�I �-- - �o,. i �' � 1�,� ��i , 'n"��,.��' ,J�, � r�i"�f 4� .<.�. " �1.�l.i ]�„~��li�I�:l �'� 'i { .::: �� i'�'i '��i1� ��, ... � � t �r� � I� : I — o� i �'P �,��i •-- • � � �� , .._..lt_..�s � .�. ,�� ,,�.. _ _ _..�r..t �...�.; - , o ' - - �:�'r'--"_' t , �� 3 l`f , �. i � {' � � ^ '� ' i ��9:I�� I , .� ,,� j , — � t • �� 2 � � � `� � � �' , � ,u.,,. I � �;��i � � f{ �,�� i� � ��' . , �s ;�� , � - � �'� .. � � � I : `\ , , .., � d�a I s� - . ,— r� -c I� 4��p�g L— � �� . , I �� " � n � .r �� . _. , „ . .,�„ � ` � � � I�,: _ ��:� �! , �� _��:_..� . .4 �� - - - , i � �:- .�..., .. o • I I ` � � �� •-........ � _ .� ��,.... .._ . - , � I � �� . _ ��,;�� _�� _ � .�ss j ��'�� . '� — _—..—..� — - �� UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL LAND —~� 1370 UNIT POTENTIAL _ � �' � B. NUMERICAL HOUSING GOALS AND OBJECTIVFS How much change will Hopkins ' housing base experience in the next decade or two? What forces of change will be acting on the composition of the housing base? 4Jhat is the city's role in this change? The preceding section has identified the characteristics of the existing housing base, areas available for new housing growth, the city' s rehabilitation activities and the level — of effort directed toward the housing needs of low and moderate income families . This sect�on will identify the factors in force that are antici- pated as influencing the housing base characteristics over the next decade. — The result of this analysis will be numerical housing goals and objectives . which are a result of both the ongoing influences in force and the manner in which the city will choose to intercede to effectuate the desired _ objectives. Projection of Total Housing Units — The Nov.1978 estamate of the Hopkins ' housing base is 6,830 units . Analysis of the available land for housing in the city indicates a capacity to increase the total housing base to some ±II,080 housing units . During the planning — period to 1990 it is anticipated that Ho�kins will average +100 units per year net increase in dwelling and by 1990 total ap�roximately 7 ,900 units . Although the Metropolitan Council 's projection for Hookins is 7,100 househqlds for _ 1990 the projection of 7,900 units does appear acceptable for the following reasons : * High percentage of vacant land is zoned, ready to develop, and currently — held by developers . * Hopkins is in a very high demand area for medium and medium-high density housing due to its high level of supportive services and — high employment. * 75% of the potential 1 ,390 units are located in 5 developable tracts which can accommodate 100 units or more. * Unit loss due to demolition and removal for renewal and highway projects will end with remaining deteriorated units suited for rehabilitation. — The allocation of the preceding gro�vth assumptions is the product of many inter-related issues. These are discussed in the following section and followed by established numerical housing goals and objectives. Issues Prerequisite to the establishment of objectives for the allocation of growth and activities for maintenance of the Hopkins housing base over the planning period requires an understanding of what forces will be influencing the housing — base. Thereafter, it becomes a matter of choice for the city as to where it will intervene to influence the outcome. The following general discussion outlines some of the factors or issues which are to be considered. 59 The growth of the employment base, continued revitalization of the Central Business District and the diversity offered in the housing stock has made Honkins — an attractive community in which to live. Therefore, the increasing market demand for living space within the community will tend to increase sale prices and rents for units in the city. If this demand continues to increase — it will have the following impacts : (1 ) Rehabilitation and increased levels of maintenance by _ natural market forces will accelorate in certain neighborhoods perceived to have a long-term potential for above average appreciation in value. A strong market, therefore, has the positive force of influencing investment in neighborhood renewal and re- — moves much of the burden from the city. (2) Low and moderate income families in some areas of the city will be — priced out of the non-subsidized housing market. A higher demand for market rate units results in less incentives to developers and landlords to meet the needs of the low and moderate income families. _ , (3) Market demand for neai construction will tend toward attracting the upper and u!�per middle income marl;ets on sites in or adjacent to — good quality neighborhoods. (4) A refurbishing of rental apartments and conversion to condominiums — will occur in most of the better apartment developments within the city. Correspondingly most new market rate multiple dwelling con- struction will be for condominium type tenancy. As a result a _ net reduction in the market rate rental units will occur. Another factor which will influence the composition of the Hopkins housing base over the next decade is the current metropolitan area and national trend — toward home ownership. This trend is being fed by the following factors : * Increased incomes and expanded acceptance of wife's income to — qualify for loans . * Large segment of population entering the late 20's and 30's. * Tax advantages of home ownership over rental occupancy _ * Fast appreciation in home values are considered an inflation hedge and investment (a way to get ahead) * More affordable housing for sale on market in form of innovative housing types ; condominiums , townhouses , quads and no frills single — family housing. _ As a result of these trends, the major emphasis in today's housing industry is to meet these home owner�hip demands throu�h new single family housing, new townhome and aoartment condominiums and the conversion of rental units to condominiums. Further, due to the lower birth rates and taxing �olicies over the last decade, 60 very few market rate apartments have been constructed in the last five years. This has further accelorated the ownership trends in new construction as the — gap in rents continues to widen between pre-1974 built units and rents required to support 1979 construction cost. The prospective tenant of a unit constructed today is provided far more benefits by buying a home or — unit than paying the high rents. As a result most of today's apartment � construction is either condominium or subsidized low and moderate income housing. These factors are anticipated to have the following influences on _ Hopkins : (5) Market demand forces will influence the utilization of Hopkins' remaining developable land toward modest cost ownership housing of — the two family, quads and townhouse types as well as middle and upper income housing in apartment condominiums and townhouses. — (6) Hopkins will not be able to meet the demand for new single family housing due to a shortage of suitable land. This demand will be met in neighboring communities . (1) The u3ed single family market will be strong and accompanied by orivately financed rehabilitation . The behavior of the market will also have an indirect effect on how housing is provided for low and moderate income families and individuals . A rise in housing cost and rents at rates higher than increases in income will — require greater subsidies for new construction. As a result we will probably see greater reliance on the Scattered Site Section 8 Program using existing units as a means of increasing the number of subsidized families for the _ same available funding. A greater proportion of the new construction Section 8 contracts will be directed toward two primary objectives : (1 ) meeting shortages in certain housing types such as large family housing and (2) economic integration in suburban communities . The resultant impact on Hopkins is anticipated as follows : (8) Available funding for new metro area subsidized Section 8 units — will be directed by H.U.D. and Metropolitan Council policy toward family units of 2, 3 and 4 bedrooms. H.U.D. and the Metropolitan Council will to a great extent rely on the existing 1 and 2 bedroom — housing stock to accommodate the elderly and small family needs through the Scattered Site Section 8 Program. (9) The elderly's housing needs will continue to receive a lower priority for new construction by Metropolitan Council 's guidelines than large family housing needs . Provision of additional new elderly housing will be permitted once Hopkins has demonstrated — a substantial commitment in the number of low and moderate income fami']y housing uni,ts� 61 (10) Providing elderly individuals with alternative housing would — be a method of making under used housing available to younger - and larger families. _ Numerical Objectives for Future Housing Characteristics The intent of this section of the housing element is to direct and predict the growth and change in the Hopkins' housing base over the next decade in — response to the anticipated housing needs. The four basic areas which will be addressed are: — * Low and moderate income housing * Market rate housing * Rehabilitation, demolition and redevelopment _ * Number of units by type 1 . Low and Nbderate Income Housing Goals The Metropolitan Council ' s proposed "Fair Share" housing program goals for Hopkins is 668 homes. As previously stated, the Council anticipates through utilization of normal State and Federal funding sources that 40� of the metro — established goal of 99,850 homes will be financially covered. The remaining 60� of the needed housing will require a variety of programs to be successful . The Housing Element of the Metropolitan Development Guide discusses each communities — capacity to utilize bonus funds, local funding sources and programs for maxi- mizing the City's potential . The council suggests the following four statements be considered .in structuring the housing program: a. Use of Community Development Block Grant or local funding to write down the cost of land and/or public improvements. b. Adopt official controls that promote the availability of land for — low-moderate income housing. c. Use Federal , State, Regional or local subsidy program for low- moderate income families. — d. Establish a local H.R.A. or participate in the Metro H.R.A. Hopkins' is over 100 years old and has housing spread over a longer period than _ most communities, the density is also greater than most suburban areas and over 50� of the housing inventory will quality for low-moderate income familities. One of Hopkins' goals is to upgrade and maintain the existing housing, thus it is important as a part of this goal to primarily meet the "Fair Share" goal by — utilizing existing houses versus new structures. Given the ,basic metro considerations and the Hopkins' goal relative to existing — housing the city can allocate the tools available to meet the needs of the community. Another criteria established by M�tropolitan Council limits subsidized elderly units to 40� of the total subsidized homes in the city. Elderly housing due to _ the physical care of the structure, the social needs and proximity of services desired should be a new structure designed and built to accomnodate needs of the elderly. — What are realistic goals for low and Jnoderate income families? As indicated previously, the city has been averaging 20 units per year through the Scattered Site Section 8 Housing Program funded through the Metro HRA. In addition, approx- — imately 20 units per year of low and moderate income owner occupied housing have been rehabilitated annually since 1974. Through 1981 both pro�rams 62 would appear to be able to continue to dellver that level of funding, Given the January 1 , 1980 starting time for application of the goals by the end — of 1981 (the end of the current H.A.P. ) Hopkins should have +180 units or 27% toward its 668 unit full share broken down as follows : , 40 units of Scattered Site Section 8 rent subsidy 40 loans and grants to low and moderate income familie� for rehabilitation 100 units of new Section 8 housing at South Junior High site — The balance of the goal of 65� units will be addressed with the availability of Federal and State funding allocated to the City after 1981 and by appropriate local funding efforts and programs. It is the objective of the City of — Hooklns to meet the full share allocation as shown on Table 13, Table 13 _ Numerical Objectives for Meeting Full Share Goals Fo r Low and Moderate Income Housing � Target Date Low & Moderate Type of Need Met Program Housing Provided Income Units Small family and Section 8 (Scattered Ongoing 200 Units Elderly housing Site) Metro HRA 20 units/year — Family Housing t�1HFA new construction 1980 100 units� Rehabilitation Block grant low Or�yoing 200 units — ownership housing interest loans to 20 units/year low & moderate income families Elderly housing H.U.D. 202 Program 19�5 100 units or MHFA-Section 8 new construction program Large family housing �1HFA or H.U.D, As available 68 units Section 8 rent — assistance (Scattered sites) Regular allocation or bonus funds TOTAL 668 units _ 1 Need met by conversion of the South Junior High School site recently ao�roved by the city and �4HFA. 63 The total full share goal of 668 units when adde� to the anticipated pre-1980 — total of 207 rent assisted units and 95 low and moderate income rehabilitated units assisted under the loan and grant programs will by 1990 total 970 sub- sidized units in the City of Hopkins or approximately 14% of the total — housing base. 2. "�iarket Rate Housing Goals Unlike low and moderate income housing goals where State and Federal subsidy • funds are available, the objective of the market rate housing goals is to utilize local resources and initiative to aid in the reduction of housing — construction cost. In this regard Honkins currently scores quite well with a Planned Unit Development Ordinance, low minimum lot size, no garage require- ments and others . These ordinance requirements have encouraged a substantial — portion of the recent new construction to fall within the �40-�0,00� sales price range--affordable to moderate income families. _ It is the communities objective to provide 25q of the new housing or +250 unitsof moderatecost housing in the next decade. Due to market factors currently in force it is anticipated that very little of the new moderate cost housing will be rental housing. Given the 25% moderate cost housing the balance (75%) of the new housing wil� 5e market rate housing constructed for middle and upper income families, 3. Rehabilitation, Demolition and Redevelopment Goals Hopkins efforts in the last decade in renewal have virtually eliminated dilapidated units in the city and many of the badly deteriorating units. _ Three additional dilapidated units will be removed through a portion of the Block Grant Funds allocated in 1978 through 1981 . The candidates for demolition by 1981 should be minimal assuming a continued effort in the rehabilitation program. Further urban renewal or highway projects — requiring the demolition or removal of housing units will no longer be responsible for the removal of more units in the city. Therefore, public and private rehabilitation will be the primary tool to maintain the health — of the housing base. The H.A.P. prepared in early 1978 identified 902 "units suitable for rehabili- _ tation" of which 213 units were classified as substandard. The current three year Community Block Grant funding level will acco�modate the rehabilitation of approximately 20 units per year throun,h 19P1 . The city proposes to make every effort to continue i�plementation of this program through 1990 with a — gonl of ?_00 reha�ilitated units through the Block Grant Program in the 19�0- 199� decade. 64 The Block Grant Program, however, does not cover the gap in rehabjlitation cost of $17,500 or more due to the financial capacity of the eligible applicants. Therefore, some units could be quickly headed toward becoming candiates for — demolition unless an acceptable program is provided. ThE� city will cor�sider development of a program that would stimulate financing needed for rehabilitation out of local taxes and through normal market rate lending sources. The goal for — this locally financed program is 50 units during the next decade. This program will be described in detail in the Implementation Section of the Plan. The balance of the rehabilitation of substandard units is proposed to occur through normal market conditions and through a code enforcement program. _ 4. P�umber of Units by Type As previously stated the density and to some extent the housing type of an additional 1 ,000 units added to the housing base by 1990 in Hopkins is sub- — stantially predetermined by the characteristics and location of the available land. However, as previously discussed some degree of choice is still avail- able to direct this housing toward certain segments of the population (ie. — family, elderly, low income, high income, young adult , etc. ) An estimate of the 1990 housing unit composition by type of unit is made on Ta51e 14. Due to the city' s normal reactive role to developers proposals on most of the _ development proposals brought before it , the estimate is general and makes • no attempt to qualify a ratio ownership goal or breakdown the multiple family category which includes apartments , townhouses , and other types of attached units with rental , condominiums and cooperati �e types of tenanc,�. Table 14 Projected Distribution of Housing Units by Type - 1990 Net Change Estimated - 1990 Type of Unit Nov. 1978 1978-1990 Units % Distribution Single family 2,486 15 � 2,501 31 .7% Two family 512 120 2 632 8.0� Multiple Family 3,704 963 3 4,667 59.0� — Mobil Home 128 - 28 4 100 1 .3% 6,830 1 ,070 7,900 100.0% � Assumed small increase. Modest increase (infill , new areas and conversions of single family) — 2 . 3 Major growth of apartments, townhouses and condominiums 4 Assumes decrease of some units due to upgrading the standards of the _ existing mobile home park. Note� There are currently 34� or �q of the multiple family units that are _ owner occupied. It is estimated that given the current trends in new construction and conversion of rental units to condominiums , that by 1990 approximately 30� to 40� of the multiple family housin� units w111 be owner occupied. 65 C. HOUSING POLICIES The course of action Hopkins takes with regard to its housing in the next — decade will have a substantial impact on the livability of the community for the next 20-30 years. At issue is not the land use pattern or ultimate mix of housinq types, but rather how the city maintains the existing housing _ base and what segment of the population the few remaining parcels are in- tended to serve. Policies made and the adequacy of actions taken will be critical to the continued health of the housing base and Hopkins' population. The following goals and policies identify the city's proposed actions in — consideration of the following general topics: * low and moderate income housing — * market rate housing * maintenance, rehabilitation, redevelopment * residential development and land use 1. Low and moderate income housing (also see Numerical Goals and Objectives) a. ��P__o��lic� 1: Hopkins will continue to assist low and moderate income — fami� ies in the resolution of their unmet housing needs to the extent that Hopkins meets its "fair share" obligation as specified in the Twin City Area Metropolitan Housing Guide. b. Policy 2: Hopkins will continue to pursue funding from Federal , State, and local sources and administer housing assistance programs for all segments of the low and moderate income population; family, — elderly, renter and homeowner. c. Policy 3: Hopkins will continue its Scattered Site Section 8 Program — through the Metro HRA, rehabilitation low interest loans and grant programs in pursuit of a goal of an economically integrated housing base. d. Policy 4: Hopkins will continue applyin� Grant Funds to extensively make community facility improvements in order to provide continued support of the rehabilitation process occurring in the neighborhoods. e. Policy 5: Hopkins will pursue the use of land write down techniques, such as tax-increment financing, where possible to encourage the — development of new elderly low and moderate income housing at specific desirable locations within the city. 2. Market Rate Housing (Also see Numerical Goals and Objectives) . a. Polic 6: Hopkins will continue to maintain and administer a zoning ordinance that provides for the basic health, safety and welfare of -� the community and include no excessive standard that acts toward the exclusion of any economic group from the city. 66 b. Policy 7: In the pursuit of providing a wide range of housing cost alternatives within the city, Hopkins will continue to utilize — residential districts of different minimum lot sizes as a means of developing and maintaining residential areas of varying housing values, size, type and environment. 3. Maintenance, rehabilitation, redevelopment (Also see Numerical Goals and Objectives). � a. Policy 8: Hopkins will continue to vigorously pursue funding and administering low interest rehabilitation loan program and the grant programs to low and moderate income homeowners to bring the housing — base up to code. b. Policy 9: Housing units with rehabilitation cost in excess of the — limits of the H.U.D, low interest loan program will be rehabilitated with private funds with the City of Hopkins providing incentives such as purchase and minimal sale price contracts to qualified individuals _ agreeing to rehabilitate the unit within a reasonable period of time. The city will explore tax-increment financing as a method of financing this program. r c. Policy 10: Hopkins in the future will regard the renewal of the city's housing base as a rehabilitation process rather than a re- development process. Removal of existing substandard housing units — will be limited to only a few isolated cases and the sites will be replaced with similar type housing. — 4. Residential Development and Land Use a. Policy 11 : Hopkins will continue to encourage development and _ maintenance of numerous housing types with a wide range of cost and rents in order to accommodate a population with a diversity of ages, incomes, tastes and life styles. — b. Policy 12: Hopkins will preserve the integrity and value of existing residential areas by prohibiting intrusion of incompatible land uses through tight enforcement of the provisions of the City Zoning — Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, c. �Polic 1_�3: Hopkins will encourage the use of the Planned Unit _ Development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to enable design flexibility in the development of the remaining scattered properties in order to effectively deal with development problems of poor soils , woodlands , flood plains and transitions to adjacent — incompatible uses. 67 d. Policy 14: Hopkins will allow the development of mixed commercial and residential structures (residential on second floor and up) in the Hopkins' Central Business District to provide an alternative life style that is convenien t to a high level of services and facilities. 3. Poli-c�15: Hopkins will continue to assist elderly home owners who w�O elocate in housing of their choice within Ho�kins, 68 — II. PUBLIC FACILIrtIES PLAN - Transportation Plan (Prepared December 1979) . r - Community Facilities Plan (Prepared December 1979) - Comprehensive Sewer Plan (Prepared January 1980) INTRODUCTIOy Within Hopkins is a complex system of public properties providing a variety of public services and functions. The ownership as well as the responsibility for — planning, development and operation of the facilities are under the control of more than one unit of government. The interrelationship of these facilities requires a major effort in planning and operations. The scope of this report is to identify tne public and quasi public facilities, to define the role and coordination of those under the jurisdiction of the City of Hopkins and to re- late how they function within the subregional and metrowide systems . The public facilities included in this report are categorized into 3 major sections of the — Public Facilities Plan: * Transportation Plan — * Community Facilities Plan * Utilities Plan The regional/metro systems which this report will address are Transportation, � including airports, recreational open space and sanitary sewers. In each case, the plan will identify the regional system and the local demand and the system of accessibility to the regional system. In cases such as airports and recrea- — tional open space the linkage or relationship to the regional system is not directly indicated, but does identify the measures required by the city to protect the regional systems. From the standpoint of coordination in planning and development of these public facilities from the local jurisdiction to the metrowide jurisdiction, this report identifies what development is planned or proposed at the local level . Thus, changes in the regional or metro system can consider the needs of Hopkins and it's neighbors. Local plans or proposals which could cause a change to the regional system are suRm�arized by category and described in detail in the re�ort. Summary of proposed changes to the regional system: — 1 . Tho roughfare System * Arterials (no change) * Collectors (some modifications to bring into conformance with the _ approved municipal state aid street system and to the Hopkins ' Thoroughfare Plan. 2. Transit — * Add pa rk and ride lot * Route modifications @ Excelsior Avenue 8� Co. Rd. 18 * Extension of Route 12C south into Onus II in Minnetonka — * Expand express service 3. Bikeway/Trails _ * Expand bikeway system (both regional and local routes) * Limit the Minnehaha Corridor trail route thorugh Hopkins to canoe route only. 4. Recreational open space (no change) 5. Sanitary Sewer System (no change) 69 — It should be noted that a moderate 9q increase in the Hopkins 1990 population and housing projection over that provided by the system statement provided by Metro- politan Council will increase traffic flows , transit ridership, sewage flows — and in turn, place a somewhat greater demand on the regional system. These de- mands , however, are within the tolerances planned in the design capacities of those systems. 70 TR,4�JSPORTATION PLAP� The metropolitan location mao on the following page shows Hopkins' relationship to the metropolitan principal and intermediate arterial thoroughfare system, _ existing metropolitan airpo rt system, search area for new airports, and the Twin Cities Amtrak Station. As shown on the graphic, Hopkins planning activities have only a direct impact or access to the arterial system with only an indirect re- lationship to facilities such as the Amtrak Station and the airport system. Of — the indirect relationships, only the airport system will be discussed. Not shown on the graphic but discussed later in the report are the regional trnasit and bikeway system. The Arterial System The principal and intermediate arterial system in the metropolitan area connects the various sub areas of the metropolitan area. This network of roads is built primarily at freeway or expressway standards with design soeeds capable of — moving traffic quickly between the subregions. In order to maximize the efficiency of this traffic flow for inter-subregional trips the accessibility to this system is controlled. Hopkins is provided direct connection to this major arterial system by two inter- mediate arterials which pass through the city; State Trunk Highway 7 and Hennepin _ County 18. Trunk Highway 7 is developed to its ultimate expressway standard with only minor safety modifications proposed. A new County Road18 facility is currently under construction on a new alignment through part of the city. This facility is being built to freeway standards and is proposed to be open for travel in 1984. — Hopkins resident and employment access to the arterial system will be via 9 access points located within or adjacent to the city boundaries and via numerous other points outside the city via routes connecting to other segments of the major — arterial system. The control of access to the regional system and the land use in the vicinity of _ each access point is critical to the traffic fl ow and, therefore, the operation of the arterial system. The design of all of the access interchanges or inter- sections within Hopkins have been established and are either developed or are under construction. The graphic following the metropolitan location map shows — the arterial system and road design within one-quarter of the access points. The following points summarize the land use and circulation status at each point: — T.H. 7 and Co. Rd. 18: Under can�truction-local �treet clrculdti0n changes �hown on graphic� T.H. 7 and Texas Ave. : Intersection in St. Louis Park - no change _ in land use or circulation proposed in Hopkins within 1/4 mile. T.H. 7 & Blake Road: Fully developed within 1/4 mile of inter- — section and no change planned. T.H. 7 & 5th Ave. Pdo. : No change proposed to land use or circulation. T.H. 7 & 12th Ave. No. : Fully developed land use and circulation within 1/4 mile. Any changes in circulation _ are subject to the ultimate disposition of Eisenhower HIgh School . 71 � ST RAMCIf( �[Tltl '�'�' PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS � I _ _ � I IINWOOD _'_ I 9i1RN5 I OAk liAOVF �ST�[TM[l I INTERP1EDIATE ARTERIALS i � ____� — , — � h1ETR0 AIRPORTS � � I � --r---- � AMTRAK STATION � ANOKA o. ��MB�S � urxr �MDOVI\ ��K� F0�[fT L�K[ I NEW SCnNOiA FOkEST LRME I AIRPORT SEARCH ARE � , � � _ ( METRO1 AREA) o...o. AM ., ' LIMO LA L.E HPy$�N CX1M lIN [O ��10f �E FIIVILLE !■ _ _ ' -- ' �L11M[ I MAV XU40 N�MOY[� u�cu ru[s WASHINGTON CO. cro ��----�� G�EEMfIELD [OIICOII�M M�II GIIOVE �l fM0�EY1� 7 r �I1001(lTM�� Y� NO�TN � = I STILLWPIER 1� OA[f NIT[�[�� I O[RfO�G ' fI11Dl�' L KL HENNEPIN CO Roo■ h �Miw � cp"NT _ I��IG OM YADN�I � I MEIGM� _ I ❑LO !� C S p13 �S �29 Si ATF ,. MILLS [W LI[MDENCf MEOINI` �IYM TM O�L � �S ��T � 30 ` � .. o � I C�M N M -- OS[VILL[ ST.'��UL � YA�I[�L�IN �.-1. — — GOLD,1 I 16 l7� � l�D IO�F [ LLYO AYT�WN IOMG l� � ' WE57 � �e� oeowo . _. - � I RAMS CO. �aKE�nnu o�,��wATF11TOWN M N[TOMN� SI l li •AIMT►AYL I l�N[l� I I I MINM[T�IfTA � „� 7 I �YIN A�O�� 3 nOLi/w00C .vSiERT`JWN I MOUMD � ` I D[[�M� � sT.t�oix ue n I � � ' � I � � w[ST WOOD�UIIT 3 �� S1. �F70N � US �AUL NC�—— � R — - � - 1! OUTH �M�MY ■I Mfi[lD M� S � �T 9 [N�MM�{!!N � N[IG I 9 (nMLFN WAlny�.P l>NFT�JNN` �I�I[ ST.� 4 � N.ICOMIA �� ` I �LOOMIN OM IMV[�G VE CARVEN CO. �M�� MucH (A COTT� G�OY� �ENM>RN ".__—__� _ _____L—_— " _. Z ` � ro'o.c � cH�sK �_ ��fGi��9 AMERIC� tM�1I0��[__ � C��Y[� I.KSUI� I - EI OPMLCREN � ��y�� I�� tGUN(;<MERiC� I BEhiON I �_ r�10� �I�l[v1llEV �O![MOUN NiNiht;ER � I r ��ti�.��t L�R[ � M�S GS M�■�OIIG U 1 __ � ___ L_ --� - ----- - . .. - - � - -�----- .ia�r� � o �- --� NLN��()CM � ` I I --- I UFRM�LI.ION I IRPVFNNA L___ y�Nf�(REtN I 1�'FiN�.LAMf I Hll�it I K�� I FMViHf I � I MPRSH4N V 1 I FiVEN I ` I/��MIMGTOM Y[RMIlLIOM sCOr7 CO. I l_ I � T� S1.L4 (.kl IO�D�M I � I I _ _ _T ' '——_ ___ —.__'1— _'__'"__'�-'_——___ �—— I '_ _'_ I I � - � [LL[�I�IM[ I I I � .�. �.HnF i I I �N[W�RI[� tllA I bLLLF PLaiHE I MFLEN< .f i�>N Lahf I ',.• M ' EUPEMc I I N�M� N I 1 I I I CPSTLE ROCM i I MIE V LL[I N!W Y��I([T I I TpN I DOUGLAS I II M[ II�GU[I I � I I I ry4 I I --�-------1—�—i- - -1--- -� ----- --�---I---�-a-eN�o�r - u.76 I I ��N OLIM 1 � I MILE$ S 10 15 20 25 +,REENv�If �WniER�pH;� I , �'I S�iOTa �----L-�--� _ TWIN ClTIES METROPOLITAN AREA Pol itica I Bou nda ries 1 l�RIX4��III( 9 YICTOIIIA 17 I�LCON M[IGXT! 3S 4LY L�K[ '� 2 O�OMO 10 IIO��IXSD�L[ 1� MlMDOT� 76�IIICNMOOD 3 MIMMlTONK1�L�CM I1 l��IMG L.1R[��I( 19 LILYD�L[ 17 WMITE BE�R �'4KA County Boundary ♦TONR��Y 12 U.{.GOVT. 20 GREY CLOUO ]��AY�OIIT OROMO S[XC[Lf10� 13 XILLTO� 21 I�MD/�ll 29 WILI[�NI[ Municipal Boundary 6 G�[[NNOOD 1�COLUM�1�XIIiMTt 32 DllLW00D 30 O�N��K NII4XT7 ::�M�EN 7 WOOOL�IID IS tT �MTMOM� 23�IN[f��IN4f 31 �.■u,■o s�o.�s — --Township Boundary 8 M[DICIM[lAR[ 16 LAUCIIIY�L! 21 M�MTOYLDI 32 IT.M��'i IOIMT � Miewrfirrs�Mc o•o...o..... � Re ional Location g — � __-�: � n�■ arr or � MO'KINi , MINN�=OTA _— I� ��wv�■ �OYMf� _ � ___ --� - T.H. 7 & 17th Ave. No. : No circulation changes proposed - possible use intensification in northeast corner of — intersection. T.H. 7 & Shady Oak Road: Intersection in Minnetonka - no land use or — c�rculation changes proposed within 1/4 mile in Hopkins. _ Co. Rd. 18 and Co. Rd. 3: New interchange under construction necessi- tating circulation changes in immediate vicinity of interchange (see graphic) . Some development removed for construction of — interchange with remaining development to remain in substantially the same intensity of use. Co. Rd. 18 & 7th Street So. : The street system has been recently deve- loped in response to the impact of the inter- _ change. Some vacant parcels within 1/4 mile will be developed for office commercial use or residential . 1990 Functional Classification System — The 1990 Functional Classification System graphic shown on the following page was prepared and adopted by the Metropolitan Council and its Transportation Advisory Board. The system indicates the basic arterial and collector backbone system _ within Hopkins. Two modifications to this system should be made, however: * The graphic indicates that llth Avenue North between lst Street North on T.H. 7 is classified as a collector. Currently, 12th Avenue North — is connected to T.H. 7 with a signalized interchange and provides the collector function north of lst Street. To change this collector function from 12th Ave. North to llth Avenue North would require a major intersection — modification at Highway 7 and would encourage large volumes of traffic to use llth Avenue No rth as a mino r arterial ; a function its location and de- sign are unsuited to accommodate. * Should the Watertown Branch of the Milwaukee Railroad be abandoned, it is proposed that the collector route transition from 12th to llth Avenue along the railroad be studied for possible acceptance and construction. * After the construction of the County Road 18 interchange, Excelsior �venue bet�een Fifth Avenue and new County Road 18 will no longer — fucntion as a collector street as it will not connect to County Road 18 or extend to County Road 3 east of County Road 18. 7n _ ! �:�, — >��_ .. __ . ._. ___ ._ .__. ..__ _ .�� . ;., - �; � , � . � ^. ,- , _ .. __.. .. _� �"�_ +__ _ _..__.__... : r�r... `---.a ._ _ t I - , , - ;� ��; ' ,� — „ r _-4;.' 4 T= —�.�_�. r � - - - --� ....,a �, ,, � ��d ��w ....�� -- - - `- �� _ I��/ �!P��uI ..,,,� : �'� G `i. _ _ � ,^� • - I ,' e x , , , ___ i . f : �� — ��`�� 1"""":f""'� �, -.-- j � / :::. �t ` _ l``��- ` � ;•� '`, M, ._ .. v,�� =�" �:'.� �r)� •r�• � �" � r� � — �. ' � , , ,�� 7� , � � , :.'�� r�t�r,/� I b 1, � � ' , . F. � ��'" _ ( -� �, .._ � t�- �]� ,.,. . .,.... I : � �� / �r �i •f j � , , , , ,: � __ __ .� - - -- � :;` � � .. , - � �E �, �.� �� r ;f�.,� . �-,-.-.-T- � �, � _ � �� r� � ��r�� '� �y � � F .� :.� ; '�. � T �L�t : '�€ . .i . � �:— `� ,. f .; - - , i [ y ' � "__.: _.. i �j # i�r F .: �+ � w � f �_ ! ' _-1-� - ��'� .. ...._.,__.._ � ^ .• ' . _ _ ;_ ,_ � � � � � 1 � s�� f F�" , �.'..}�--- _w�..�w a 4 - "_- 1 � �� ... � � �� 1t 1 �'� � r �,�� ::� � �� ...... r�� 'T� �. ,�. �� .�� ,�._ �_. F �-:, �=�;.�. ,..� ::: ,... . :� . _ - ,-� �' �_ , . _ , � " , � ;: ° s, ==€i' _ � � �� ' �,y�~� ��, , i�_ -_'�... -�.. � ,_`��i---- - ��i� t��-� � „t � _ W ,. '� : _ � �s v-t� �-'{''�{, lt 4 ,..sr �`'�. ._ ..:' . �.. A :�� -� • 1 S j�a-t } _ - #�#'��+i��; �N'a�Ki � �� Y . �� 3 - �'��' -' � "- � - --- � _. �,n:.. � e' , ,� ; ., o r i i: t��.i�j , �. � � � = � ,.. � �: ' m � A 9 � � �i j'_ _ — � 7t , 1 3 � � ��' ..�:iS. :t(:' .,; r ' ..M r ...�.1S t -� } 3 i �t C�.�'. �� . � \ � �� .. }� .i P .I'�.. (I./fi�R.: i 13 :��C ��;�(��f �# =a- � i� ,1� , ,� � �`:� ��;�� j. � � ,i.: � i �}�'_�.'`F r ..:{ [ ,��,1 F i � , g 7 ' h � .�': j�. :�'� . � - Y'r�'%�.� Y�'.,. � �$ � l.s�.' R i. At 1 1;�,t#`'�.�d�_p / R . .�h= . C v�" M . ��.� �:u � �i..�� '.� �r ,� � � .. .� ,. . . Yt � . t " v. ,._...�,._ . � _ � "_\ L.��- •'__—��` � �i %k! � :pt '� �,n � a� � p � � � e`_� f` � , . , � �,�� . �� , . - - -_ �, �� _ � - ,a � . . , : ., . , � � . �. . �- = t �_ - = r � �-- -_ ._. v_ :� . .. t' .: �, �. ,:�_ ;�: . ....�,��.� � ��;�� - � �, ,,��: _ __�C'"""r__ .: :_ ,, �. �` ,,.,,,� , __ .._. �� , :,� �,.�,+,+:�+ �� - ; '�. r-- . , � � � , .. �� _ _ _ . ._ __ �'r1' A., � , � _�L � yi �c. I t� � .:�. .:v; - ,-y�..., J Y �- ��^ �: M � �� -� i�r '*-�' i �, (�-- ��' 1_� `.��,y�, Z�� _ �� ' �` - ' �-r�� Y � �-�(y, T�.r � � � -.1�! � ]�: sf' ± I ` \ � . � � Y t 1 ' � �- �� ; '/ 1 . '�� _ ,. . _, � .: : � �wsi I " . , � '---'' ' c . _ , f '- y.� °% .. , ;-: � �.� � �y�" y" i t�. � : y ' '_1� ,_.. t .. ' ::� , /� F y� ,�I � i M �� ' T �� e\ - . ! �� ':� 3 �� k 1�, � , Z,�. . �,„ :, � j � _. — +�� "i t � i .y. `-t � ii ,. F �� 'r"E�k$ �� -�''� � /' '1 r' �� <_-_--� , � r � � � � � �-� , _ I ��,�, � _ � ��s� ,t ��. „:�E} _ . � �y ~;�� .,..0 ca:o:: Marura�nm - � � �i �r:��aG�a� ° �ao�do� � ;I €�v raboa nc� , _ __ �,�--- i — � � � i _ �:, _: __. � — _ . ._ . . f,., __ : _.<� ,, �� : .y'" ir'�, _ ! .- .� . _ _ __---- -_: . , , � ; : :, . �� .-- .. . . .� . . , , . _ . . �� -- . . Y..i.. ��F;��', , ' � � . . �, � , _....._ � .s ��. I ., � �� — — i � �''�•,,, . , . , � , � ( , ,r G (d an�)u,�a;sl� ��eqt,unl ............ . � . _ _ � � Pro��S led!�unW '�x-�=� _ `a ��6 Hd'S� �a��S........ ' . _ �� '� ' � �.:. - . , . ,.. _ , _ �. � _ ��,.� � ._ , � z }� �'�� F�n ` #�f� :"o _ • � � ' i��.�- � '��' r/� � � -':��"' " M A A .#1 � �� '� . ` � � � , , . � �r y � � �` � �3�,: _ , . } `- _� ,F� ��t� `� f � � _ - - _ E � �i: � .� � :d+-s"'` _ � � : � ,. , � _ ra ,# _ ..� _ � �� .�1 ,� � ��:�� • �� ` _ _ i .P' :�''�,. >. � : �� _ .q H, ' � _ _ � . � _L.___ - .,� r� i . � /; ; . '� .. _. r .._ _._'.�.'3""�_."� inx:irR. ..:. �..__...__x .� � � �. f - - � - - - ��--- . ,,� �,�. �---�- — � � � ;- ��i� � :::� � . . , � .. � r - ,. �. , �� 1 t r _ �-� _;�; _ ... � . _,- ..�_ , _ ,... _ ; �: _ , ,_ _, .�.. ; , . . . . �� . .._� _ . . � 1 � �- . . . ,�; � . , '�` , __ , . :�':�;_. 3 :�::: i, i,t__.,T, - '�� '� , r � � �� ._._ - �� ..�.;.� � ,.� . . , . [��_ . , ,�_ �. _ , . � � , . , �;� _ L �� L,�.,� ,.� �� — � _ �?' �r�E � r a;-�,�. - - i f . ��r �-� �`i �"�a�� .� t 1 7-' r_ .;�.,� � �� ` � J . � E 1 �� k.�f""` .._.,�,tr'i � � ��:��'��.A, z'�'� q � j ` �� .4'° � � � �' � � � Y+ �: s j � � �� . ��^ � y ! +i�M yfu ' �. ' `�y ... �E 1¢ y r, � � �� . � o. � , 1�� ; � �: � f �N — i"' �t � � +� � � t ; t � ::��' , . ! '" " :..: � , .i � '� � "*k.. . , j 3 } � ._ �i�, �� s�� . r _mt_.,� .� `-%" . _ .. . �.��: "� ,� �.'. 4'�4q,,. .R #.._ T .�q y �.Y.r �" 7 Ph' - :; � �. � �. :. �;��' �" ' ` �''' ; #x- ` � � . ;,,. � �., ,,- .... a ,. r . a : e. .' . r ,,f-.cr., . � s x�� i � '1 1' _,_. . . � ..� �. -:-�c.-�ag� ��.. � .- �- �- �. .,... �� r...' _, �� ,'f�".. � .a:� p' ' *�_. 4��,� '�:''� i "_M��E ��XiIA 3 �,��/ ... �`�1:g �" ;; _ � 'P � � � �: . . - w : , „� � _ ��_ � r ... _. _ , � -: ...r. �-. : � :� �� < . _ . � ,� �-� . _ . .. �. � _ .�-. � - _ � � „_ y� � " � �, �_�.��, T �. � . � � �, � , �� a , , � �� "� I < <,,��,� �'>�. _ T.:�. �� -�..�::a�`.;�::: r--�J �" , ��,C.��. N �� > �� . ;� �� i ��: �� T�'r` �":J ." r ` �; _.rY . . � ,:....-.—n.. ��•_ _�'""'T� i �- . . � _� . . .. . � ,:;: �r-ji �.., ,tl, s, _ � ., . F , ,� ._ . � � :��;��'� ,... .. .,__ �,� �.� r ^ 1 y �r `� - . �-� -x- � � „ � � ��">� a ;: :�` '��: '�.�: � ; : t . `�� .� � ` ; --� � ` , F �, ,,, -c , — �' � � ,,:: '� � � _ , . � _ � �., � _ __.,t.,.� ._ - tt �-� ; :- � :� � � p, QTy g L� � 4 11 6 E ° . � �`�� _ _ _. - �. . �% �y''� �.� ,.-^ .� .: , -� -- - - � �1 � �-+i= , . ..�.' _.. . ...... .. .. .. . �.. :. >.. . ._. , 4 ��..y;_ i..� . — �, .. _��r .�, -- -- _ _ I;; ,� ;', � f . r�rsc�w�r c,omnMu:aw , ... C°7b0��7�G`:lil�`'..'7 ° �5,["'.i��lc`JOO w - � �C� A15�J FJ[�Jd i _ _. _- sa�`_. _ � ' � _ I � __ ._____ _—._._-------. — The Hopkins State Aid System graphic indicates the proposed Municipal State Aid Street System for Hopkins including changes required by the completion of Co. Rd. 18 in 1981 . As shown, the State Aid System includes all rouies on thp functional _ classification plan with the exception of the changes previously noted. In addi- tion to the collectors shown on the Functional Classification System, the 5tate Aid System includes additional collectors streets designed to provide improved circulation within the neighborhoods and the vicinity of the central business — district. Hopkins Major Thoroughfare Plan has in addition to the "Functional Classification — Plan" and "State Aid System Plan", other streets classified as collectors and con- sidered necessary to properly move traffic within the community. Upon completion of Co. Rd. 18 it is assumed that 5th Ave. from the north city lin�its to _ Minnetonka Mills Road an�i ��linnetonka Mills Road from the 5th Ave. to 2nd Ave.N.E. , now functioning as Co. Rd. 18 will be upgraded with turnback funds and returned to the city. These two streets are on the Hopkins Major Thoroughfare Plan. Also on the plan is 5th Street So. from llth Ave. to K-tel Road. In terms of long range major thoroughfare planning, the basic system shown on the Hopkins Major Thoroughfare Plan is considered appropriate for the next 20 — years. Along said traffic corridors , it is anticipatedthat certain improvements will be necessary such as restricted parking, widening, traffic controls at intersections , free flow right hand turns and surfacing, but the alignments are — considered appropriate. Transit System It is expected that our metropolitan area which has developed and become dependent upon the freedom of movement by the private automobile will increase its reliance — upon movement by some form of public and semi-public transit. The increased cost of energy, increased cost of owning and operating a nrivate automobile, increased number of persons not permitted to operate a private automobile, the regulating _ of land use to curtail parking and �ther factors are causing this trend to take place. The organization of land use will also be affected, the value of land and the rules under which we guide development are also expected to change. Transit service in Hopkins consists of 3 systems . The first is operated by the Public School System and will not be reviewed as a part of this report since it is special purpose and serves a designated part of the public, The second is the — bus system operated by the P4etropolitan Transit Commission. The third is rela- tively new and is operated by the City of Hopkins w hich npw contrdct� with the Town Taxi Company and is known as "Hop-a-ride". Metro olitan Transit System: Hopkins is currently served by 3 bus routes all of which travel to the �nneapo is Central Business District. In addition, the routes _ intersect with many other routes where patrons may transfer and travel throughout the metropolitan area. 77 The existing route locations and locations of bus shelters in Hopkins are shown on the graphic on the following page. Regularly scheduled service is provided — although the frequency on certain routes is somehwat restricted. Also indicated on the graphic is the M.T.C. pr000sal for a route change at Co. Rd. 18 and Co.Rd. 3 to accomrnodate the new interchange configuration. Accepting the standard that _ a home is being served if it is within one-quarter mile of a regularly scheduled route, approximately 82% of the existing Hopkins homes are served. Apply the same standard to the concentration of employment, nearly all businesses are served. However, due to Co. Rd. 18 interchange development and the objective — of improving service levels to some areas , certain amendments to the system are proposed. The amendments are indicated on the transit route proposal graphic. — 1 . Park and Ride Lot: The city has set aside an area to accommodate 60 cars on the south side of Co. Rd. 3 between 7th and 8th Avenues to be used as a park and ride lot. The city has made an agreement with the M.T,C. whereby M.T.C. _ will construct a nine ton surfaced lot on the site provided by the city. The city thereafter will be responsible for lot maintenance, snow removal and policing. The lot is scheduled for construction in 1980. r 2. Express Service: As shown on the graphic, peak hour express service is pro- posed to serve the T.H. 7/Co. Rd. 73 area , 17th Avenue, Co. Rd. 3 between 17th and 5th including the new park and ride lot, and service along 5th — Street including a transfer stop at 5th and Excelsior. This route will use T.H. 7 as an express route to the Minneapolis CBD. The route proposed is intended to maximize coverage to Central Hopkins , the CBD and Co. Rd. 3 _ employment and provide a transfer point at 5th and Excelsior. 3. Modification of ��estbrook Route (12C� : It is proposed that this route along with the express route e the primary park and ride service route, Further — it is proposed that this route be modified as shown on the graphic to provide service to two new areas : Opus II south of Westbrook Apartments and Second Street North/Minnetonka Mills Road between Blake Road and 5th Avenue North. — In Addition to serving the areas in Opus II and on Second Street North, this route would make stops along Excelsior between 5th Avenue and llth Avenue and would return to the Minneapolis CBD from Westbrook via llth Avenue and would _ return to the Minneapolis CBD from 4�estbrook via llth Avenue South and Excelsior Boulevard stopping at the park and ride lot at 8th Avenue South. The benefits of this route change include the connecting of the rapidly growing employment center of Opus II to the residents of Hopkins. Further, �' this ro ute extends service to areas of the city currently outside of the one-quarter mile walking distance standard, — 4. Route 12: The remainder of the Route 12 System (ABDE) is proposed to provide basica y the same level of service that it currently does with the follo�ing mino r route changes : * Due to the closing of Excelsior Boulevard at Co. Rd. 18, the ABD and E routes will follow Co. Rd. 3 to 5th Avenue - north on 5th Avenue to Excelsior Blvd, and then west on Excelsior Blvd. . .: __ _ _ � ; y:� . _ ._ . . __ : . .__ . ,� " � ��,�, �� _ � .x`� � ,,�� - . :. ,� , ( ,-_ _-- �: . � __ .� _:�; _ , � , - �!a .�_ - ,� .` , � � , . �nn�!�n ��o� �,� .�X3 . j�.,----- - - - :; = __ �. --� , P�d o . � __ - _ �� I ��°..,,�,. _ � � �'` — . - a-- - SI'1� "' ---- , I � � � � �. � _ • LL a�a ........... � . ,�� ;, ��, � ��'°!�-*,�- ZLa�I ;h� _. _ _ � '� - ;�'� � .:::. � '_�.-r - _ ' �. � .:�'' �-f:; �;�` � ��.. .._ .. ',�.R.� y �� ; �r, � � r,,r� �/ - . 1 . I V � � �� ,.� � �e.�- j ';_� � ,) �.� ,.., , .,... I� a �-� � '� _ �� _ ' '� � "� �,;� i � �._. �__ .. _.,; :,R -- � .' _ " _ _. _ _ ,�'-= r.- , __— � � �� `� ._ � � � i , � � �� , �, _;; I � � -; �.. : � -�J P t'�Ir.r'�� [.. I � ��}� lC�l�{�� 1 .�1 ��_I – .'�� s... � 4 .. . � �� . 11 � ! I .:' � } `t�.. � t ' . y �� "_� � � ... 1 ' � f.• � � . :� •' .�� '� J * . I ` �.. ' ....._ ._ � � . .S:'2 � ' . z. . . � �� . .._ ;a_• - –. '_ _ ,w c - �r- ,' � Q ,�. Ci] � = c --�f � r�. ., , � '� r j .."� �� r i � , � � �� , ��„� Rf aFS�: , �.� 1 ., �- S � �:.R _ � �'�i[ � ,�":..� E c�� Y �� i ��' ,/�. . ��- ' �_ _- f"J ... - �,,.�� '�, (. , , �t k � r. - ,�! �._ � I „� : E 4,� .•_- . -� ' ,.,r � . ' � _ 4 :. ... _ . . �-�-- . : {k.3� �� ,,��-� ,,.= �,,' ` � � , �,,a� �':.` = r �` ��`� �� . ��,6�i4 �4 �r-=-,-.�-sf..._ ,,� . '. g t.'�'.. , ' , _, r .�=� .. :m:r �,'c ., ..• ..... � . :m I {, __'.__. � __.� o.: ? ' .. L 1 .; ; \: � .,�- rY � � � � : �-� ■ � •Y � �: ;._� •2.� .:-�..7:.; �� ' . _ .� „ . ��;Y � I � t •'� + l�' £.. �� ' � � � , � r.- � . ; � : � � : �;� � ��' �� : '• , ,. . ,; " � , �_ � _�`�. d � � � . �;. � ,n,u - � - .�: � f- ,,. .-- ,,.. a � ' �" ' ;, ,. �`.;+ '�.�' r.. A' �1r � � �. � "� `- . i _ k • • I / � .�"�� n .. Y' �. � « . �� J� ` � � . _. . ... .ye .. . . •. � �°. ...{ � . ..:TMS� Lf, � � j y,._� � ' _ > ' ' °n 4� _. , M G r� A.,i�F i R� ....��t1` , * � n_ � a i � � � , . � - � i i t .�"' .. y ' � �..� � ., . � � '�� * ��. �'. �k.:�. • � • , '� " ` V_ : ��. . . C. i {1ii"aRi /�� .g ', -. �. � � ' . � �1�R' -. . . . ... ,. . \ �" — ,. �.... � "r l � -�" '` � . + � � . . i �'r�`�� >� _ y� ", y �� ; - � �' � i �. �� __ � �r" , ` r � . �� ' � � r ,<, ' ` �� __-�� . I 1 Y T . � � �� - - ( `� �� Y'� � �� -�l': 4�- �: _J �\' �\�'' �. � �� `��` � �1 , �. � . r �1�.�r- r � � � � � ,�, , � �� - �� - � ' � T�.!i�y„ ,._.:.;i „ .-r+". ._�; �:-i�' •`� � �..a.Y - ' i4 } _. . — L ., �F �4 ._., , ... �� . . ; ; . :.��... :F _I �} [�. . � '. � i , .. r G..r:-I -.t�`y::l: .�� ..... �-��.-�� ¢1 i f f ' i �� __ .. . " � . T�..�7 x � �. �� r � � � �:_. . L �•.._-1 i :,`i �� ,, 1�.' � i _ I , } ' �� i�� _� j ' . .n' � � � � � � / h, '��'.✓� € ° , � ,�, � � � L�y,r,n }- ! �' �` �_ // _ { � � .� 1 F�-: { � ' � �� J/ , � ,G �.�, I. F ; ..- - ... � ��! ,� �„" �t � _� � � � - � � , �_,.. _ _ � ' `-�� I • "_ �� : ��,- _ ,�. � . __ ,�,_�� ' � . _ , �- ats ,��; xao .:nx � �. - ,�- ;-= � r��c��w ° �aa��oa �- ' — flOO a1lSD�J flC� � F-....._ _ _�� _ i ._ - ------ . ; :. __ _ _ , �� 1 � _ . . . .��r.� :. . : _ . . . __ � � _ _ �`: � ' � � � �'� _�� ' ; ,�. � , . _.. .. _.. ._ � �. _ ;_ -_ _ t- . � _�. '� . �,� � � . � � ;� � � _ ------,_..�._� ..��._�__...:_— __ � � � �. � �� _ - �, �, . �.,.� � " ,/ I _ j �.� � .�.: � ,� - . . . : .., , �. � -- �� L9 a��l .......... � . ;. �,_ __ � r; j ' �� ` � . 11 a�i � ____ _ Cz � P��pS �----- }�a ��'� '` . ,,w.�' r ':�: t,! .. _ , � � �� . ,.. ---�-� ��V: ��r� � �i,�h','� f*�`.�� ,,,°'''4 �� (', ,,'� �.. _ I��d �a �al _: � , � � ° 3;�� . �s` , _ ,� , � � ��t� m_.��.. - - � �� F _ _ �€� r � t� � �T�' �-; ��+'�•'`�� ; ��Jl-- �, � �� , : _ �� ' �-: , � _ � L , � _ _ ,� , _ a� __ �� ,�.� .. .�t� ;� . � ;� ,- . �:, .: � . } '_ j� , i��t �3 t � �� ' .� �� I :A►�` �� . �4 - � � �� ,-- ��s t, #_.�.E { �.�I . ,4P< t y�:. . ... r� ^'} � � �-;�� _� �; J_ 1 ' '.� ,,,,�!f � - 1�, , : * k ' � � � ;' ��,,, �^ ,e -� �. ��— 1 'r i aF .... ,r e �i + , �� . r .��, r� — / � ��, .: u.,�:::_� : E _ ^ .. I .'� , .. -- — _� �TLz.,�— uw,ncu � . ! ^_� r� .I ""'�-�. � �� ...� � \�.. �I.'� - r , " .., 4-:� �.• 't � � ' :. �,� �`- �--+ ; r�t � � - �"r`" i. �a �'� ... � .�. _ E ,��`�+�_r 'i� � ,�'' . k ' �� ;.�,.�� -,+ € � - . �� j� �:, 1�.7'�t� � � ` � � ; l J �� . ': . . Y , �� [ �i� �� _� : a @ � ,� �\ �-t �r-.-r'3 a'� ,� g I.�� {� �� t��:.+r�� r- - *� 1 1 � r.. � ' `�i { � ��T��_T_.,�,K--;�.-� �- ...� � � €` ...� � _. ,3:;�� . # � _ ,-r_�: �1 � - -- .E t '.-.f "� :R..r Z I �� 'r '..y'.:; n g p� , �, �. � �, �� '�' �` i �� y '�� 9 � � � ' � � �-''� � a � ?� � r �AT r � i � J� \z �� '` '� � , .m � � . p � I� : ..� � . .... y>�� t , �i 1�� ] �,r ��}' yy� y : � : i.�. .. � y:�T i : ?fY{.� �� K - .. E� � �1 �� . ..-� � ' . .: L� 1'i L �.-•� $ �� l 7 . �� 3� � jy�',i �4 ":f ' ... ..._�y ! • � - • L� { F ' .-• .. . � � � � � ..+` ,+,.. n � � .' k. y .::.nR ��M+.'�.i ` ,�aa� t i ..; ��-�_") ;�•. tM'.. +i , "+. ' Mr �^'1 , � � �� . • � �_ � ' _ _ � ��J1 Sv' -�C'�-�i�.. �°'W � L � nF � �. . L.� �1.- '�.�A � .-'�a�s, . S� - � .k.�!. - r � r�,. . a' " �._�� ,,.n.�� . �� . A / • . . R• i�\�. � �i.�� ' r < � `, � _ �, ; , _ � - ,„1'. � - .�-, ._.. _ .. .:. ._. �. ;.y. ; ,�.,a . ....... _. _ . , � . . ;.. . ,� - — , �, � ,` � �; ��W� ��:�� . __�• i . , ] . � lfqll< �' 1 JL .� � 3 � •..m•' � � �.�``. \�� I ' �� '_{�. �_ `.. ~ �' �l� � � `:��' . ._ j � �"��`;�T'� J��:` _ �� -r-- �• �, .,,,�;,r- ,� ,� � � �� .� � —�� ,, T '`; - . ��' I - �_. � Y ti �, . . _ . �_� . - � � , , .� �., r _,o: �,..-_. j � . � � -�� . � ' -- , � . . � � .:, ,-:r�. �,� ,,,,,ti � :: � --�`�f` . . _ € .. . ... . . .... ,�� il� �y�`i_ ..,�'� '�� '_� �� I�.�� p .3� ��_.' '% ^.:... ��.�-...j �I . �� P �4 >�� ti ' r �f f �t r;.:f _ �,�`��'j� ,��. .. a I . _ ..�e. ��.�/��,��✓ 1�•. ��,�' _ � � � - � � � ��,1� + 4... �a ��" 4 y� i � � � � - y __ ' t , 1 `� � E-j � "a.,,��1f '--� � �` ,��-', E ; �.,... ,:^,,- - �: �-� r .�,� . ., ''= '� � � � `��..� �� , ��f#�` � � � �- � - -" �� _ : , �._-�� •� - • -- ��. �I ��t�l �� :_ . �„ _'- . -= ;�`�au._�• ar,c,n�a� aosn,�u�n� �,.�- --' - � r'�04€]C:1G']�C27 ° �[,"]. ObdO(n7 "�l� �,; � flU u1�.09 flNb �' — II - � ' �� ;._ ,. - ;�„ K_ _ . . .. :.�.� ;_ _ _: �, , _ y�. �� . _ - � �, ��,_ � , , '. _ __� ._______ � „ .'!�� _ ,� � �1 11 �O 'F . ,.,, — . . � I � �.. .4�' � � �. __ I __4.',,�.. .. 1�T.i�_ _i�._ _} . 1,� , _ ,� � � � �,,... _..�; � __ _ 4 r..'� �borl a��aS ssa�dx3 T �`� � . �,:,., -- ��'{�� I � � ___ ' G �� ...'�.V � �,' � � �; ; . � � . , � . /��+,�� /y� �'_ � — , � � � `'^""�'�"`7f1/•�r"� ............ � �� / ... ":� T �' � 1 y � ..... �� • � "suo! r,_-'H .� ` �._ �� ,� �� ;� L e4�1 �e/1 F� � � _ .�� r ,� I a�i . 1 ��j N � �1 � �� , '��;�� f � ��` �� - , ❑�l , , 3�p � '�.�. � �, 1 1': Jc �L %� �-�'. ' a' �, ',. ' __ � � `, ' 6-� Ti � _ � y � �� , F I � ��. :) /^j �. :L_. _J�._.. ,•.� .._ .._ .� . w'uRr�"_ . � 7�"'"" . � ,� � L g T � � � 1 �/ M �,,.�..A..�1 r �.;, !' _, � R ' -�� .._ �[ ._ . . . ,,.• ' _.__.:� � ! � ��..�i ��'b� � ��g � � ,� , �� a: C a . 3-_:" ._ .�� . � �� . �-�F , �{'`:i r '��., � }.I ...P , J1....5.�1Y� . .__ �1 ' � . . i F�7 • -_ .- :,� � � E — I x � �; ; � ' �� .� - - ,,�-� � * . .._ y�, � ,_ - � ' I . 1 . ..�� .-.. •�..}..� � .�� .:'j - .{��..-�i�{..��.i . .. .. ' __ �_{ � �'. � �T � ' '� ��. i. /_ _ �'J � ' � J� �� .� J I �I ., 4 . . �...� h l'�: r �T, � { ,� +. -...�� -. � �t1f�� t I .. I . =�- 4 �� .. { r . .. 7 �`��'1��' �• � 1 � . � � '� �. � i - �,' �C,,,=._[ ' 'T [ i - � � 1� ��:��° '� ��. �� r,�� Y`-�� '�-' _ �'�',- r, � _,� �,;�,;� - r. .. .se„� _ -ar�m, _`� - �r, � .� JC J�1�-' % .. ' i� -:_ . ...'. �.. ., � � ' ' ~ � _ :�...�+� � yt A�.. � .1� 3��. �tt�� 1 '�- .�,.' . .. .,u ,'y,�"o"}"?"t �. �, .��'?' __3 i.�.P��'�[� r_ ` ... .�.�,_� . } � � r '.a4+': � -�- �vu , , ;,� 1 ti , 7 r _o ' ; {f t.1 ' .i I" --- . �Q. , �1 '� ,', ;`` ,. ..{ w aui Ei t i�..� � �� ' � � �,/ � � �.r�,"q . � j 'ia� �i�.. ;F� ;� Y � � � �,,..:...�.�,.+.. w ,+�.+ � _ +� �. _ a � � � ' r �� .- . � � � ' � . � � �.. i � � �� . ' ° � ��p� T - _ � , _� � :a- �� ' l ._.. � , ..� ��,(�M � " ��P � � p�j�� 1� ��+ �r �� j' �t i � n .��` _ . . �� d � �� q+ ' �-�. :.�-� �-_ �w, ��k.+ 7L�Y'"� a, �,� i �1 � '' :il�zy�:-� � ,L !�i,' �� ,. :r � • i � P �-z „�Ar��, �..�K ... � „ � ' .s,�. v - �{_ � i` � i � � ��- , :.-_. _• �_. .. ��,.r . . .... � . _. ''!� 1 c : t p�: - t �r ��.{� � �_,,� tl c� . � � 't. � � �.. - �a i'�_� � � �- j�. �t dr'�:__ a �, ' . b � i."_ � ' � .�„ ��l � ,�y. �'�` �, V ti P 6 ,u � .� ---- - � .,.,c... _ ._ .... ._ na.±�s�..a. s ��''X=""�' _ ..... ...: � . . -� � �.- ,��..;��, ,_c " ' •-:"� �,�.;;-__, .:-. � , � . M ., .� �� .. � ,,� �} ,- ._ ..--� ' , ��- �. � �s �r�' i \ : �: ' r � � . X(� � , . ; � �� ,, - �. � , �,.,,1 :,�r � �>� — i � �: �h..-� , . ` � �tf_ _� ��. 'l s�, � � � :Y � �� '�`�__�,� �.�:< r..—..J ; ��r '� ``� ._.� .� .. ,� ... r <.... _ �� . � i�� '<, '1 _:xr�, � ,�. S.,r-w �-� i k S # =�.-i � � ''. �F - ' a _� h '- � : - �� `.�Ms .' ry�' �` -mis�.� ; �t ��(� � ft".k � r .' � L� I { ''.�.. E`� _ . ::_ ..,� �;:� �� 4 ,E.� , , . � t_. 1. � . 1. _ C ` ' � ._ .. ( �� i a � I -7 � � ."i% � � 1. E. [ �{�3 � ,}i ��..�, .{ � (� y �: �, ` �f r �� ... �.�ac�. ��; --1 i, a. � �C .� I Ef:f �� f . .'1 ... ..�.-� 1�� .- �� a J t . _ �' ��--�'f1.�5 � '� .--� ��° � ,_-� l�, _ _ �J � `� -_�,,._ � �/ i � � �r �: ,, �T-� �� '` -:..k �•li i� +t � r, , !; : � c �ak . _ ..... 1 y - , � "'��i� � � 1 # :� � � �.� � —"'�'^' � � �� . � �_ _ � : �>.�._ _ .. . _ ' - -� , � . -+�� ,_. :-:�+-_ .-��{.,f-j��s ` — � ;� GdC{iR�$ G`'i0�i1b7cGOW '�� _1-�-"""��- �� . ��' . _I I. r��aaoc� ° �aob�oa �- � � ii � �� i,' _ flo �sbc9 acab ��_ __ , ; ,� �' * Routes continuing to the west of Hopkins and to Co. Rd. 73 and T.H. 7 will not change. — * Routes turning around in Hopkins will go to Shady Oak Road, south to Co. Rd. 3 - east to 17th Avenue to pick up industrial areas on Co. Rd. 3 and 17th back to Excelsior Blvd. Also routes 12D and 12E return from the — west should be routed to 17th Avenue - north to Excelsior Boulevard and then east on Excelsior Boulevard. The system changes as proposed would bring 95% of Hopkins' existing housing units � within one-quarter mile of the routes. The proposed changes to Route 12C would pick up all but 225± of the 1 ,170 new housing units projected by 1990 plus in- creasing the percentage of existing units served and would result in 93q of the — city's 1990 housing units being located within the one-quarter mile walking dis- tance standard. — Hop-A-Ride: The City of Hopkins in late September, 1977, applied for demonstration funding for a Hop-A-Ride program which was funded and initiated in Augusut, 1978. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN DOT) provided 90% of the program _ funding for the first year with the City of Hopkins paying the remaining 10�. The program will be continued in 1980 at a cost share split of 33q from Hopkins and 67� from MN DOT. Hopkin's share is being funded out of Community Development Funds and city taxes. The program consists of a contract between the City and — Town Taxi for Town Taxi to provide rides anywhere within the city plus 4 exceptions. The fare for 19E0 has been established by the city as follows : — * 35� per ride for qualifying low-income persons. Applications for ticket books (10 rides for $3.00) are made at City Hall . * 80� per ride for all other residents. Books of 10 tickets for $8.00 are purchased at City Hall . * $1 .O.Q per ride for anyone without a ticket book paying cash to the driver. The trips are limited to origins and destinations within Hopkins plus 4 locations outside of Hopkins; Methodist Hospital in St. Louis Park, Shady Oak Beach in — Minnetonka; the Hopkins Congregate Dining Center for the Elderly in Minnetonka and the Opportunity L�orkshop in Minnetonka. To obtain a ride you call the day befo re to specify time of pickup, destination and place of pickup. The routes are then _ scheduled and the rider is picked up at the specified address and delivered at his destination. The rides are shared with others as required. The program has been successful with a weekly ridership during the last 10 months of 1979 averaging 600 persons. It is expected that as more persons become aware of the program the — ridership will increase. Central Business Oistrict Circulation ` The proposed changes to the bus transit system, the new Co. Rd. 18/Co. Rd. 3 interchange and the need to provide additional long-term parking will require _ revisions to the CBD circulation system. The extent of the changes do not 8?_ — � CONTRACT LOT , � -� �_�-__� ��:� ' l._� I !I - _-� �� _ —G � _� --- --- -�� -��- ._� O �� _. � � _ +--- �.� ��w �a-- -.- ' ¢ ( ir w..� �wu • p �O �� i a � � 1 -- ��--^ -�-� _=_�_. - ��1�� a ��1 � [� o � o_�_ � � � gi � U � � r� ` ��, —_ E � �I ` O __ G � "_. .,I — f-- - i /,• __ � {I j � � G � � _ _; U� $ . I i � r� _ � �. ' i a —-r ___- ---- � -—1 s � s '' �l.�! c � �1` � ° :� - �, � ° � -- I,. ' � ``.�';;G . � ` o o_ °J ` ` - �'' - - - --- 2 _ : (� ,,,;;��, o- o -j; o; '< . � �` � , ' � --° � �--� ��'- _ >:` l �""" ( U �, �� u' l - -� - �, ' ^ � ', � I _ rmu - ( ..——. . �. ` _ �-- - �' � s � [---- I �., T � — � ,_—_ �� L � � � � � ' y��hlp , � i _._�� `�l''_ �------ -� - ,�,,,, - -� ; -- �, � _ - ..� p � _ �--� ,- , �� , � , , � � I ' . , � ,, � � . ..;,r..., .,� . �: J J—. _1J 1 �_-I r(�•� :... ' � � �_ � �� ( -- _ j .�_ - (I I, {��i1�{�� {{"� � I�� )�/�,��, r r- , -; � l 1 ,` � � f i � I I I IIf�T�1�'!i•:{ 1 l �. 4. �; i G I {I � � • , -- � ni+nli"•.\��,,::J � �I I i f N!;�:�. �� __ �.,..,�-�„ ,l-- - I f'�`�li � � l' -_-T--- l/ , L�J I I (� _��-- ^I � - — �� II 1 (kv_ —�� I �. � l� _.' . .�I �� . . � —��_ - 1_. � � _"___� �I I r�i__�1__—"_I� r�� I " _" . _ � `�0.. _"_. �'_'. -"'� � � ' ` -` _� I� ( _ s � — I � ___ -._� ��u,� i:,.,��._.� � — � G __ IU--- � J i ^ � �I ; �_—�' � o �o � � ;t, � �. ; 1 -� � , __� ;:.; _ -_�,� , a � _ .,�:_ .��` � � J 1 _ _�l�__ �.� ��---- � - � _�._�L--� � — � �----Jl�� o- -- °.--� �. � I��r_� -. -�--.i --�-- r—�-- - -t�l anw �aM _� _� -----�-- . I L�.��' �� I� . �� ` 1 f� � c, , r, ��— t" ., . _ � - � � . �� I�-'�-- - -� -- - - l `;� � � � � O C r :� � G � �- r � �� 1,Snar ��' ' � g l ., I �r .J � � � [ - t��l'�,- �`a• � /� � � �� '� � :) � � • �J ( �-�1�:5 � �' " , � !I G-- � I �: ll ��g i� i.v`�`�\`� � I � J � l; � _ _.1 I Y a/""' \ I i� I — -:� ��,y «-- . i � I � /) • PROPOSED _ I - - �I � _ - - � I � ,, ' ' � ' � �! �" '�� SHELTER , , �: o :; � ;� _ ; l. �� _- �.� �-_ ---�� , � \'— ----'_ � �coun�r row m� � �—1 — _ S --___.-� G--_ . �. ♦ � PARK AND --� � +� � � � RI�DE LOT _ �- ��"' "� '� PARK AND WALK LOT � r' ` 1 PUBLIC LOTS L .� J � BUS SHELTERS '°° ` � � � PEDESTRIAN ROUTE* � TRANSIT ROUTES (PROPOSED) associates�� mu�� * ALL BLOCK FRONTS IN CBD HAVE SIDEWALKS �� `�M� �� C B D CIRCULATION _ require substantial physical changes to the CBD, butwill require that new circula, tion controls be placed on vehicular circulation plus some change in emphasis on the level of bus service on Excelsior Boulevard. The graphic on the oreceding page indicates the primary change to the system. The following points describe � the extent, purpose and impact of the proposed circulation system. 1 . With the closure of Excelsior Boulevard at County Road 18, — the primary access route to the CBD is County Road 3 to 5th Ave. , 8th Ave. or llth Ave. These three new entrances to the CBD will provide a new emphasis of traffic movement to the north/south flow as _ opposed to the previous traffic load carried by Excelsior Boulevard through the Business District. The signalization at 5th, 8th and llth will place the primary emphasis on the use of these routes. — 2. Land for long-term parking for the CBD and park and ride transit service is available south of County Road 3 along the railroad trackage. The utilization of this resource would be enhanced by — the development of a pedestrian bridge across Co. Rd. 3 and a pedestrian way between City Hall and the post office to the sidewalk system north of lst Street South. 3. The park and ride lot to be properly used will require that bus routes be modified. Proposed amendments are 12C route previously described and the express service will provide bus routes down llth Avenue and up 5th Street and along Co. Rd. 3. The resultant impact of these changes to the CBD should place a greater develop- — ment emphasis/and service level to the area south of Excelsior Boulevard and to industrial users along Co. Rd. 3. Further, the extension of the 12C bus route south from CBD through Westbrook to Opus II will provide additional commuter — traffic through the CBD or to the transfer point opportunities at 5th Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard and Tyler Ave. North and Second Ave. North created by the changed 12C route change. Bikeways/Pathways — For a number of years Hopkins has been developing a system of trails. The purpose being to promote safe pedestrian and bicycle travel to and from major destinations such as parks , shcools and commercial districts by providing trails — which separate automobile traffic from pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The trails are classified as follows : 1 . Routes - designated by signs along minor streets where bicycles will observe all traffic laws as to riding on the right, yielding to auto and pedestrian traffic at intersections. No pavement mark- — ings. 8a 2. Lane - designated by signs and indicated by a painted stripe on the roadway. 3. Trails _ a. Adjacent to street but separated by a physical barrier. b. Separate trail not along a roadway. The City of Hopkins currently has the following: " Existing Proposed — Routes 4,000 ft. -- Lanes 14,000 ft. -- Trails 31 ,600 ft. 1 .25 miles and they are shown on the Trailway Graphic. — The Hopkins Pathway/Bikeway System is planned to coordinate with a similar system being developed by adjoining communities. Thus permitting a large net- work of safe and attractive trails on which individuals may travel . As shown on the graphic, the bikeway system serves as parts of the city and is designed to connect most of the city's community facilities with residential _ neighborhoods. The bikeway system is an independent system to the vehicular arterial and collector system and when fully developed will consist of 10 miles of bike trails, lanes and routes. It should be noted that the bike routes utilize local streets, and the collector streets and in some cases minor arterials. — Preference was given selecting loal streets and collectors for safety, however, some minor routes are used to maintain continuity and efficiency in the system. The Regional Airport System _ Indirectly Hopkins planning activities effect the �4etropolitan Airport System through the city's control on development height and potential penetration of protected air soace. Maximum height limitations stated in the zoning ordinance with the exception of radio/T.V. towers would prohibit construction to height — hazardous to air travel . Radio/T.V. towers are a permitted use in the B-3 business zoning district and a conditional use in the industrial distirct and any use proposed to be constructed over 105 feet in height requires a conditional — use. In addition, "The city shall receive notification from the Aeronautics Division of _ MN DOT and the Metronolitan Council prior to setting the conditional use permit hearing that the proposed structure will not constitute an ob- struction to air navigation or otherwise adversely impact the metropolitan airports system. " �, .. _. _ . % l _ . : _ .._._ ....; _ ',_ _ .. : ._ ; :. .__-, _. __ � � �. � . ..�X� ' \`, , _,.. , "' � r,,. .,� -- � � �.. .. _ , _t._._. _ ._ . : f,':'..._. ' �___ . .r ar-�... t �. .... � _ . � �' � '`��. ' �- .'.J ,1-��r-�- .. ._.._ . . � ; , f . �. i , � � �...... �� ;i ...».«.... : —�.__.._..�.. � __t:,. � _.__ ' . � '"��"V ._ ._ -- , .�. ; .,. ---- , .�� 1, � -. � .. � . - , _.. y�!�1 . ; =-- � -- .r' �' � � i ' , _. 1 . , J � __ _ � � • - - . -�� ---- -- _ � _ _ ,`�. -, . }� ..., � , 1 �� , u�� ,� � ._ ' t{ •' ' ��.• " :::. � � / . '`�� `�� ' � f� � — _ . E �. � � � � � ,� � .. � �;'- -- � ; ��. . ` ! ; - ' *�i )� ... � �� -M��f � j� . � __ ...� '-- '� �� .r.. . ,.. �� , ,� � ��_ �-� ., ;, �-. �y -�,i'�—'`�� _ _' , . , , � ._3� �� E � 3��`. � , ��. � w . . �, �� -� ��' � .. 1�.. . . . : � � _`L� �`�i __ � ,,�,�� _ � ;r- ,- .� I �� , . - - -- __ _ F,H ��:-i tr �i.-� i�� ` i`. I, � �,.r : _ � r : i � i * �,tHi- � r ] '��. __.._ � � :, ' A 1 ! . 3 Y � -,,. } ' � — � .,_ � r � �� ..�� F �� , ..� . I `F� F , - .. � � �- t { . C i - . � : �. � ., ' ` J=_ C� �' � � � : � .... -yq � "� � �'a �_~� ..� ... r y r �� `�"" .� r{ �Y` �-� .. f}r� � ,� � . a� � �.�, t '_�. r t�• �i �� I �'#j� ��. � i"� r/i �.-. ,� �I i;..+^�+-�_��.,:— �L� ~�`� � -�F"�� -�y �„� � -""-��_, � . " _ _�.�. .- ^ �r-- .,J � t r 1��F�.�� " -�.. Sux� ' I �..�[ �� ..�' �['°""_"`"'�"��} �i� ��''} �..7 ��_ 1t``�,�,h - _' __ � ,, s.-' ,1a `\ #- � _��,�. ":� ka �' , _ . . _ , �:i* � �E �, : Ft � [ � or ' s r � . i - <'' ��. � �' p f t . L � .a.�a �_ � i. ��. ��j� r � � � �� ', H . ;' r��'��' �� t��t `�E�� -�� ' � s . i � -M r `� � �-' �� '' ` L � r �' �� `Y,. �:. J��1, -1 � Y�'' y d �i*�� k � j!� J � . �' � :?� ��'�.} �i!_{.R��!#��t��"'� T\��E �_}� ,�� , F `._ / . :�' �'� � �, � { T (�3� � i; �Ij''�l � } � _ :" y �} �.. '� � ,� krI jr1'' � ,� . . z ,, � �`�. � ' ��t 4k , - � .4-� � ` .. ♦ :: ., .., -_ �' . f { ..l ` .�. ��/M�� _.�k./� .. .� ��II F�� l.�� . -`-' " i j ''� � r- -_ ' ig`* � "Fi a� s - r � . ti �-^�� -.�J �. = ' } ' . � . ,, � 4 �r �� ..�2�_. "e�..t�z.� ��s. _ � r't _. \ „''� , r = ( N 4-.� } �.+• . . � y # � % =i� FV�;� .:: �, .•' ';�� A 4.:� �.�-` ^Y`^ �� " ..nkW`•H- .;, ,'*�'" �. � . Y . `-1c-, drt � p - r . ':r,..�,�'�.w i. ..., ti � ::: {' �:: y�. .,.o . �........ �� `�.�i�'�� i�� ,.1W �� . ... � � �.++r_ .._ ,_._�f,:, . . ' R �J�� y�y � tf �. , � �-�.�.+.y-- � �i��t�+�.�n��.�' Y • '� (y{]�''� �-\-1 . ' ��`.�'�a �b��-+-��`,• \ \ :.: � ; �,�r,. I ._.-.114-i.�r -j�r :T�'�' � ��_.. '. \ � , '��.. -,-_��'. I , } .�'. �� ,�_ ��.,Y� - ,,� J � ��,y� , ��.- #.,�� .�y;� l,�:: �—'-- �.1='�.1 . M L�� 1�'��. �. �i 1"7 � `. �'��'� � r .:Y� �� T .r �i-�,- : /, ..a �, tl y�T-;-'�- ��-�1 i �` ... r i � ',� � .�- ti�. .l 1-�._;. � �... Y '�b��.... � � � 1 � � � � �'`L" }- .. ' � ar0.,1 r ,��r�W+�_.'�:.`?��... � / .Y•r...-r.!� -i : ..._ . .-......_.. �_ : ,: a Y .`�� -. i: ^..� r � �� %• r: � �, /� ' � � -'1 r i E. ` �, i f .� - !! ..,.: �! _ ,I'"'.� -....1 �� Y�-1��L / ��f � �' ''[� / �� ; l. � �, � 3� . I� ' �_ _-�1 ' ;, ':/•- -� \��r _ � C �,�i '°" ;a % F ' 1` , �'�� - � �,�� . � � - : _ � , _ � : � -�...:- � y,�.- .� c . �- r' - �. .i �-l�� @ �_ c;�•_ +�� , �;� t' ��° �{ , ; �`�r,� I �i �� y �� a�: ^ r:// � .�' �f �.�� : ' ��-.,�"`�- ��C'��-,�- �.,,.��'� ��' i , :> � �,� , _ _ —�- �r�...... w � .� ... . F.' t�E t �'��M1 • �i. . .�. � -..^' JJ � �,. • _ -:� � �:�E,f��F 7._ ] _,�y._� - ... i'_ '____.li� ��"�.y� All.p�� r.111�G.vG°iIW iL...' s^� � .. ,. i� n�o��aaoc� ° �aobdoa � � ,I ; '� _ ' ;��i ao Abaa a� i�r _ __� � I Ii � COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN Introduction The City of Hopkins and other public bodies over the course of nearly 125 — . years of its existence have accumulated a significant inventory of land in Hopkins and has developed it to various degrees of public use. The city has over the years been involved in many property transactions; buying land for new — needs and dispensing of properties that the city no longer needs. Currently, the city and other public agencies hold over 420 acres of land in Hopkins which totals ±16q of the city's land area. In addition to public property holdings, _ many semi-public organizations hold land within the city for recreational , educational and religious purposes. All of these are regarded as community facilities serving the residents of Hopkins and to some extent the region. — � The graphic on the following page shows the location of the public and semi- public land and facilities in the City of Hopkins. Analysis, policy and plan proposals are discussed in the following sections. Parks and Open Space As shown on the Inventory of Public and Semi-Public Land and Facilities Graphic, Hopkins has an extensive system of recreational facilities spread throughout the city. Table 1 provides an inventory of activities and/or facilities available — at each of the locations. As shown, a total of 273.3 acres of recreational areas is located in the City of Hopkins plus 5.0 acres of recreational area owned by the City of Hopkins located in the City of Minnnetonka and Edina. During the course of plan preparation, the Hopkins Parks Board Reviewed the existing park system and recommended some modifications to the system. These _ proposals were submitted to the Mayor and Council in a memorandum dated 6/12/79. These observations and recommendations were considered in the preparation of the following proposals for recreational and open space facilities. Facilit Recommended Actions 1 . Minnehaha Creek & Canoe Landing The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in — 1980 will construct a canoe landing facility with pa rking in the north portion of this area. The landing, access, and parking _ area will occupy about 30� of the total area. The balance of the area in the flood plain should be maintained as a passive park. The area located outside of the — flood plain should be sold for development. 2. Elmo Park No Change 3. Downtown Park Developed in 1979 according to plan. 87 ea�y 6uipuod "�E awoH 6uivn� suirooN 'd �:�ia P�old �6Z r+a}� �auey7 �p slo� 6u��aed 087 'BZ ea�y 6uipuod/�aed pooM��ou;� •N uo�1e1S 3}}� �(Z uie�d Pool!/�I�ed ano�b��a8 'W llaR '9d � s�o�d uapae9 Moao;saM •� Au¢1�aleM 'SZ .._....-_ __ . ._._ .. ,_._.�_ . �._.___. ____._ .,�_. _.�.._�.. _ ._._ __..._._. l�as�nN R347 'H �anol aa;ery ��¢d an6eal al73ll-Plaij uaoeH '9 'W 'C 'lol �IteR 4 �ed �iol aD!8 9 �I�¢d 'Od � as�no�;109 pue qn�� ria3uno�a6P!il �e0 '7 FNaPl3 6uiznop�il9�d 'EZ . . .. . . 4��47 'H (awo�u1 aleaaPoy�Y nol) 7i�Qnd 6uisnoq •ZZ � .. u�.+ny� ue�a47n� uoiZ •g aocaeg s�.oi�i�1LQ��d 'LZ . . . .. � y�any� �euo��eaa6uo� yedi3FW '! LIeH �3F9 'OZ - � ,,,. y»ny�ue�ayln� auewas4lag '3 llFlP�¢l '6l - �. suiqdoH!0 4��n4J 154Vo43aW Pal!�0 '0 � � '�. y»n4J Pue �oo4�S ydasoC '1S 'J 7ue� pue saµi�i�¢j llunwuo� �� , y»ny�pue �ooy�S suyoC '15 '9 � �� ooy�s a�e�g •y �CPM�IPJl �BI ; ea.+y �eluawuwinu3 6147 'Ll . ,. )flBOd-1W3S �I�ed�aLLQA '9L � �. puna66eld Fatleh �I�¢d 'Sl .-- � �aed aa;}ng •q� � �� 1 as�no�;�a� �oaqhopea;y �G4S lsaM Me0 FDQ4S 'El - i , �� - s��ooe�uu}ti;o Q}) '6E 4�¢ag He0 FP¢45 'Zl � . ..,{ .. a�i;;U ;sod �e.aaPa.i '6£ (aalu�n) �uiy a�� pa�ano�/a6eae9 �C3F7 'll .^ aoeaeg pue a�id10 Maed �e��ua� •p� . ,_, :1 H�oPI�lL9nd Fluno7 uidauuaH 'LE �F+ed uay�e�.aa7u� .6 ... . .._. ..._ _.._. __._ . .�...-..._._....._.._.�.._..._..�„ . .. . <.. t ,E,.,..� �e�9Fl '9E „�ed a��inaoe33o� '8 .. � � ��ed sa�ep .� ' . . N3H10 -7ll9fid �F+Pd 5��9 '9 � . .. . � a��y a�nl¢N �5 ��ed ao3llVH 'C � 7laV! �43a�43tl 'SE �laed w�oluMop '[ �004�5 ��e7uawa�3 suyyaoH �al�aH '4E �l!S llaM/�I�ed unl3 'd .. . f� �oo4�S 6�eluawal3 4�FwS a�Fltl 'EE 6uFpu¢l aou¢�/u{eld Doold 'l � � �ooy�S y6tH�oivas�ainoyuasi3 'ZE � �ooy�5 ua��n�auuay3eA 'lE leuoi�¢a��aa � • � 19IL1S14 100H% SNI�dOH - )I180d SNIAdOH!0 Al1J -7I180d � S3L1lIJV! 01N ONVI 71190d-IW3S ONV]IlBfld!0 A801h3AN1 �� xs�wwo� 6u�s!x3 � m _ - , ; _ ... � __ . �°� ;, _ � � __ _ —� � __ - .. � ; �_ _ ._ _ � � • b '�� i . !� � _ � � - � � , '. ` � . - �' � � � - .,r � � � � . � � � � � `�' � i , � � ,_ _. � ' `�� y _ # � i k,� _ ; ' ! `.,, � �, . �,� � ., �--"�� " I : _ ; ' � � � � �° { ° ' I �� i � . � , r , _,� b - , ; i � ��. � .< � �. � � �< i — � - u�,.� . r ,� i ; • n.. w --- --.�� ,� ,, �, :.. ; , __._.�. _ _ _ — . .: ,.� ,., . � -.� � � y � � �, � � _ � , i�� , }_ •: . , , o < ,, . .. ; ",+re, ,- . .�.. '__ . . , . � i ' � k # � � A y_ u r„� �`=�� I . . � �.�:... � �,,,,� � �i ��,� ".. � � ,___—�- ! _ -_ . .., , - .�'�.�� ,�.. , �� . , :� . . ! :�. ,,.��,. ,� _�, : 5� _ ._ ` :,��,� �4:.. . _; , �. . . _ � ._ _ - - ' _ .._.. ._ . � .., ,.,� : l - . I � , , �1 , : . . ; � ; �" , .�.�� I _ � ; � � � ��+- ��, � � { � ., T� +.f ♦ � ; � . � .i � � , �' � �' .r��. �'� � �� ` .. -- — i ' � ' :' � �-----,____.y=-- ^ , z..� �- �I ' � _.,..� �. � .. nr �� _ , , ,. i .. �„ .,, _ _ ,, .., ... ; � > �. ,E: 1! . • _ �... i ,ry r ��y �,� -. .o`�'� � � �, „� �. .:-r'i � �`;r.,.n .�� M � .. �.. � , ._ _....�..,;�' � Fi � �'L� �. �P..I,Je� . .. . I�._� �� ...,�� i I . , ' —-a"„. i i � i I I TABLE 1 . EXISTING RECREATION FACILITIES � � v � vf U '0 CJ � aJ �O G1 N fC � C� Q. � r Y � � Y i_ i-� O e--- G1 �O C� •r r •r G1 '� rp CJ Q1 � i. =r- S� Ql �r Rf GJ � O Q�+� F--. � � E r- � r0 � Q � L•r- QL C rt3 Qf r � Z. � r-� O Q� Q1.a V1 ¢ s�-•r � LL N W N •rY C Ud CU v fOU C C +.� C V1 �4- •r N E N •r •r •r \ .� •r•r � � � �n . � �Y Y r c >, �n E v c a�t a 4- +-� a .�c E .�c v O U �O fC7 1- S--r- � ((T S.. •r � •r U L Vf Y r •r O E � i N i. � r-r rC3 rp r0 � r O 3 (�r •r •r•r r0 O .Y O RS r6 �O r0 r0 C.7 � ada. dC� F- d2t/') ►--� NaI..�1..� JU' NLiC7d3mC.7 - (1 ) Canoe Landing 29.6 10.0 * * * (2) Elmo Park 2.9 1 .0 * * (3) Downtown Park 0.4 0.4 * * _(4) Hilltop Park 3.5 3.5 * * * * * * * * (5) Shady Oak Nature 3.8 3.8 * * * * * * (6� Burnes Park 7.0 7.0 * * * * *2* * * * * * * * * * " (7) Oakes Park 5.7 5.7 * * * *2* * * * * -(8) Cottageville Park 1 .5 1 .5 * * * * * * (9) Interlachen Park 2.4 2.4 * * * * * * * * * * * (10)CentY'dl Pdrk 17.9 17.9 * * * * *8* * * * * * * * * _(11 )City garage/ ice rink 1 .0 1 .0 *+ * (12)Shady Oak Beach 3.8 3.8 * * * * * * * * * (13)West Shady Oak 8.0 8.0 * * - (14)Park Valley Buffer 2.4 2.4 * * * * (15)Park Valley - Playground 1 .2 1 .2 * * * (16)Valley Park 21 .6 21 .6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (17)City Environ- mental Area 31 .0 31 .0 * * * * -(18)Trail 2.0 2�0 (31 )Eisenhower 23.9 3.0 * * * *8 *+* * * * * *+ (32)Alice Smith 10.5 4.5 * * * * * * *+ -(33)Harley Hopkins 6.1 3.1 * * * * * * * * * * (34)Athletic Field 9.6 9.6 * *3*3 * * * (35)Katherine Curren 3.8 1 .0 * * * * A. Black School 53.4 43.0 * * *6 *+* * * *+ B. St. John's 2.5 1 .2 * * * * * -C. St. Joseph's 5.4 3.0 * * * * * *+ I. Oak Ridge Country Club## 155.0 15.0 *4 * * * * -J. H.B. Haaen Field 2.0 ?..0 * * L. Comr�un i ty Ga rden 7.0 7.0 * M. Bellgrove Parktt� 8.5 8.5 * * N. Knollwood�n 2.0 2.0 * * * 0. P1eadp��ibrook 60.p 60.0 * * * � 7AL 49.3,0 287,1 * Available On-site + Inside _## Private Source: 1978 Field Survey 89 4. Hilltop Park The city has intended to enlarge this park for a number of years by acquiring — 3 lots and 2 houses on the east side of the park and this remains a valid plan. Across 4th Street to the north abutting — T.H. 7 is a parcel located in the City of Minnetonka and owned by a private club association. As an .upgrading proposal for _ the neighborhood and as an integral part of the park expansion while still pre- serving single family houses, annexation for the parcel should be considered, — 4th Street improved, the land subdivicled and utilized to locate the 2 houses in the park and the historical society house — with the remaining lot sold for new moderate income houses. _ 5. Shady Oak Nature Area Shady Oak Nature Area is an important part of the stormwater drainage system and a popular site for individuals to have picnics and watch the ducks. The — parking provisions are informal and the improving of Shady Oak Road is a threat to land remaining, Directly south is a — triangular parcel located in the City of Minnetonka which is about half used for commercial use plus 2 houses. The back _ of the commercial is across from the front of homes on 21st creating an unsightly non- residential setting. Should Shady Oak Rd. be improved, it would or could provide the — opportunity to remove the commercial , annex the land and redesign the area to provide a greenway from Excelsior to the nature area. 6. Burns Park No physical changes - obtain parking privileges from neiqhboring Zion Lutheran _ Church, 7. Oakes Park The establishment of this pa rk is a positive step to the Oakes neighborhood — and will help to bring stability. To the north is a large flood plain holding basin for Minnehaha Creek and — the drainage creek from the west. The city has acquired easements to a portion of this land and as a part of this plan, _ the remainder has been proposed as Oakes �Vature Preserve. o� 8. Cottageville Park No change 9. Interlachen Park No change _ 10. 11 and 20 Central Park & Barn No change 12. Shady Oak Beach No change — 13. Shady Oak Lake-West side This parcel of land is totally surrounded by the City of Minnetonka, has significant recreational factors related to recreation — or services to the citizens of Hopkins. 91 14. Buffer Park Buffer Park does buffer the residential area from industrial development and what is expected to be an increasing flow of — traffic. In addition, it is a public parcel where the residents of the neighborhood have a right to be for unorganized recrea- _ tion, coasting in the winter and visual enjoyment. 41ith the expected traffic in- crease, it is recomnended that a fence be considered along with street plantings. 15. Valley Park Playground No change — 16. Valley Park Substantially developed - add tennis courts 17. City environmental area This Nine Mile Creek flood plain area should _ be retained in a natural condition. An additional 20 acres of the flood plain to the south of this area adjacent the city's south border should be acquired. In addition to the preceding list of city owned recreational facilities, the city's — recreational needs are in part met by other public facilities and semi-public properties. The city, however, exercises no control over the use of these facilities thus, the long-term assurance of availability is reduced. The following comments and _ proposals consider the most important of these facilities and address action which the city may want to take to protect the city's ongoing recreational needs. 30. City Landfill Although the city proposes to reclaim a — part of this area for industrial types of use, an open space buffer is proposed be- tween Westbrook Patio Homes and the Indus- — trial land. Also, a lineal walkway/park through this area is proposed to connect the residential areas to the east to the Shady Oak Beach and park to the west. 31. Eisenhower Senior High School The possibility of closing the school has been delayed somewhat by the consolidation — of the Hopkins and Golden Valley School Districts. It is suggested that Hopkins take the position that this facility should be maintained for local educational purposes . Further, the city should assure that the needs for facilities such as indoor swimming pools , gymnasium and field sport activities — can be provided by alternative means. 92 33. Harley Hopkins Elementary School This school has been considered for closure in the forseeable future. The school play- _ ground provides the primary recreational facility in this small neighborhood and is considered very important to the stability of the area. It is suggested that the — city take steps to assure that some play- ground area and facilities be retained at this site. � 34. South Jr. High Athletic Field Should the school district move to dispose of the property, the city should take immediate steps to assure acquisition for the city's recreational use. This site becomes more important to the city recrea- tional needs with the consideration of � Eisenhower HIgh School being declared surplus. 35. Old Senior High School (pt) The park area to the south of the school — should be incorporated into the Central Park complex. — J. M.B. Hagen Field (Little No long term plans for facility League Park) _ K. City Nursery City has use of this oroperty through developers agreement for ��Jestbrook Patio Homes. The continued use of this area as a nursery for replacement trees for city — parks and boulevards should be assured. L. '�Jestbrook Garden Plots Flood plain zoning and the development conditions of Westbrook plan approval should protect this use of the property. y _ M. Bellgrove Area - An 8.5 acre tract in the Minnehaha Creek flood plainis currently held by the Bellgrove Assn. and left as a nature passive recrea- tional area. It is suggested that the — official map be amended to include this parcel . Metr000litan Recreational Open Space The Metropolitan Development Guide for Recreational Open Space indicates only one proposed metro facility wi.thi,n the Hopkins boundary; the proposed trail along the Minnehaha Creek. Al1 other major parks , lake access and special regional facilities are located outside of the City of Hopkins and therefore will not be — impacted by the Hopkins planning program. 9� — The proposed trail along Minnehaha Creek is limited in function due to the amount of existing development along the banks of the creek. Therefore, Hopkins proposes no land use changes to accommodate an overland trail system. However, the canoe — landing and access being developed at the northwest corner of the city by the Minnehaha Watershed District and the watershed district's and the city's regulations protecting the watercourse will assure the waterway will continue to operate as a canoe route. Therefore, the corridor through Hopkins will not be a multi- purpose trail , but a single function facility. — Public Service Facilities The adequacy of the local public service facilities are discussed in the following _ sections: City Hall : The city hall was built in 1964 at its present location at First Street So. and llth Avenue South. The building con- — tains over 32,000 sq. ft. and houses the city administrative offices, public works offices, fire department, police department and detention facilities. The site includes 70 — off street parking spaces. This facility is considered adequate for the forseeable future. _ Public Works The city operates a maintenance yard and 3 garages on a 3.5 Garages and acre site directly west of Central Park and until recently has Maintenance Yards. operated a sanitary landfill . The present site is not ade- quate to most efficiently provide the services necessary as — a part of public-works obligation. In addition, the closure of the landfill service has created the need for a trash handling location. This could be accommodated through a — joint venture with another community where the site would be out of Hopkins, or it could be in Hopkins. Another alterna- tive would be to contract for private service which could 'create the same situation of where to locate the trash hand- ling site but with a varied method of payment. A need exists for the expansion of the present city shops, to — provide adequate workshops and employee facilities. This ex- pansion should be in the form of a new building, designed for a future addition which would replace the current obsolescent _ buildings. It is possible that the former city landfill site could be appropriate for a trash transfer station, since it is served by an industrial street. Close coordination with County and Metropolitan authorities would be necessary, as there is no apparent need for a transfer station at present. 94 Fire Station: The city operates one fire station facility at the city hall site. This location is centrally located and operates i efficiently as a volunteer fire department. The accessibility to South Hopkins is sometimes obstructed at the on-grade railroad crossings forcing the use of either Shady Oak Road — or County Road 18. The city should consider housing one fire truck south of the railroad. Library: The City of Hopkins operated a public library for many years and in 1972 the operation was consolidated into the Hennepin County System. The existing facility was constructed — in 1967 and coupled with the resources of the Hennepin County system will be a very adequate facility for the forseeable future. Other services : The redevelopment plan for the South Jr. High School to a housing development also included a portion of the building i complex to be used as a community center and a new location for the Hopkins Historical Society. The moving of the Historical Society to this location will require that a — decision be made as to the disposition of their building located in the northwest corner of Hilltop Park. 95 COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN The City of Hopkins in 1968 prepared a Comprehensive Sewer Plan which identified a number of sewer system improvements which were intended to provide the City _ of Hopkins adequate sewer system capacity to accommodate full development of the city's land. Most of these improvements were subsequently made resulting in only minor modifications remaining to serve the proposed deve]opment to 1990 and 2000. — The Metropolitan Reorganization Act of 1974 requires each local unit of government in the Metro Area to prepare and adopt a local sewer policy plan. The purpose of this plan is to determine the impact of the local planning policies and systems on — the regional system plans for expansions and modifications. The Council has adopted a procedure for participation in the Commission review and content guide- lines for preparation of the Comprehensive Sewer Plan to ensure conformity to _ regional development policy and metropolitan sewer system expansion. The handling procedures state the adoption and review procedures are set forth in Appenclix A of this report. — Hopkins, previous planning efforts and capital sewer projects have resulted in a functioning system that requires little future modifications. The current plan- ning activities and projections of land use, population, housing, and employment — result in only moderate growth,well within the capacity of the system. For this reason the Comprehensive Sewer Plan is not so much a proposal for action or vast caoital expenditure, but a report of the status of the existing system. However, _ in order that Hopkins' plan may be considered in the context of the regional system, the following report is structured in the outline format prnvided in the Metropolitan Council 's Waste Management System Guide for "Content of Local Comprehensive Sewer Plans". The format for the following plan will be to first state the content � guideline in the �laste Management Guide in �c�r,i.p� and then indicate what action Hopkins has or will take in res�onse to the Sewer System Plan guidelines. B. Con.ten.t o� Loca,� Comryi.ehen,6�.ve Sewen P.2ane — 1. Loc.a,e gave�cnmen,t un,i,ta cvice expec�ted �to wse �he 19�0, 1990, and 2000 popu,ecr,�i.on and em�oymen,t da,ta .i,nc�uded .i.n �he po.e.i.cy p.ean �on ove�ca.Q.e d.i�cec,t.i.on on deve,e.opmen,t. I� a �ocu,2 un,i,t o� govennmewt d2tehmi.ne,a �ha,t zhe pnognammed ava.i,�.ab�i,�i�y o� me,t�co�o.Pi,tan aewe�c .ae�r.v�,ce con- �.�i.c,t�s w.i.th .eoca.e need, .i,t may neque�s� .the — Counc,i,E and Comm.i.s�s�.on �o con��.de�. amend- me.n,t ob �he po.�i.cy pP.ccn on deve.eoprnewt pnogh.am. Such neque.d-t�s w.i.e,� be con.a�.de�ced puh,dua►tit .to ad- — mc:n.i,d�r.a,t.c:ve and ope�ca.t.i,oncr,e prc.acedu�ce� e�s�ab- .P.i.b hed b y �he Counci,P. _ A�pendix II of the Comprehensive Plan indicates Ho�kins 1990 pro,�ection of population and housing by traffic assignemnt zone based on the Land Use and Housing Plan Proposals. The projected 17,280 population in the Hopkins ' plan in 8% higher than the 16,000 population projected by the — Metropolitan Council . This is considered within reasonable planning 97 — tolerance of Metro�olitan Council 's projection and no request has been made to modify the projections. Hopkins has not made a projection of employment and, therefore, accepts Metropolitan Council 's estimate as — a reasonable orojection. 2. The �Coca,e �ewe�c. pa.Pi.cy p�an �ubm.i,t'.ted �o �he _ Comm.i�s��.on �on ne.i.vel.0 �shou,e�f be co►vs-us�en,t w.i,th �he adap�ed compnehen�s.�ve p�.a.n, �.� any, o� �he �2oca,e govehnme�.t un,i,t. . — The extensions of laterals, design flows and other items discu$sed in the Comprehensive Sewer Plan have taken into consideration the plan proposals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The �oca.� deLue�c �o�P.i.cy �an ahou,�d cor�tcun �the �o.P�outi.ng .in.�afuna,t�i.on a,t a .�eve2 0� de,ta,�.e �u�- _ b�,ac:en� �o de�c�u.6e �he ex,<.s�ng and �u,twce aeive�c ,i�5�ue�s and necommend �so.�u,t,i.on�5 and appnop�.i.a�e bac,i,�i,t,i.e�s. — a. ca►�,u►�,�y phy�.�.a,e �a�,t,�.�� Scuc�ace wa.te�c dncu►�ag2 �1,i��.i.c,t�, .i.nc.euct,i.ng a�cea on .�ubwcea baun.da�r,i.e�s, wi.ea o� d.us�c.�.c.t and �ub- di�s�jr,i,c.t�s .in ac�ce,�, dtca,inage duceczi.on, ►��,n,t�s o� co.P.�ee,t.l.on, ponc�i.nG anecu, �c.i.ve�us, �s�re.amb, �.�ood- pCcuv�, pond�s, eaF�e�, and we,teand�. Surface water drainage districts are shown on the storm sewer drainage area map located in the map pocket in the back of the report, 6, �x,i��',�ng and Pnopoaed Sewe�c.age Fac.i,�i,t,�eh — l ) Loca�i.on, h�i.ze, ca�aac,i,ty and de��.gn, ��aw�s �on ex,�s�'.i.ng and ryc.ono�5ed .2a,teha,P�s and xjr,unfz �seweh,a, .Q.i.b� ��c�,ti.ows, �oncema,c:n.6 and _ and �ep.t,�.c �an�t pumpage and a.the�c wa�s�e di�5- pOdu.e. d.f�P�S .i.n. �he co.2eee�.i.on ay�s�em. The information requested for the existing development is shpwn on the — Sanitary Sewer Map located in the map pocket in the 6ack of the report. As shown on the map, the city's existing development is adequately served except for Minneapolis Floral and 15± dwellings which have their own — septic system. All but three of the undeveloped parcels or areas in the ci,ty have sanitary sewer immediately availab1e for development. � The capacity of the Hopkins sanitary sewer system is a funciton of the lift station capacities in the system, Tf�ere are 3 lift stations in the system controlling the capacity of the system; capacities summarized as follows: 98 Lift Station Incoming Flow Capacity of Location Capacity Pi e Incoming Pipe Lake Street 5,000 GPM 33" @ 0.10% grade 8,100 GPM Valley Park 5,000 GPM 21 " @ 0,15% grade 2a025 GPM Minnehaha Creek 4,000 GPh1 18" @ 0.12% grade 1 ,800 GPM TOTAL 14,000 GPP1 . 11 ,925 GPM The two areas in the city which will require sewer laterals to accommodate the development projected on the Land Use Plan are located in South Hopkins. A total of 6�8 new housing units are projected and both sites are antici- — pated to be developed before 1990. — The area located in southeast Hopkins is presently the siteof Minneapolis Flo ral , a greenhouse operation, presently using an on-site disposal system. The city has acquired the property around this site for park and flood _ plain protection and has agreed thourgh this process to permit the re- maining ±16 acre site to be developed to 288 units. Sanitary sewer lat- eral service to this site would be brough from the existing 8" service in 8th Street south at 6th Avenue South and to the Park Valley lift — station. An 8" lateral to the site would be required based on the follow- in flow calculation: — 288 units x 2. 19 persons/D.U. = 631 population x 90.2 GPCD= a total flow of 56,916 G.P.D. The area in the southwest corner of the city is proposed to accommodate a total of 400 housing units. This area is most logically served through Minnetonka simultaneous with the development with the contiguous property to the west in the City of Minnetonka. It is also possible to serve this — area with the 8" lateral at llth Avenue South and lOth Street South in the Hopkins section some 800 feet to the east of the property. This would be a more expensive solution due to the length of unused lateral to reach the — site, but is a possible solution should the use of the Minnetonka system be undesirable due to either inadequacy of available laterals or treatment capacity. In either case an 8" lateral would service the property given _ the following flow calculation: 400 units x 2.19 persons/D.U.=876 persons x 90.2 GPCD = a total flow of 79,015 G.P.D. A third area in the northwest corner of the city has service immediate available, but would have to be connected to the Minnetonka System on — Minnetonka Boulevard. As shown on the Comprehensive Plan, this area will accommodate ?0 dwelling units and would have a flow generation as follows : � 2p units x 2.99 persons/D.U. - 60 population x 90.2 GPCD = a total flow of 5,412 G.P.D. 99 — 2) Any .�ewetcag e �ae,i.�i,t,i.e�5 be,i.ng ws ed j o�.n,tQ y uti,th ano�he�c .�oca,2. goveJcnmen�ta� uru� .in- d,c:.c.a.t i.ng cviceu o� b ehv�.ce, �he numb vc o� — connec�i.aivs and �eh.��.ce �.�ow va.�ume. Two areas of the city are developed with sewage flow directed into the _ neighboring communities system. These two areas total 92 connections and a total flow of 22,061 gallons per day (G,P,D,) to the Minnetonka system. The areas and flow calculations are summarized as follows : -- Gallon Flow Flow Area Connections P./D.U. Per/Person G.P.D. -- Bellgrove 84 2.99 80.2 20,143 West of Hilltop Park 8 2.99 80.2 1 ,918 The connections indicated above all flow out of Hopkins into the Minnetonka System. Other joint facilities use includes 7 homes in - Edina connected to the sewer system in Interlachen Park, The flow from — Edina into the Hopkins system would be 7 D.U. x 2.99 persons/D,U. x 80.2 G.P.D. = 1 ,679 G.P.D. -- 3) Loca,t.�on, �ty�e and capac,i.ty o� a,P.� ex,i�5�'.i.ng �c.ecLtmev�t Sac,i,�i,t.i.e�s �on �u6-e.i.c u.b e whe.thelc mun,i.c.�.�a.�y on pn,i.va,te,Py oum.ed �shau,�d be _ .iden.ti��.ed .c:nc,�ucling �the.i�c a�rycopn,ia,te Na�c:ona,e Po.�2wti.on D.i�schcvcge ��{m�.na.t�.on S y�.tem (NPDES) �ehm.i,t. — Backwash water settling pond at Well #4, 1401 Elmo Park Service Road, This serves the iron removal plant at that site which treats water produced by Wells #4, 5 and 6. Settling pond treats 100,000 gallong per backwash with — a frequency of backwash of 1 to 2 times per week depending upon water de- mand; NPDES Permit No. MN0039471 . _ 4) �x,vszi.ng �s ewelced po pu,�a,t,�.on and e�s.t-ima,ted .��.�e .to �eiuetced �o�u.ea,t.i.on, 6 y y�.� �on .�he nex,t ��.ve yea�. 1979 15,000 1980 15,200 1981 15,400 — 1982 15,600 1983 15,800 1984 16,000 10� 5) Fx,us�i..ng and ry�o j e�ted (�on nex,t �tive yea�l aewe�ced connec,t.c:on:s and/an ne�s�.de►a,ti.a,e equ,i.vu,2ent. — 1979 2,662 1980 2,670 1981 2,680 — 1982 2,690 1983 2,700 1984 2,710 . � c. Commun,i,ty �eve.�apmen.t 1) �De�c�,i.n�,ian and .�occ�ian map ob ex,�s-ti.ng ` �5ewe�cage p�cob�.em�s, .inc,�ud.i.ng o�vs-i.te .�ewag e di�po�5 a,e �s y��tem�s, ma.��y unc.t.i.o n rycob.�em�s andneed� a��ac.i.a,ted w,i.th con- — �',i,nued ope�c�.on o� ex,t�s-t,i.ng �cecLtmenZ �a�,<,�,�.�, wh�th�. mu�.�na,eey ah �„��ey owned and b ewvc �s y��tean carxcc.i.t y -P.i,m-i,tu,�i.o n�s, The 1972 upgrading program basically resolved sewer system capacity problems within Hopkins. The system has total capaclty in excess of the development growth projections. The Meadowbrook lift station, however, has caused some problems in recent years. The city proposes to upgrade the pumps and to reduce — the flow to this lift station by changes to the system that would redirect some of the flow to the Blake lift station at Excelsior Blvd. and Co. Rd. 20. The capital improvements are required within -- the next 5 years. 2) �x,us�ng .2and u�e, �.nc,2ud.c;ng ex,us�i.ng (whe�ce ryc.ac-tica,P) , ►�rcopo.6ed �5�.ee,t�s, h,i.ghwayd, open �space, e,tc. con�s.i�s�en,t wi.th an adoryted comp�c.ehe�vs�,ve commun,i,ty �aPan. �" (See Land Use Section of Proposed Comprehensive Plan) 3) �x,i.6�i.ng zan,i.ng, �tcopo�s ed .Pand u�s e, and ex,i�5�:i.ng — pea,tted a�ce.a�s w�h and uti�hou� �s�uc,tcvice.�, �.n-. c.eucLi.ng de�s�,gna,ted o�en �5pace, S.2ood �.2a,%n and .�.imi,e.cvc ne�s�,c.c�ed cv�.e.a�s. (See Land Use Section of Proposed Comprehensive Plan) 4) Any p�co�o�5ed change� �.n govvcnme►a,ta,e. — boundcvc,i.e�5 a��ec�i.ng �the commun,i,ty, .i.n- ceudi.ng any cucea�s de�s-i.gna,t2d �an onde�r,ey annexa,t.i.on �o .the M-i.nneao�a Mu�,i.c,i.pa,� Comm.i�s�5�,on. The Comprehensive Plan proposes 3 minor boundary adjustments involving less than seven acres of land. All of these areas could be served by _ short extensions of existing laterals. 10'_ d. �ea�.gn Con�S.ideha�i.ov►�s �on NeLv Sewe�cage �ccc.i,Q,i,t,i.e� _ i) �e.b.i.gn -time peh,i,od and de�s�.gn pv�u,�a,t�.on. The Sewerage System Plan was designed for a 20 year period and an ultimate population estimated to peak at 17,280 by 1990. 2) De�S�i.gn pelc. cap�,ta,� �.�ow�s, avenage and max�mum. — Laterals are designed for 400 gallons per capita �er day (G.P.C.D. ) maximum flow and 100 G.P.C.D. average flow. Trunks are desig►ied for 250 G.P.C.D. maximum flow and 100 G.P.C.D. average flow. 3J M.<.v�,imum de�tign �5�andcvccLs �on �he con- �c.o.� a 5 .i.rr�.�ow/�,n�.i,P.th.a.t�o n �.n,ta �he d eweJc by��em. Acceptable Inflow/infiltration design standard for the system is 500 gallons per inch of pipe diameter per mile. 4) Type�S, amoun� and e�r.eng�h o� wa��te wa,te�c .c:nceuc�i.ng dome�5�i.c, commetcc.ilt.�, _ .indcu�,i.a�. and .�.n��.c,twt,�.ona,e cus we,e.P. a� �,den.tib�.ca�.�on ob �.ncGi.v�.dc.�a,� .indws��u,a.� di�s- cha�cg e�s who�s e av e�.ag e da,�.2 y �.�ow exceecGs 50 �thawsand ga,2,eon� ofc. exceec� ��.ve pe�c — cen�elc. o� �he �a�cc�. .�oca,Q govelcnmen�ta.� �.�ow�; an co r�cuws �o�c�c wa.a�e�. — City does not have data on strengths of waste water entering system and relys on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) to moniter the disposal of toxic waste through the PCA's reporting system. The city � only has one industrial user discharging more than 50,000 gallons per day that being the Honeywell Plant on 2nd Street and Tyler Avenue. 5) Sewe�c. �y��em de�-i.gn dcLta �on cucea� o� — ae�cv�.ce ou�s.ide �he cammuv�,i.ty boundcvc,i.e.b No areas outside of the city area proposed to receive service from the — Hopkins system. 6) T.ime �chedu,ee �on con�s�icuc.t.i.on by ye�c �on _ .the �.itus� ��.ve-yecvc peh.i.od and by �.�ve-ye,an peh,i.ocLs �on �i,ve,tity yea�c.a, �.nc2udc:ng a .�oca,e .ae�veh co�vs�.uc�',i,�n pnogn.a.m adorated by �he .�oca.e gove�cnme►1,ta,e un.i,t. Connec�t,c.on .to �he me,t�co�o,P.i,tan and/on �oca,e .�y��tem .i�s nequ,ih.ed wi,th,i.vi �tcuo yea�v5 0� �se�cv�.ce ava,i,eab.i,P.i,ty con- e.t�Zen,t wi�h �he Counc,i,e po.�i.ey p.ean and �he — Gla�S�e Co►tith.o�. Comm.i�5�s�.on nu,P.e,� and negu,ea,t.i.o►v.s. The trunk sewer system within Hopkins is complete requiring no additional _ trunk facilities. Only a few lateral extensions are required and will be built only on petition by the benefitted property owners with all cost assessed to the petitioner. 102 9) T-ime �ab.2e �o�r. ungnacLi-ng a.?� non mun,i.c.i.pa,2 xJr.e,a.tmen� p�.an�a �hat do no.t meet �5�ta,te ebS.P,ue.n,t and wa,te�c qua,P,i.ty �s�andancLs a.s -" ,i.den,t.�.��.ed �.n �he NPD�S pehm�,t on bon �etcmi.na,ti.ng p�an,t opel�,t�i.ov►�5. — No action required e. On-S.i,te Seivage ��no�5a,e Fac.i,e.i�',i.e� • 1 ) ,4n,ecvs o� �he commu►�,i.ty whe�ce on-�s-i.te �s y�s�tem�s cuce pehm.i.t,ted ah �empanahy and _ pehmane►tit �ac,c,P.i,t,i.eJ� de,P�i.nea.ted on a map by U.S. So.i,2 Con�seh.vc�i.on Se�cu.�ce �so,i,� c,�a.a�s ,inaP.u.d,i.ng h.i.gh gnaund wa,te�. �ab.�e, ��eep ��o pe,� and unde�y�.ng na cFz c,eo�s e — �o gnound �sc.vc�ace. 2) Regu,ec�i.orvs and orcdi.nance� ada p�ed b y _ �he govenn,ing b�dy �on deJ�tign, �.►vs�a,�,�a- �i.on, o�ehc�c-on and mcuv�tenance a� on- d.i,te �s eweag e di�s po�s a.� �s y��em�s, 3) Admin,us�.ati-on ran.ocedwce o� �enm,i,t �to .i,ws�a,P� �s yd�em .i.nc,Pucf�.ng �ee�s, �i.cen�s�.ng bond.i.ng o� .i.rv��a,Zee�vs• 4) �n/�oncemen� �nocedc.vc.e o� con�fi�w.c.t�.on .inc�u.d,i.ng .i.r�pec�.i.on po.P i.cy and ne�c�s o nne,� — qu,Q,Q,�,��.c�,�i,onb �o �.�vswr.e corw�.uc�i.on .i.n. accon.dance w.i,th ado��ed �.tandcvccf.s. Currently only 15± private on-site disposal systems are operating in the City of Hopkins. The city as policy no longer permits new development without sanitary sewer and water services available and used by the development. The existing on-site systems are all currently operational . — Should any of these systems fail the city will either require they be connected to the public system or if this is not possible, the system may be rebuilt. The city will contract with the inspections department of a — neighboring community with on-site disposal regulations for assurance that the reconstruction of any on-site system is in accordance with : acceptable health standards. 103 III PLAN IP1PLEMENTATION PROGRAM (Pre�ared February 1980) — - General Activities - Official Controls - Housing Implementation - Capital Improvements Program INTRODUCTIOP! The program for the implementation of the Hopkins Comprehensive Plan is outlined in the following section. This report is in four sections: General Activities, — Official Controls , Capital Improvements Program, and Housing Implementation (to be included at end of the Housing Section of the Land Use Plan). _ A. GENERAL ACTIVITIES The primary initial activity will be completion of the plan review and adoption _ process. The following schedule is proposed: March 15, 1980: Send plan to neighboring communities and school district for review. March 11 - April 15: Nei�hborhood hearing on plan proposals. — April 15 - August 15: Planning commission review of hearing cor�nents , and neighboring community and school district response. August 15 - September 1 : Planning commission adoption of comprehensive plan. September 2: Send plan to Metropolitan Council for review. September 2 - December 7, 19II0: Metropolitan Council - 90 day review. _ December 1 - December 30, 1980: Review Metro Council comments and Council adoption of plan. Concurrent with the plan adoption process, the city will prepare amendments to the official city controls and adopt the changes as indicated in the following official controls section. The Hopkins comprehensive plan implementation will also require continued joint participation activities with other units of government to implement programs. — These will include the development of the park and ride lot by the Metro Transit Commission on land owned by the city and the development of a canoe landing by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District on city owned land in northwest Hopkins. Also, the city will continue to monitor the status of school district enrollment and school facility needs to assure that properties declared excess by the school dis- trict are acquired by the city for city public facility needs or are recycled to appropriate private use. The development of a plan for solar access protection will be instituted dUring the Spring of 1980. The plan program will address issues of solar access to built — up residential neighborhoods, commercial development and industrial development as 10� well as revised standards for new development to assure solar access. The solar access planning program will give specific attention to obtaining and analyzing the following types of basic data: - Potential for roof mounted systems in the built-up residential neighborhoods. - Problems of the existing vegetation and the impact on the city' s reforestration — program. - Review of building height regulations in all zoning districts. - Survey of the remaining useful life of existing space and water heating systems. _ - Analysis of the state of the art of solar heating systems. The solar access plan will be prepared based on the city's solar access potential and the current state of the art in solar collection systems. Implementation of — the plan will follow hearings on the plans and proposed changes to official controls. 105 B. OFFICIAL CONTROLS Changes to the official controls will be limited to minor revisions to the zoning ord�nance and the development of new subdivision regulations. Hopkins' long history _ of planning has for the most part resulted in a set of tested ordinances, periodically updated and rigerously administered. The establishment of a working community structure through previous planning efforts, zoning control and city purchase of environmentally sensitive areas, will enable the city to adopt� the revised compre- � hensive plan without going through a comprehensive rezoning of the city. The following discussions indicate the proposed change to the development controls — and summarize the existing ordinance provisions which are essential to the next decade's development. 1 . Zoning Ordinance The Hopkins zoning ordinance was revised and adopted as a new ordinance in February — of 1977, and was subsequently amended. The ordinance now contains the following elements and generally meets the development control intent of the Metro Council Development Guide Policies: a) Nine residential use districts plus planning unit development (P.U.D. ) . - Four single or two-family districts with lot sizes from 6,000 sq.ft. to _ 20,000 sq.ft. accomodating lot size variations platted over the last 100 years. � - Five multiple family districts with densities ranging from 12 to 44 units per acre plus additional density credits or debits for underground parking, or — parking in principal structure; type of adjacent use district, lot coverage ratio, number of bedrooms and credit for clearance of dilapidated structure. - Planned unit development (P.U.D. ) to permit design flexibility in all multiple — family zoning districts. b) Three commercial districts including limited business, central business and _ general business district. c) Two industrial districts. — d) Flood plain district which is an overlying set of regulations and standards applying to all land encompassed by the flood plain. The development of the flood plain section corresponds with the standards established by the Nine — Mile Creek and Minnehaha Creek 4Jatershed Districts. e) Special provisions and performance standards in all districts regulating signs , _ off-street parking and loading, noise, smoke, toxic materials, odors, vibrations, glare, heat explosives, screening and the disposal of waste material . f) The zoning ordinance includes provisions for non-conforming uses, lot provisions — accessory buildings, yard requirements, traffic visibility, fences and land reclamation. — Changes to the zoning map and ordinance necessary for the implementation of the comprehensive plan are as follows : 106 a. Consideration of zoning district map changes: - The proposed changes to the zoning map are shown on the graphic or on the — following page. All but one of the changes are intended to reflect the city's policy of preservation of the residential neighborhoods and to encourage development of single and two-family housing. - The city owned property at the northwest corner of the city (northwest corner of County Road 73 and County Road 5) is incorrectly zoned as flood plain. A resurvey of the flood plain elevation at this location is proposed — and the land considered as surplus public property. — b. Amend the text of the zoning ordinance to include the following provisions: - The zoning ordinance will be amended to prohibit the development of any _ property within the city without public sanitary sewer and water. - The zoning ordinance will be amended to include private on-site sewage systems as non-conforming uses, to prohibit the replacement of the private — systems that have failed if public sewer is available, to reyuire inadequate systems to be discontinued or removed and if a new system is required in any part of the city as a replacement of a private sewage system failure, — that the new system be developedin accordance with acceptable health standards at the discretion of the city engineer. _ - The zoning ordinance shall be amended to require that before any conditional use permit hearing for a radio or TV tower over 105 feet that: "The city shall receive notification from the Aeronautics Division of MN DOT — and the Metropolitan Council prior to settling the conditional use permit hearing that the proposed structure shall not constitute an obstruction to air navigation or otherwise adversely impact the metropolitan airports _ system." 2. Subdivision Regulations The existing subdivision regulations were developed and adopted in 1967. The regu- lations are adequate for subdivision of raw land for standard residential plats. These regulations, however, do not meet the needs of Hopkins current development and redevelopment needs and will require a new ordinance. Primary elements to be — included in a revised subdivision regulation are: a) Special provisions for condominium development including procedures, standards, — and filing requirements for articles, declarations and association by-laws. b) A substantial amount of Nopkins development or redevelopment is on previously _ platted land. The new regulations will include requirements for platting and redescribing of parcels created by the assemblage of two or more parcels and/or lots previously platted. 107 I —. �__��'�/ :..._..._... ; i SPG�[3 t�0�rl OOP r--- _ - G'JOO �[��CJ� o �7[�IC;lC��OO 4� �. � _ � � "n3G.i"G:;f�irOC` t;�il;k:tf�'f i � . „. . ..._ , ,, .. :'.. I_ I� " _. _ � ` �_ a.- p -�. f� ".1 _ '' I� . .. -�;� . . f �+ �.. '... -_ � _ � _ _ .. � t ' � ! � � ��1 ,�� ,�: � � '� ain . , � � � : _ , .�� . ,. . � = ,� ; -- , ,u.�� ; . �<� , � � . , �:. � , � � � � �.�v _ . -� . . wy i -:, .v ...-++� � _ 5 � .� � ._� l t,� � �.� � �- .-:..4 ; t ' Ir_, A i .., ,� _.�^ ?� -.��,-: �, �� J� i d — __.. _ ,r� ,F I... � �;�. ' ` j .� a � < ' � :�l . �. � T._ _ . -. ,} �� ;,�� , � , _ .__, ., , a � . . , rE :� � .._ �.r ;� .---==—�,-- k � � � -� ��,�� ':� .,� . I � � : �: ,� i� ;� � �1 , � \ �, ,�� — - . `rt.,�.---�,. .- `+"- . . �., # '' �: � ��,, � I _,�� k `�� t�� M ; : � , �.�` , i � : ✓ �. � .J ��, . , �� , �.�� ,�, � � x � °�_ ; �'— ,�^—r _ � 4� �� R ,.a1� __ �� , � S� � ��,:� � t _ , , � �- �R-3 to R-I-D ` �" _ . �, , � , � ,�. . ` � . . � . � �� . , � '-� �!r'�`;� �` .. �� . , _ \ . . R•4 � - � . ♦I`et ��Ft�Y. �d "':.. ! �_ �� y�y l . � . . a\.�.P._-� ... • � �' 7l �_ ' �`� �!.� . ' � , ,.._ � — � � .. 1 A ..:� �� - ..., }� _,� � �'j� "� � � , ' �'��' R' v� � _ ,, R 4 �� _ �' � �`° �� - � ,Yj.� � � -*., a > � ,'i t0 ��"#4�" �' r7 ' . • ' �a �..,, w.. —�-5'� — � _ � s `� 2 R 3=tp 1�.'[.q` ` , � .� . ' ., '�. _' �; �.,�. �, _ `� �, ..� �1 , . � ' , , . � y �� {��.��j� . E � •:. � � [ � { f � �r •� :. � � ;� � " � � _ ��e�� _ � , � ' � ,�:_ ,�.-� � - �: . ._ �-�� , t . .. : , : „�"�f: � { f t #, , G r c : . , � ! y " �� : . �`� ~ � ,,� � ; ,� ' . <_. . ' _ � '� � � ..��" � . � � ,-�� -.ic.�- . � ,� . f.a v♦ -n , � - , , _ i .r \.", s , 1 � �_...I . � f ;.� # .. � E, . Y � m'E.. L�H -.. e ; � � . � �_�+WP' -ia �� . � }� ��-7�� a "* �-i�;F �: ,>�:..�:.� �� ' '�- - �`��._� �:��r c^r -�= �_� ' . � ,L:�� .. � ... 1. �_._lytptef_.. :_ i.L �.',. ., . • �. . . ' _"'" . . . . i-...i: , i�.. li'�'. �+�+ ,• I � .. . _., ,,, f � �', R f =' � � �..�.�;� �' �� ' �-- Y-�--�''��` � ; � � R-2 to � '1�k r. � � � : , ,� rt � .... � ,� � _ � r � s �� : r �:�' �r�"_" � � �� ' __...J , . . . . . � : , � ,...�- '.,.� .... ��' -. � , p*aer��. .�._ �� i 1 i : � �r^-t�^ _ ,�.,.�� 1 r } 0 �' � � � .. ( =1 �,� a+ � i _ ! � rl � � i � 1 ^,. � .:;..F ��c�� 1 ..� .: i �� T I '4.r#i .. .. . v ....� ' �;.' .f ' l.uu� '...n, ' _ ' - . _;I �� _ . i a � �,;,,_.�_ ,. g , j�, — , �a . , q ,,. ., ff :':'.F � � '� i�_ i f�- i �i� ...... ..... , ' � �' +.._ _ � -� _3 R. � .� : , ,. ��- � - -. � .. .. � _. . � � .__ �� .., ., ... , ... . .� , ; � , _ . . _ .. A,� , , , , , .... ' ',� ': f � �. t . , :i. .� ...:: ��;. ` ---" � s� 3 � � � �:, ,�" �' � � �� . . — '�.r- i .� ; o ♦\ � � . a , ..__ . _ . . _ >4 `` � e � , �`� �� I� Zoning District �.i, �� .. � � { � . � �: t � `. � ' �, ' �. �� ' . . i i .�j j t ,.� ��•�� ri �i }� . , . •, ��,�;°�� W �n� ... � ,,, I ",,,.� ;i � _ � j ., : _ � • � '"' � � I � �.-�, ,I ,r!!� ,,' , ' . . _ ��,^y'�� . _ _._l R•6 �to R•'��, � R 1A 6,000 I �� R-1•B 8,000 ,� _ I ; _. �:.. __ 12 000 — �,,��`��-- -- _. � -�.._.. R 1•C ��; � � _� .�_—;�_-, .,�..��_�..._�: _:=--� ,� . R 1•D 20 000 ,�� .� --;,, ;, �� R-2• 2F,4F) 3,500 : — � . ,; �� ..o R_3. 2F-4F,T.H.) 2,600 �, , ; i � _ _ .. f __, �; . , .. � ;;. � _ �`�� ',\` fr' , ' , , �. ,; , . _.... ,,_�_, .. _ _ . .___ . ._ . ___--_ _ - - _. � . — c) The existing ordinance provides for development standards, and the financing of new subdivision improvements. The new regulations will establish criteria and procedure for requiring the developer in land assemblage to replace or con- _ tribute to the replacement of old or worn out utilities or street improvements. d) The ordinance will be updated with respect to recent changes in subdivision law. — The preparation of the new subdivision regulations are scheduled to be completed by the Fall of 1980 with hearings and adoption of the regulations proposed by the end of the year. � _ 3. Official Map The official map is a planning implementation document which puts the city residents and specific landowners on notice that the city intends to acquire all or part of — an area for public purposes. The existing official map �Nas adopted in Aug. 1972 and has served its purpose, permitting numerous acquisitions. This doument,however, needs modification to remove oro�erties privately protected and acted unon and to include — properties specified for public purposes on the proposed comprehensive plan. The proposed official map is shown on the following page with the map coded to the following list of properties: Location Code Public Purpose 1 Neighborhood park - acquire only if the neighborhood association, — the current owner, elects to dispose of the property or change to a non-recreational use. 2 Ponding. 3 Street right-of-a�ay for local street. 4 Flood plain protection. 5 Park expansion. 6 Protection of slope and wooded area. — 7 Protection of wooded area. 8 Street right-of-way for collector street (Smetana Road) . Items indicated on the official city map will be indicated at the plan adoption hearings and the official map amendments adopted soon after adoption of the revised — comprehensive plan in mid-1980. 109 � ' vcoa ¢o4v ov � �IOOPC30(;14 , Cl0[,Y]f;1Q40O4LQ ` � . WapC19V01d 6�Mq4�'/ _ _ _ ��. � �".. ._ C� � � % i � �s -- Q � ^ -��,_ - -�-� ��, _.: _ .��. _ _ ,, lr _ �7 � � �l w � — r'�``�i`�"` _J — i - � r� _ ,_ �� - � , ,,� �� i / __� � � �. � + � ��\�� - r ,, ��L �� - � w �: � - \e- , - - �L�J - - ....... 1 j :-�- -- � � �� ' �� _ .... --� � � �a� �� i 1,,r, , , _a: �, �, �% -v" ' �r� t �� i � � _ � ��'- _ � i ��. � � - - �� . �� _ , � r , � , . �� , � `�� — � � � � � �� %� �" -� i o � _ � ' ; -�� — � � �� ' �� ...... - � . - � � _ � ,: __ .. ,� � _.. �. ,� � . _ , , � � F � _ __- s _ + �� - � � �� ._��1 ' � � �� i — �� I �' - � � n , , � �-,��r-, _ � �; ...... .. ..... � t ' �`' - _ _.. � -1- Official Map ..:. �� SEE PRECEEDING PAGE FOR l � CODING TO THIS GRAPHIC _ - • -- — � � � I ..� . — � . i � � — !-- —-�� ---- � _ — � II—� _ _�_ - ; i � I � _ -- - -�—� + — � � � �� i — 4. Other Controls The �letropolitan Council has prepared a set of environmental protection model ordinances to be used as appropriate by the local communities upon completion of the comprehensive plans. The Metro Council policy regarding these environmental regulations is that "Federal and State regulations should be modified so that projects which are developed and found consistent with such a plan and implemen- — tation program will be exempt from further environmental regulatory review". Further, "The Metro Council recommends to the State Legislature and to the federal and state agencies involved, revisions of statues, regulations and guidelines — to waive predetermined, site-by-site environmental review after a local unit of government has completed appropriate studies, the adoption of a land-use plan approved by the Metropolitan Council , and the adoption of natural resource pro- _ tection ordinances". Due to the high level of existing land use commitment to urban use, the control the city currentl� has over natural resources through the provisions of the zoning — ordinance, subdivision regulations and official map and the large amount of the natural resources that the city has taken fee title to, it is proposed that the city not add another layer of development control that would not provide appreciable = benefit to the city. Although it is recognized that the need for the control of natural resources, the city' s existing system of controls is understood within the community and is providing the desired result. ' 111 C. HOUSIPdG IMPLE��ENTATION PROGRAM The numerical housing goals and objectives along with the general housing policies previously identified are the subject of the following implementation program. The following program will summarize current activities as well as outline the — ex�anded efforts proposed in various areas. 1 . Administrative � _ The city will continue to fund and staff its Housing Assistance Office with the intent that it continue to administer the existing programs and initiate new programs as outlined in the housing policies section and this implementation section. As part of this process, the Housing Assistance Office will conduct — an annual analysis of the progress and impact of the programs and report to the City Planning Commission and HRA the unmet need and suggested changes to the pro- grams. The Planning Commission and HRA will continually monitor the housing needs — and programs performance and initiate new or amended programs for the City Council consideration and approval to meet the city's changing housing needs. 2 Low and Moderate Income Family Housing Assistance — The preceeding sections of the housing report thoroughly outline the extent and progress of the existing programs for low and moderate families currently adminis- teed by thE; Hopkins Housing Assistance Office. These activities as well as proposed — new programs proposed for implementation are included in the following summary: Rent Subsidy: The Housing Assistance Office will continue to administer the scattered _ site Section 8 program with 20 additional unit� added annually to the program as the target goal . _ � Rent Subsidy: The city will coonerate with a local non-proflt �oqnsor fqr d H,U.D. 202 elderly housing development. The development of a 100 unit project is the proposed goal . '— Rent Subsid : Section 8 new construction projects for larger families where the proposa s are economically and physically integrated through the community and result in concentrations of no more than 10 large family units on any single site will be — considered. Rehabilitation: The Housing Assistance Office will continue to seek funding and _ administer the rehabilitation grant and loan proc�rams funded by the Community Block Grants and the State of Minnesota. 1??_ 3. Market Rate Housing Program In recent years, the city's zoning ordinance standards in comparison with neighbor- ing communities provide sufficient incentive to developers to build new affordable — housing. The primary need at this time, however, is to develop a rehabilitation loan program as an incentive to accomplish major rehabilitation beyond the scope of the low and moderate income programs and to provide a reduced loan rate incen- tive to all homeowners and landlords in the city to bring their properties up to code and make other modernization improvements. The market rate rehabilitation loan program is one method used by some communities and — is implemented by selling tax-increment financing bonds for the purpose of establishing a loan fund which may be applied to the rehabilitation of any unit within the city that is in violation of the existing city code. The program would permit the applicant to — use a proportion of the loan for non-code compliance improvements and would not place any upper limit on the applicant's income. Local financial institution(s) operating on a fee basis will be selected to screen applicants and establish the amount of loan _ the applicant can afford to repay. The resultant improvement to the property will create a tax-increment of $24± to $40± per $1 ,000 of improvement. This increment applied directly to the home loan payment would result in a reduction of 3% to 6q in interest rate. This would provide a very favorable interest rate considering that — the tax-increment bonds' rate will be about 7� plus 1%± loan placement fee plus city administrative overhead. 4. Community Structure and Controls Hopkins as a substantially developed community has a structure which has been established over the years with a well defined pattern of use, but often a soft definition between uses. The city's efforts over recent years has been to define these use boundaries and to establish policy to limit non-residential encroachments into the residential neighborhoods. The current planning effort is to harden these district bc�undaries for the protection of the integrity of the residential — neighborhoods. There will be no changes to thE� zoning district map relative to residential reducing neighborhood size. The changes that are proposed are all resi- dential density changes or neighborhood expansions. � Review of the zoning ordinance standards and their impact and development in Hopkins indicate that these standards have accomplished the objective of developing affordable housing. Provisions for Planned Unit Development, lot sizes, unit size, and other standards in the existing zoning ordinance are adequate for encouraging affordable housing in Hopkins and will not be changed. 113 D. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (1981 - 1985) Nopkins is small in area (approximately four square miles) and totally surrounded by urban development which makes it necessary to blend and coordinate services — with other political units . It also has over 100 years of growth and development, thus is not faced 41ith the improvement pressures of some fast-growing suburbs. However, Hopkins is growing, changing and does have needs to maintain and improve — its physical area to provide the services and lifestyle desired by its citizens. Purpose of the Capital Improvement Program Every municipality finds it necessary to expend funds each year for basic better- ment. It is of upmost importance that these public expenditures fit as integral parts of a long-range plan for improvements. Simply stated, it involves consi- deration of needs, financial resources and the blending of the two to aid changing — conditions to best serve the community. An important tool for identifying and achieving the goals is the Capital Improven�nt ._ Program. Such a program consists of two parts : a capital improvement plan based on an adopted Comprehensive Plan which is projected ten years, and a Capital Improvement Budget which is projected five years and establishes priorities. Such a program can limit the possibility of making uneconomic judgements and produce substantial savings and benefits. What is Involved The various services which the city is providing are under the responsibility of a department and coordinated by the city manager. Thus , to fulfill this respon- _ sibility as each understands the expected level of service, it is normally required that each year the level of service be reviewed and a list of capital expenditures be prepared. Accompanying each item would be a statement as to the impact such item would have on the related service. During the annual review the inventory list would be adjusted and the Capital Improvement Budget will be extended another year. The following items should — also be reviewed and adjusted as necessary as a part of the process: l . The Comprehensive Plan updated to reflect the current policies for achieving � the long-range development of Hopkins. 2. An analysis of existing and future tax and revenue structure. — 3. A review of federal and state grant and aid programs . 1lt — Benefits of a Capital Improvements Program The benefits to be derived from capital improvements programming are as obvious _ as they are varied. In order to emphasize the far reaching effects of sound capital improvements programming, some of the benefits are summarized below: 1 . The Capital Improvements Program provides a single comprehensive schedule — of all proposed capital projects of Hopkins over a period of years and thus facilitate the elimination of much duplication, waste and short-term expenditures. — 2. It causes the operating departments to systematize their proposals and to think and plan ahead concerning the future needs of their respective area of operation. 3. It provides an overall picture of Hopkins' needs and aids the administration in dealing with these needs on the basis of urgency to the city as a whole. — 4. It can reduce the influence of pressure groups seeking to advance special projects. — 5. It allaws more time for proper planning and technical design of projects . 6. It provides financial information to aid the administration in structuring _ overall budgets. 7. It allows the city to take better advantage of grants-in-aid from �ther levels of governments for certain types of projects. 8. It provides the information necessary to coordinate projects and financing. — 9. It provides a much better opportunity to show the taxpayer what he is getting for his money and inspires confidence in the city government. 10. It enables investors , public utility companies, managers of business and industries, real estate owners, and others to plan for the future more accurately. Finally, it provides a means of getting plans and proposals systematically trans- lated into reality. It provides one of the most formidable instruments yet devised for implementing the Comprehensive Plan. — Although this is an impressive list of benefits, it undoubtedly is not complete. A word of caution seems appropriate. Not just any program will produce the — desire results. In order to be of significant value, the program must be well conceived, and must be based on sound research and judgement. To this must be added that the benefits will also be in proportion to the dgree to «hich the program is put into effect and followed by those responsible for its administration. 115 COMPARISON OF METHODS AVAILABLE FOR FINANCING When considering methods of financing public improvements, governmental units are faced with two basic choices -- financing on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, or financing by means of borrowing. This is an oversimplication, of course, for there are situations in which one or ther other of these methods may be inappropriate or inapplicable. In addition, many governments finance their capital improvements — through some combination of borrowing and pay-as-you-go. However, the fundamental choice remains between financing with current revenues or financing with borrowed funds. Outlined below are some of the factors which should be taken into consideration when a choice between the two basic financing methods is being made. A. Pay-As-You-Go There are three major methods of paying for public improver�ents on a pay-as-you-go basis: 1 . Through t he use of current revenues from usual sources. 2. Through the use of a reserve fund or several reserve funds. _ 3. Through the use of the special levy procedure by local governments. Almost any form of pay-as-you-go method of financing has a psychological appeal for many people. The very phrase "pay-as-you-go" has a connotation of sound — fiscal policy and responsible management. There are, of course, advantages to _ pay-as-you-go financing which are considerably more important than psychological appeal . Probably one of the most obvious advantages of current financing as opposed to borrowing is the saving in interest rates. When the cost of borrowing can be _ avoided, the total cost of public improvement is lowered and the financial demand made upon taxpayers by governments is reduced. If the effects of inflation were � taken into account, this figure would be smaller since in a period of inflation � borrowed funds are repaid with money of reduced value. A second major advantage of current financing is that it does not obligate revenues of future years for debt service payments. This means that that portion of avail- — able revenue which would have been expended for debt service may be available to meet increased operating requirements, to provide additional capital improvements, or to permit a reduction of taxes. Reserve Funds The use of reserve funds for capital improvement purposes is a variation of the — pay-as-you-go method. Under this procedure, a sum of money is placed in a reserve fund at regular intervals until such time as the fund accumulates sufficient resources to finance the desired public improvement. This is the basic procedure — used in the Parking Fund. Paying for capital improvements by this method has 116 —' essentially the same advantages as paying from current revenues. An added benefit is the additional money made available for the fund's use without taxation as a result of interest earned by the fund's investments. i One of the criticisms sometimes made concerning the use of reserve funds is that the existence of such funds, especially in governmental units which are hard _ pressed financially, creates a temptation to tap the reserve funds for purposes other than those for which they were created. The likelihood of a governmental unit succumbing to such a temptation can be largely eliminated by proper legal safeguards and effective auditing. Another cirticism of the use of reserve funds which is heard occasionally is that such funds create a situation in which present taxpayers are paying for a public — improvement which they cannot presently utilize but which will be utilized by others in the future who may have contributed nothing toward its cost. While this may be true, it is equally true that most present taxpayers are utilizing some public _ improvements toward whose cost they have not contributed. There are limitations on the extent to which reserve funds can be used to finance capital improvements. These limitations will vary with the public improvement under — consideration and the governmental unit involved. Sometimes an expensive improvement may be so urgently needed that a period of years cannot be taken to accumulate the financial resources necessary for its construction. �S ecial Levies - - - - - - - _ A third variation af the pay-as-you-go method is the use of a special levy to obtain the funds needed for public improvements of the type which are made infrequently. For example, a corrxnunity may pass a special mill levy from which a portion of the levy is used for operating expenses and most of the levy is used for fire department — equipment and for improvements in downtown water mains and hydrants. - Recognizing that there are limitations to the extent to which public improvements — can be financed on a current basis, it would still seem that the pay-as-you-go method offers many significant advantages in terms of sound fiscal policy. B. Borrowing — When public improvements cannot be financed on a current basis, the alternative, short of not making the improvement, is borrowing through the sale of bonds. Debt - has been characterized as providing a way to modify the restraint on spending — imposed by the piecemeal way we receive our income. In creating debt through the exercise of its borrowing power, a government finds itself faced with problems which involve basically two areas: 1 . The revenue sources which will be utilized for repayment of the debt. 2. The scheduling of debt service payments. — In servicing debt contracted for capital improvement purposes, governments rely on revenues produced by operation of the improvement or on taxes; the distinction, in other words, between revenue bonds and general obligation bonds. A third — category of bonded debt would include limited obligation bonds, i .e. bonds which pledge revenues from one or two specific tax sources for repayment. � 117 — Revenue Bonds In recent years the use of revenue bonds for purposes other than the traditional — public utility services has become increasingly popular. Revenue bonds, properly used for a suitable improvement, offer a number of advantages over general obligation bonds. First of all , the debt service required for revenue bonds often does not utilize the same revenue sources as those which the governmental unit draws upon for its operating revenue. Second, in the case of an improvement financed by revenue bonds, revenues are derived from charges to those who use the facility; thus, governmental can undertake projects which may be of real value to one segment — of the public, but of only indirect value to other segments. A third advantage of revenue bonds is that they do not come under legal debt limitations. This would be a consideration only for those governmental units which desire to finance — capital improvements with bonds but find themselves close to their legal debt limit. General Obli�ation Bonds_ Revenue bonds are generally considered to be bonds whose redemption and interest costs will be met out of the earnings of a specific facility or facilities. General obligation bonds are those bonds for whose payment the issuing government — has pledged its full faith and credit. Limited Obli�ation or S�ecial Assessment_Bonds_ This form of borrowing has been utilized by numerous municipalities to finance certain projects or services. Funds to pay the principal and interest on the bonds are derived from special assessments on property that is benefited by the capital improvement. For example, the construction of sidewalks could be financed by adding a special tax assessment on the abutting property. — Debt Limitations One of the factors which may influence the choice of financing methods is the — legal debt limit. A city which is approaching its legal debt limit or has reached it is forced to turn its consideration from general obligation bands as a method of financing improvements and to consider other methods, such as revenue bonds or _ current financing. — C. Other Variations . Lease-Purchase Financing_ Under a lease-purchase arrangement, a public improvement is constructed by a non- governmental agency and leased to the governmental unit. The lease payments made by the governmental unit are arranged to pay off the cost of the improvement within the life of the lease. At the end of the lease the governmental unit acquires title to the property. 118 — Authorities The use of authorities to finance public improvements varies considerably. Some authorities are concerned exclusively with the financing and operation of facilities which are supported by user charges; e.g. , toll bridges, toll roads, etc. In other instances, an authority is created for the purpose of issuing bonds and constructing facilities which are not generally considered self-supporting. A — school building authority, for example, may construct school buildings which are then rented to local districts, the rentals being used by the authority to retire the bonds which it has issued. ' � The use of authorities as a device to incur additional debt beyond that permitted by the standard debt limitations can be disadvantageous if it obscures the fact that authority debt is as much a part of a community's total financial obligation as is debt of the more traditional governmental units, such as city or the state. Additional disadvantages of authorities are that they tend to diffuse governmental responsibility and that they may result in a governmental operation less susceptible � to public control than usual governmental activities. Grants and Aids The city's use of outside funding sources is an important part of the city financing of capital projects and operations. These funds vary from those that the city is entitled to based on a distribution formula of either the state or federal govern- r ment, to outright grants or low interest loans that the city must quality for through demonstration of need for the funds. The State Municipal State Aid Fund and Community Block Grants are examples of funds entitled the city based on a set — formula. The Para-Transit Service program (Hop-A-Ride) is a grant which the city demonstrated need in making application for the funds. — Federal funds have evolved from the categorical grants system of the 1960's to the current Corrununity Block Grant system of the 1970's. The Community Block Grant system is currently under review by the federal government and it is not known _ how long communities may rely on this source for capital improvements funding. — D. Conclusion In conclusion, it must be recognized that determination of the method or methods — to be used in financing public improvements is a decision which cannot be reached with a large degree of finanity. Certainly a pay-as-you-go plan of financing re- presents the most desirable goal and every effort should be made to achieve it. _ As the International City Managers ' Association has stated: "A sound borro�ving policy for any community, therefore, is one which seeks the conservation rather than the exhaustion of credit. This involves, in general , borrowing as sparingly as possible and repaying as rapidly as possible." However, the choice of inethod at any given time will involve consideration of such factors as size of the governmental unit, cost of the improvement in relation to the size of the government's budget, economic conditions, urgency for constructing the project, existing financial — obligations, existing revenue structure, nature of the improvement to be constructed, keeping the cost as low as possible, and debt limitations. The methods available should be considered as resource avenues, the choice being limited by statutory _ authority and good judgement as to the most prudent way to handle a coordinated capital improvement program that spans a period of years. � 119 THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN This Capital Improvements Plan is a list of capital projects proposed in Hopkins _ compiled based on the needs identified in the comprehensive planning process and the city's ongoing administered review of needs. Capital projects for the purpose of this report are limited to improvements to the city's real estate. There are two exceptions in the following list that are not considered real estate, but, — are major equipment items that are attached to the real estate. Such capital items as fire trucks, police vehicles and city maintenance equipment are not considered in this analysis. The plan classifies the projects under six categories: streets and transportation, public utilities and street accessories, parks, public properties, downtown projects, _ and major projects. The following list is intended simply as a list of the projects � proposed between 1981 and 1990 and no priority is assigned to the items. The pri- oritizing the items is an annual process whereby the capital budget is established for that year and projects made for capital expenditure for the succeeding four years. The following list is the Capital Improvement Plan inventory of capital projects — based on the Comprehensive Plan and projected to 1990. — Streets and Transportation 1 . Seal Coat: The city has adopted city maintenance program of preventive reconstruction by treating all street surfaces on a six year rotating pro- gram. This requires approximately six miles of seal coating each year. 2. Alleys: A large portion of Hopkins' residential area �is served by alleys. — The city has adopted a program to reduce maintenance cost and provide better service by paving all alleys. To fulfill this program, the city budgets $30,000 each year until completed. 3. Smetana Road: Construct from llth Avenue South to west city limits. This street's centerline is on the Hopkins-Minnetonka city limit line and has been placed on the State Aid Street System by both communities. This improve- ment will tie in with an existing street in Minnetonka and permit east-west movement from llth Avenue to Shady Oak Road for Opus II and South Hopkins traffic. 4. Rebuild St. Louis Street and Taylor Avenue from Excelsior to Second Northeast: This is an existing route which serves an industrial area and also permits — traffic to bypass the rail cross on Blake and the Blake-Excelsior intersection. It will require coordination with Hennepin County. _ 5. Rebuild Excelsior Street and Meadowbrook Road: This is a joint Hopkins, St. Louis Park, Hennepin County project to install automated lights and left turn lanes. It is needed due to the heavy flow of traffic on Excelsior and the need for left turns into the industrial area and golf course. 120 — 6. County Road 18 Construction: Hennepin County has b uilt an expressway through Hopkins which necessitates the adjusting of certain local streets to conform to new traffic patterns. r 7. Seventh Street South Extension to West: The closing of Hopkins landfill has resulted in a large parcel of land which is in need of public access. 8. Park and Ride: The construction and operation of this parking lot is a joint venture with Metro Transit and is a part of Hopkins' energy saving program. 9. Park and Walk: The construction of this lot on city owned property on County Road 3 is a part of the C.B.D. and industrial employee support program. 10. Park and Walk: The construction of this lot is to provide a double service - C.B.D. employee support program and central park. It is to be located at _ the intersection of 13th Avenue and lst Street, precise location and size to be determined as a part of feasibility and cost study. 11 . Install Automatic Traffic Controls at Intersection of llth Avenue and lst — Street South: This intersection is increasing in traffic volume and turning movements to the extent that vehicul�ar storage is interfering with bank access and causing some drivers to take risks and to drive through City Hall — parking lot to llth Avenue. 12. Install Automatic Traffic Controls at County Road 3 and 8th Avenue: This _ is one of two access points from County Road 3 to the C.�.D. , to Hopkins off-street parking system and to the residential area. It is a necessary part of the major street system. — 13. Install Automatic Traffic Controls at llth Avenue and lst Street North: _ This intersection is building in traffic volume and turning movements and when County Road 18 is completed, it is expected that lst Street North will — be the major link from 5th to 17th Avenue and increase in volume. 14. Acquire Land and Construct Off-Street Parking Lot in the Vicinity of 8th _ Avenue, North of Excelsior Boulevard: New parking facilities to accomodate the businesses between 7th and 8th Streets is needed. 15. Parking Ramp in the C.B.D. East of llth Avenue, South of Excelsior: If — Hopkins ' C.B.D. is expected to grow and increase in intensity, off-street parking accomodations must be provided. A multiple story• ramp which will also function as a pedestrianway from office buildings to second level commer- — cial would be a positive step. First stage is to prepare plans for con- struction and finance; second stage is to build ramp. _ � 16. Rebuild Shady Oak Road from County Road 3 to Trunk Highway 7: This project would be a joint venture between the City of Hopkins and Minnetonka and Hennepin County. This road is a major county link from the Crosstown Expressway to T.H. 7 and is increasing in traffic volume. Its alignment, site distances — and width are dangerous. 12� 17. Service Road West of Blake from Cambridge to South: The west side of Blake — Road is developed with drive-in type businesses requiring left turn in and out which is creating a dangerous situation during peak hours . The new service road would permit traffic to utilize the light at Cambridge. Public Utilities and Street Accessories 18. Construct Sanitary Sewer and Water Service to SW 40A: Stage 1 is to plan for service which may be in conjunction with Minnetonka or maybe in Hopkins. Stage 2 is to install sewer and water. 19. Construct New 0.5 Million Gallon Water Storage Tank at City Well Park: This is needed to assure pressure and supply to the city system. 20. Install Street Lights as �eeded to Have One at Least Every 500 Feet on All Developed Public Streets : Stage 1 is to prepare plan indicating deficiencies. Stage 2 is to install lights. 21. Street Tree Planting: Stage 1 is to prepare a plan for determining the number, distribution type and time period. Stage 2 is to plant said trees. 22. Water Line Loops : Complete the planned looping of water mains to improve safety and line pressure. The area around the County Road 18 and T.H. 7 interchange _ is the last phase of this program. 23. Storm Sewer: The city has adopted a program to spend $65,000 per year on upgrading storm sewer system. 24. Meadowbrook Neighborhood Sewer System Upgrading: Some sewage flow to the Meadowbrook lift station will be diverted to the lift station at Excelsior — Boulevard and Blake in order to eliminate an overloading of the Meadowbrook lift station. Parks — 25. Possibly acquire the Property North of 4th Street Between 19th and 21st Avenues : ThiS property is located in Minnetonka and should be considered for annexation. — 26. If, annexed, plat land referred to under point 25 for residential deVelopment. 27. Consider acquiring houses located on 20th in Hilltop Park and remove to another site. 28. Move house formerly used as the Historical Society office. 122 — 31. Construct Canoe Landing, Public Parking and Portage on City Owned Land West of County Road 73 and Minnehaha Creek: This is a joint project with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and is needed as a safety measure — to keep canoers from crossing County Road 73 and to provide access in Hopkins. 32. Improve Shady Oak Beach: The city has adopted a policy of budgeting $5,000 each year for capital improvements and replacements. 33. Close Out Landfill : The Hopkins landfill is to be closed and to complete the project it must be capped with clay. The landfill will continue to be — monitored for methane as required. 34. Acquire Land Designated Flood Plain Lying South of T.H. 7 Between Minnehaha _ Creek and the Channel East of Hiawatha: A part of this area is city owned, all of it is zoned flood plain although it is owned by a number of other indi- viduals. The land is needed as part of the city's flood plain system, as a water recharge area, as a part of the storm drianage system, as a buffer — between commercial and residential land, and as a part of Hopkins natural green area system. — 35. Bicycle System: Acquire easements and rights of way necessary to complete system. With the energy conservation program increasing in acceptance, it is anticipated that the need for non-motorized trails will increase. Public Properties — 36. Public Works Garage: The present public works facilities are the old county garages and are in need of major repair. Stage 1 is to select one site and prepare construction plans. Stage 2 is to acquire site and construct public _ works facilities. 37. City Nursery: City has control of approximately a five acre site south of 7th Street South for use as a nursery and it is partially used. The demand — for planting new trees on city owned and controlled land is expected to be large for over ten years. The market supply of trees is tight and the cost is increasing, thus it is important to fully utilize the city nursery site. 38. Purchase and install new computer in City Hall . _ 39. Purchase and install city phone system. 40. Remodel police station. Downtown Projects — 41. Complete R-46 redevelopment area. 42. Acquire easement to extend a pedestrianway from ist Street South to County Road 3 in line with lOth Avenue. 43. Construct pedestrianway in reference to point 42. — 44. Construct pedestrian bridge across County Road 3 to park and walk lot from pedestrianway. 123 _ 45. Install street furniture along lOth Avenue from ist Street South to First Street North. — Major Projects 46. Install neighborhood improvement facilities. 124 THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET The preceding list of 46 projects has been reviewed but no priorities established, — The table on the following page is the suggested capital budget for the next five years. Items scheduled for 1981 are the highest priority items with each suceeding year receiving a lessor priority. Items listed on the plan and not scheduled on the _ budget are anticipated to be scheduled in the last half of the 'decade or picked up sooner if the annual review of the budget establishes a higher priority for the item. — It should be noted that the budget items are shown only by their estimated gross cost. It should be the goal of the city to refine these line items in the future in order that various stages of development may be programmed for two or three — years. For example, the 500,000 gallon water tank proposed for 1985 could be budgeted for engineering and bid letting in one year with actual construction cost budgeted out of the following year. � The budget indicated on the following table is made on the best estimate of available financial resources. The annual review process must, however, recognize that with the extensive use of State and Federal funds for certain types of capital improvements, the accuracy of projection must be tempered by the flexibility to meet increased financing opportunities as well as cutback of these resources. Therefore, it is expected that the capital budgeting process will become more of a tool of evaluating — priorities than a projection of financing resource allocations. The city's financial data used in scheduling priorities and capital budgeting is located in Appendix V of this report. The capital improvement plan is prepared annually in detail by the City Manager for submission to the Zoning & Planning Commission, and the City Council . 125 PROPOSED CAPITAL BUDGET - PROJECTS 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 SOURCE Streets and Transportation Alleys $ 6,600 $ 7,000 $ 7,400 $ 7,800 $ 8,200 General fund. Seal Coat 43,200 46,650 50,400 54,400 58,750 General fund _ Smetana West of llth 137,000 -- -- -- -- State aid. Tyler/St. Louis -- -- 135,000 -- -- State aid. Rt. 18 -- 125,000 -- -- � -- Storm sewer fund. - Landfill access road 20,000 -- -- -- -- General fund. Bike trails 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 General fund. Parks Sfiady Oak 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 General fund-Mtka. Central 13,000 -- -- -- -- General fund. Hillton -- 54,000 -- -- -- Landfill 5,000 -- -- -- -- - !�Jater and Se�rer Tank Reno- _ vation -- -- -- 75,000 30,000 Water fund. Loop lines 50,000 -- -- -- -- Water fund. Storm Sewers 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 General fund. 0.5 million - gallon tank -- -- -- -- 500,000 Water fund. , Meadowbrook Relief -- 15,000 -- -- -- Sewer fund. Public Property _ New computer -- 35,000 -- -- -- Revenue sharing Public works Real Estate Fd. garage 500,000 500,000 -- -- -- Utilities & Bond Tree program 85,000 93,000 101 ,000 110,000 120,000 Corim. Dev. St�te - & Levy. Telephone Sys. -- 40,000 -- -- -- General fund. Remodel Police - Station 5,000 -- -- -- -- General fund. Downtown Projects R-46 110,000 -- -- -- -- Tax increment. CBD parking 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Assessments & parkirg fund fees Major Projects - Neighborhood facilities 200,000 -- -- --- -- Comm. Dev. - TOTALS $1 ,299,800 $1 ,040,650 $ 418,800 $ 372,200 $ 841 ,950 Total Five Years ----------- ------------------------------------- �a3,973 �7 126 APPENDIX I I.S.D. 274 School Census Data _ II Projections by Traffic Assignment Zone (T.A.Z. ) III Proposed Full Share Goals for Low and Moderate Income Families — IV Handling Procedures for Local Sewer Policy Plan V Ho�kins Financial Data APPENDIX I I .S.D. 274 School Census Data As stated in the text of the Population Report, school census data was used to upclate specific types of information and was invaluable in correlating popula.tion trends in Hopkins since 1970. Some of the information used to update� 1970 census is shown on the following tables. Additional information — provicled on the tables enabled the writer to obtain insight into the future of the� community and is included here to be used in further analysis of popula�tion trends with respct to the housing base analysis. We also wish to thank Bruce Swanson and his staff at the I.S.D. 274 TransF►ortation and School Census Office for their assistance in providing this clata. f t t i � � i i f i i i i i i i � i i Table A1 1978 Census Statistics - City of Hopkins �� Dwellings Dwellings No. No. Total With Without Pop. Pop. Total Pop./ (0-20) Pop./ Dwelling Unit Type Dwellings Children Children 0-20 +20 PoP• D.U. D.U. Unspecified 184 24 160 31 241 272 1 .48 0.11 Single family 2,354 961 1 ,393 2,133 4,912 7,045 2.99 0.91 Douhles 499 153 346 274 704 978 1 .96 0.55 �4ultiple 3,478 456 3,022 667 4,918 5,585 1 .61 0.19 Townhouse 378 127 251 249 578 827 2.19 0.66 Mobile Home 128 20 108 34 1�51 185 1 .4� 0.27 Institutional � 0 4 0 297 297 74.25 0.00 TOTAL 7,025 1 ,741 5,284 3,388 11 ,801 15,189 2.16 0.48 Source: S.D. 274 School Census September 1978 � � m � �� 1 1�11 �� m,. �; ;, � �� I� . ._ ..� . .� �i!�EC�l111 �� 6 �� ... ,� �� '�'m ' F� ��.- ��E'� 111/11l��t �E�� .� 'y - ��' o L-rr �' ``'' � .411�1�1�4� '��I�. '' '�'��.. ��`' --- �.; �,=- - � �� E�� , y�a�� - �i. �'�� , �,� - �� . ,� ��ti��!��r ��`�� ... ,,,, ., m �,� , . �-l�► � �� . �:►� �� :�.�, �� :��E ' ��.��c��r�� '�� ,�'��E�,�� ,': .�+�'�. �, ,�Q�r �,.�. :��'=��f� , ��,,�` ��,'�.:;=�i =, '" ��"s`� E ,� •�_ �'' �'��'f�c�t�1�f��■{c';R _�.��'`.�p.-; , ,�o, �' � =� �i��'�..�.��.r ,.�.�- ,� � "_�? `�'� ��R ��%iTti� ,, { �'�1 � .�Ir�,�� i�� >r,��I\�i w'�!�!► l/-- �� .R�•, �-1. r�., - ITIl� 4�!�!!F`:�!e I ' � ��'t,H ��'..• �°. � �_ . .�� _ ��ir�.*-:� �s �� M�'/�■� ,� � i � * l �� ,.��,�—, `,� �� _y.,�,�� 1.�� ;�;�� .:M,T.••��, � �T■■■�, �'� �r � • ,,�..�� ,�� r ►�'��;�, � �,,': . �Qeepl�l� �� t� � �► ��o ,,��: � � t� ��11��i' ��01 i��ilt� ��'.�� ,��: . .`��' 1�, �► ��' � � ,� ` . �i�� .��N�, , � ,..,��s-.��: �oo�o�s..��L� ��'�' �j I�,�" l ,c�� . � �� „� �,;. _ , ,��, . ��. _,�r�- �. -, �e�►�� .1 � ��, a�� al��e�t��c� e��+�F.�b �� f�! �� C�, �� '•� ^".��; , � ., ' �� • � �� ►�! ��. �.14N�E�!'� ! �� r � � � �� r �� ,� �^ ��'�i �A��s� �� i;��Ft.�� ,. �o�:� �. � C� � �;;, .��„� � „ •- . ,. ,�� .�_. G��'7� � ��1��! _ `� , � . � '" . � y: � �r �� .�, , �'�' �� .� �� _ :.� � �� - ��e� � �� r��,,I � ��y � � ► ' I �' ��'��-� "�..'��''* - o � �"� �.� ��i� i�:" .�� • �, � • � � /w{�JJ �� '.� . �'. .� � � !b! �� . ,� _ L. .. w�� `�,� ` � �� ;� �� '� � ,. � �� +�� ,e,�, � . .�� ,� � �,�, � �� • 4`�_,► � � � � � Ilo�� ,_ : � ��- �� _�� , � � � �� a" � �� , � ��`� � � . � � �.w '� �� , �� . � � ,�,�t � � � � � ► �:� � �� _ ��'�� '�,` �,��--- _ __ ��y�_ �. � ` � ��'`�� '� � � �� t'A, ,,\ ,�� I� �= i �,, !`�"� � ✓ .e� ° '� `� ;� .� � ��,� �� ,_'�� a.l�lr �,, � � ,.� �.,:��,�,�� ;�_ � � ,� � '� �..�� ;�; � � � .� � � � � � � �� , �. : q�� ,o � � `� ` I, ' � �+� � '.. �1 \ �� ► � �. ' , ► ' / � :� � � � � � � ' - " ''' �� . ��. � � � �� \�-------- ��C–��-------�� _ - l�`'��' -��—-- ��.sa , `� —` ,� ,�--��`.�.-. �� i • • � ' . Table q2 _ Single Family Dwellings Without Children (0-20) Scfiool Census Areas�> > 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Tatal Total single family — dwelling - 1978 169 298 399 265 213 643 367 2,354 • Without children 87 147 230 130 139 416 244 1 ,393 % without children 51% 49% 58% 49% 65� 65% 66% 59q Percent Without Children - 1971 32% 27� 35� 19% 58% 41% 38% 37% — (1 ) See School Census Map on the following page Source: I.S.D. 274 School Census 1978 Table A3 _ Young Population Percent of Total Population School Census Areas�� 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total Percent of population (0-20) 26.1 16.4 28.6 22.3 24.7 27.5 17.3 22.1X '- Percent of population (0-5) 6.5 3.0 4.9 4.6 4.8 4.7 3.6 4.3% — Percent of population (6-16) 14.1 9.0 16.1 12.0 12.1 14.7 9.0 12.0% _ Percent of population (16-20� 5.5 4.4 7.0 5,1 7,8 8.1 4,7 5.8 (1 ) See School Census Map onthe following page Source: I.S.D. 274 School Census 1978 Tahle A4 _ Comparison of Selected School Census Data 1971 and 1978 _ 1971 1978 ----Change ------ yumber Percent Total Dwellings 5,133 7,025 . 1 ,892 37% Unspecified 453 1�4 ( 279) (50�) Single Family 2,379 2,354 25 ( 1�) Doubles 538 499 ( 39) ( 7q) i�ultiple Family 1 ,393 3,478 2,085 150� — Townhouse 0 378 -- -- Mobile Home 28 128 100 357� Institutional 15 4 11 (73%) — Dwellings �ith Children 2,551 1 ,741 ( 910) (34�) Unspecified 200 24 (. 176� (88%) Single Family 1 ,501 g51 (, 540) (36q� — Doubles 305 153 ( 152_) (50q) Multiple Family 627_ 456 ( ._166� (27%) Townhouse 0 127 127 - Mobile Home 8 20 12 150% Institutional � 15 0 � 15) -- Dwellings Without Children 2,4�2 5,284 2,802 113� _ Unspecified 263 160 103 (39%) Single Family 878 1 ,393 515 59% Doubles 233 346 113 48% Multiple Family 1 ,088 3,022 1 ,934 178% Townhouse 0 251 251 - Mobile Home 20 108 88 440% Institutional 0 4 4 -- Population �0-20) 3,552�� 3,388 NA yA — Population (.0-20�/DU 0.69�� Q,48 NA NA Population Under 5 979 658 321 (33%) — Popul.ation Under 5/DU 0.19 0.�9 -- -- (1 ) 17 years old and under Source: S.D. 274 School Census 1971 and 1978 A P P E N D I X II PROJECTIONS BY TRAFFIC ASSIGNPIE�JT ZONE (T.q.Z, ) — The "tetropolitan Council has requested that the 1990 projection for households population and employment 6e compiled by Traffic Assignment Zone (TAZ). The purpose of the TAZ forecast is to project use demands on� ma�or metro systems _ fincluding transoortation, sewer and parks. The following projections are based . on the Land Use Plan and pro�ection of occupancy of housing. The character and growth characteristics of the housing unit base are considered — the controll�ng influence on the f�ouseholds and population and, therefore, will be tf�e basis of pro�ection, The projections for households and �opulations are based on very good current data and reasona6le assumptions on growth providing — a sound confidence level on the pro�ections, The employment projections, Fiqwever, are quite tenuous because of the quality _ of the existing employment data base in Hopkins and the continual changes occurring in employment, operations ancl moves by Hookins industrial base. For example, one of Hopkins' current major employers plans to more than triple its _ employmer.t within their existing plant with expansion on site of facilities. This type of major employment change makes the projectfion'of future employ- ment an inconclusive exercise. Household Forecast 6y T.A.Z, — Prerequisite to forecasting the 1990 households is the determination of the existing housing unit base and its anticipated growth to 1990. The 1978 land use indicated a total of 6,987 dwelling units in the city. As previously _ reported in the Housing Analysis, Hopkins contains vacant residential land zoned and suitable to accommodate an additional 1 ,370 units. The following table shows the vacant land ootential when added to the 1978 housing base equals a housing unit saturation potential of 8,357 units. It is anticipated — that this total could be realized by the year 2000 and also assumes that demolitions will be replaced on a 1 to 1 basis on the sites in which they are removed. ` �� I TM[ CITY OF �� HOPKINS , MINNESOTA . � M�MNI�IM tOYMTr - ��.��_�� - �� T� __ � � ��1 ` :� �� '�..� _ � � �_ _ �. -� �� . r{. �� - � - � ,� _1 20 ,, _ 1�t �C � � � — - � —,_: ��!^l�_ . . � � 1 � ---' I j��l �. t ' R, �. /` ��'�- �/ �; :� � � � - (=--.....: ,. '- _ _ __, �. . � ��.�' ,,� - �' - L _ '. : _ � �;:;' �- \` . _ _ � - ,.-L1 ~.� � ,� �� _. �_.� .� ��- �l��.[- �'�� : - ' _ �� --��_-.� �. ,i,.,, /�� I � _�-. � , , ��. � 786 = ,� � � .��. -- --� .� o ,� `� �� ';^�� _;�- _ _ - -- ��_��? _ _ � . - — - �r� ' �� .�..... � _==jC�100 12, '- - � �� -'� , �. � �� - � . � � ,_ :�; . � _ — _ ..�,' f- � � � /_�_-_ � n• ��, ., ` f� ? ` :30 ��.- 'a'Q�-�,30 -,'=_ � ' '' � J....�� -_ � ��` " ��' i � ; � :c, r �f� - ,�y,. _ � " =:i��- .- � -f �ii � r � � �.�` � �' '_'1 � �� 1.+ � � I �: � i � :�� _ z _ J �oo a ?1 �' _��- `� - " �00� '� ^ �C /` " .... ~ - �_ �-- � � _ .. _�- _ ' ' . ' / - = _ _ .i - - ._ �� -- � �'i ... _ _ -� �' � / � •:/ - � � _ - � �- � � �'/i ... F� _ � .� .-y,.-L_Z� 1 3 ., � � ,�� .� �'� � �� } �� -�� ' � _ ,� � . � = = r � � - ; , � - _ - , � .,� - -- -- ,.-,�-,� -;�-- �� -:.... `:�` / � ' �;T ,— - ,... � -. _� �-�� -��,`��I _�- „l _ /. - ,�'��..`;�t - f: I �" � ' - -�=-. __ �- , 6 �� _ -�; I �' - �i�� J�,l '�. �'�' _�` " _- � � � , .�32��j ._ .: I - �• i �,'�T,� .� �,�4 � � i _ .... � . , ��,, �� ._ � � �� ,_�� -- . - �,� �_� ■ . � � -_��:�� . - � aoo --� ��_28 Vacant Residential Land by -��- -' �� a##ic Assignment Zones . _,�- _- _�,� �� _ � � � =: , ; �� . - _ UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL LAND � � � � � 1370 UNIT POTENTIAL _ _ , -, - . . - .---- '< .- �_ J _ - - � -� � � Table A _ Projection of Housing Units by T.A.Z. - 2000 Number of Units by Type - 1978 Vacant Projected — Single Two �906ile Land 2000 Zone Fanily Family Horie Multiole Total Potential Housing Units — 786 109 28 - 348 485 70 555 787 1 ,058 244 130 1 ,022 2,�L54 243 2,697 788 386 132 - 1 ,139 1 ,657 192 1 ,849 _ 789 579�> > 30 - 982 1 ,591 740 2,331 790 119 32 1 359 511 125 636 802 280 2 - 7 289 0 289 — Total 2,531 468 131 3,857 6,987�2� 1 ,370 8,357�3� (1 ) Excludes 9 S.F. units being removed from City Industrial Park — (2) Total units - some not ready for occupancy (t160) (3) Dwelling unit saturation and assumes demo's will be replaced on 1 to 1 basis. The projection of households (occupied housing units) for 1990 by T.A.Z, has been made after consideration of the characteristics of the existing housing base, probability of each of the vacant oroperties being developed and the anticipated level of vacancy. Growth of the housing stock during this oeriod is projected to total 930 units broken do4m by T.A.Z. as shown on the follow- — ing table. This 930 additional . units represents 6.g% of the vacant land unit potential of the city. In most cases , landowners and/or developers have made proposals to the city concerning development of these properties and some _ pro�erties are being developed in 1979. Subtracted from the housing base for this period are an estimated 71 demos assuming 1� loss of single family and duplex units in the newer neighborhoods and 3� in the older neighborhoods. _ The orojection of households by T.A.Z. is based on this housing unit base of 7,846 dwelling units available in 1990 and subtracted from that total the pro- jected vacancy rate for a total household count of 7,540 in 1990. Vacancies are projected at 1% for single family, two family units and mobile home units — and 6� for apartment units resulting in an annual vacancy rate of 4�. It should be noted that although Metropolitan Council 's projection use of 3� vacancy for all counties, the 4� level reflects the high ratio of multiple — family units. Table 6 1990 Household Projection by T.A.Z. Projected — Housing Total SF-2F/ 1978 Units Housing Multi 1990 Projected Projected Zone Housing Built Units Ratio House- — Number Units(1 (+)1978-1990 (-) Demos(1 ) 1990 1990 Vacancies(2) holds 786 485 70 1 554 ?_8/72 25 529 787 2,454 143 39 2,55" 55/45 83 2,4�75 788 1 ,657 140 5 1 ,792 37/63 74 1 ,71� 789 1 ,591 452 18 2,025 33/67 88 1 ,937 790 511 125 5 631 24/76 30 601 � 802 289 0 3 2B6 98/2 3 283 Total 6,987 930 71 7,846 39/61 303(4�q) 7,543 _ say 7,540 (1 ) For the 11 year period 1978 to 1990 assume 1% of single family and two fa�ily _ units in T.A.Z. 786,78a, and 802 and 3� of single fa�ily and two family units in T.A.Z. 787,789 and 790. (2) Assume 1% vacancy in single family, duplex and mobile home units and 6% — vacancy in apartment units. — Pooulation Forecast by T.A.Z. Having estimated the households for 1990, the projection of population is — entirely a function of the number of oersons anticiaated to occupy the house- holds. The following factors influenced the selection of the family size factors in each of the traffic assignment zones. * Multiple family units and mobile home units are projected to have 2.0 oersons per dwelling unit throughout the city. This level of occu- pancy is characteristic of the unit size mix and is not ex�ected to be — influenced greatly even if a large number of rental apartments are con- verted to condominiums. — * Single family and duplex units in the oldest central neighborhoods is only expected to have +2.5 persons per dwelling units due to age of population and the high ratio of households without children as shown _ in the 1978 school census. The other neighborhoods are exoected to also show a decrease in the single family households without children, but not to the degree as T.A.Z, 787. The 2.7 persons per single family household in the remainder of the city is based on comparison with — similar aged communities, the size and quality of the housing and the projected aging and turnover of the ponulation. The overall population per hosuehold estimated for 1990 is 2•27 oersons per household which is aoproximately the same with the current level . As stated in the _ population section, the .person per dwelling unit is expected to drop in the next few years and increase again to current levels or higher by 1990 or 1995. The following table shows the forecast by T.A.Z. and the assumptions used in the forecast. Table C 1990 Population Projection by T.A.Z. Estimated Households Households S.F.-2F. - MH/ Population/ Estimated Zone 1990 �lultiple Family Households (1 ) 1990 Population 786 529 154/375 2.21 1 ,170 787 2,475 1393/1082 2.2f3 5,650 — 788 1 ,718 656/1062 2.27 3,900 789 1 ,937 662/1275 2.24 4,340 790 601 150/451 2.18 1 ,310 _ 802 283 277/6 2.69 760 Total 7,543 3292/4251 2.27 17,130 (1 ) Based on the following population per household assumptions * Multiple family @ 2.0 in all T.A.Z. * Single family, two family and,mobile home @ 2.7. persons ner household in T.A.Z. 786, 788, 789, 790 and 802 and @ 2. 5 persons per household in — T.A.Z. 787 Employment Forecast — The Metropolitan Council has estimated that by 1980 and 1990 Hopkins will have employment of 19,000 and 20,000 respectively. No local census or pro- jections have been made of Hopkins' employr�ent in recent years nor does the — city have sufficient basis to arrive at an estimate different than that pre- pared by the Metropolitan Council . For planning purposes, Hopkins has accepted the hletropolitan Council projects and projection by Traffic Assign- ment Zones with the following qualifications. ` * Employment shifts of significant pr000rtions will continue to occur in HoQkins' major industries such as Honeywell , Super Valu and Red — Owl . * The vacant industrial land under conservative estimates could produce — another +2,600 employees to be located in T.A.Z. 789 and 790. How- ever, the introduction of a major assembly type industry with a hic�h ratio of employees per acre could result in an emoloyment increase of +100� higher than the +2,600 estimate not including the commercial � services employment added in resoonse to the industrial employment growth. — * The PQetro Council 's year 2000 projection of 3,131 employees in T.A.Z. 786 is far too high considering both the existing and proposed land use in the T.A.Z. It is estimated that the existing employment does — not exceed 1 ,000 persons and will not significantly increase. — APPENDIX III Proposed Full Share Goals — For Low and "4oderate Income Housing Source: Proposed Amendment to the — Metropolitan Housing Guide July, 197� i i i i � i i i i i i i i i i � i i i i TABLE IIa: PROPOSED � TULL SHARE GOALS FOR LOW-AND MODERATE- ZNCOME HOUSING Proposed Total Full Share Goal Subgoal for Subgoal for for Low-and Households Household New Subsi- Moderate- Allocation Plan: Currently Growth: dized Income First Priority Fair Share Inadequately Distribution � Housing Housing Communities Percentage Housed Percentage Units (Col: 2 � 4) r . Minneapolis 17. 81 11, 757 5. 07 1 , 715 13 ,472 � St . Paul 10. 55 6, 965 1 . 70 575 7,540:' Bloomington 4. 69 3 , 096 2 . 93 990 4 ,086 Brooklyn Center 2. 00 1 , 320 1 . 03 349 1,669 Columbia lieights . 62 409 . 23 . 78 487 Crystal . 76 502 . 16 54 556 Edina 3. 72 2 ,456 1 . 63 552 3 , 008 Falcon Heights . 40 264 . 08 26 � 290 Fridley 2 . 06 1, 360 1 , 36 460 1 ,820 Golden Valley 1 . 38 911 . 60 202 1 , 113 Hilltop . 06 � 40 . 03 ' 10� 49 Hopkins . 93 614 . 16 54 668 Lauderdale . 14 92 . O1 . 4 46 Maplewood 2 . 79 1 ,842 2 . 22 753 2 ,595 New Hope . 84 555 . 34 116 671 Richfield 1 . 21 • 799 . 25 76 875 Robbinsdale . 66 436 . 08 27 463 Roseville 2. 47 1 , 631 . 67 � . 228 1 ,859 St . Anthony ' . 73 482 . 11 36 518 St . Louis Park 2 . 70 1 , 782 . 82 278 2 , 060 South St. Paul . 90 594 . 30 103 � 697 West St. Paul 1. 21 799 . G3 213 1 ,013 '1'otal 58. 63 38, 706 20. 41 6 , 899 45 , 605 � i i i . i i t i i i i i � i i i i i t i PROPOSED FULL SHARE GOALS FOR LOW-ANU MODERATE- INCOME HOUSING Proposed Total Full Share Goal Subgoal for Subgoal for for Low-and Households Household New Subsi- Moderate- •Allocation Plan: Currently Growth: dized Income Second Priority Fair Share Inadequately Distribution Housing Housing Communities Percentage Housed Percentage Units (Col. 2 & 4) Arden Hills . 86 568 . 70 235 803 Brooklyn Park 1 . 19 786 4. 90 1 ,656 2 ,442 Burnsville 2.44 1, 611 4. 76 1 , 612 3 , 223 Inver Grove Heights .41 271 1 . 82 615 . 885 Landfall . OS 33 . O1 4 37 Lilydale . 17 112 . 08 28 140 Little Canada . 56 370 1. 08 ' 366 736 Medicine Lake . 06 40 . O1 3 43 Mendota . OS 33 . O1 3 . 37 Mendota Heights . 76 502 . 56 188 690 Minnetonka 1. 88 1 , 241 2 . 04 689 1 ,930 Mounds View . 40 264 . 60 • .202 � 466 New Brighton 1 . 08 713 1 . 06 357 1 , 070 Newport . 22 145 . 15 50 195 North St. Paul . 47 310 . 27 ' 91 400 Plymouth 2. 49 1, 644 4 . 22 1 ,428 3 ,072 St . Paul Park . 24 158 . 09 29 187 Shoreview 1. 16 766 1. 68 569 1, 335 Spring Lake Park . 23 152 . 22 . 74 226 Wayzata . 36 238 . 10 34 272 White Bear Lake . 61 403 . 62 209 612 Total 15. 69 10, 360 24. 98 8 ,442 18 ,802 � � I I I I f I I I I i I I I I I I I I I PROPOSED FULL SHARE GOALS FOR LOW-AND MODERATE- INCOME HOUSING � Pro o e Tota� �u 1 Share Goal Subgoal for Subgoal for for Low-and Households Household New Subsi- Moderate- Allocation Plan: Currently � Growth: dized Income Third Priority Fair Share Inadequately Distribution Housing Housing Communities Percentage Housed Percentage _ Units (Col. 2 & 4 Andover . O1 7 . 71 240 248 Apple Valley 1. 10 726 4.49 1,519 2, 247 � Birchwood . 03 20 � . 04 14 34 Blaine . 36 238 3. 03 1 , 025 1 ,263 Champlin . 53 350 . 89 300 650 Chanhassen . 22 145 1. 09 369 514 Circle Pines . 12 79 . 12 � 40 119 Coon Rapids ' 1. 45 957 2. 87 973 1 , 930 Cottage Grove . 29 191 2. 41 814 . 1 ,005 Deephaven . 14 92 . 19 64 156 Eagan 2. 31 1 , 525 4. 18 1 ,413 2 , 938 i::den Prairie 1. 39 918 3 . 35 1 ,134 ' 2 , 052 Excelsior . 25 165 . 03 10 174 Gem Lake . 06 40 . 08 � 28 68 Greenwood . 03 20 . O1 3 • 24 Lexington . 06 40 . 04 12 52 Long Lake . 12 .79 . 07 25 104 Mahtomedi . 30 198 . 24 81 279 Maple Grove . 36 238 3 . 59 • l, �lf� 1 ,454 Minnetonka Beach . 02 13 . O1 3 14 Minnetrista . O1 7 . 15 51 58 Mound . 30 198 . 11 37 235 North Oaks . 10 66 . 28 93 159 Oakdale . SO 330 2. 32 785 1 , 115 Orono . 26 172 . 33 111 283 Osseo . 22 145 . OS � 16 161 Pine Springs . O1 7 . 02 S 12 Savage . 08 53 1. 71 580 633 Shorewood . 18 119 . 38 127 246 Spring Park . 17 •112 . 06 21 133 Sunfish Lake . 05 33 . 03 12 45 Tonka Bay . 04 26 . O1 3 30 � i � i t i i i i i i i i i i i i � i i PROPOSED FULL SHARE GOALS FOR LOW-AND MODERAT� INCOME HOUSING Total Full Share Goal • Subgoal for Subgoal for for Low-and Households Household New Subsi- Moderate- Allocation Plan: Currently Growth: dized Income Third Priority Fair Share Inadequately Distribution Housing Housing Communities- (cont.) Percentage Housed Percentage � Units (Col . 2 & 4) Vadnais Heights . 34 225 1. 03 348 573 Victoria . 06 40 . 21 71 111 White Bear . 28 185 . 45 152 337 Willernie . 02 13 . O1 3 14 1•Ioodbury . 17 112 2 . 35 796 908 �doodland . O1 7 . O1 , 3 10 Total 11. 95 7 ,891 36. 95 12,500 20 ,388 � , i i i r � i r i i i i i i i i i i i � PROPOSED FULL SHARE GOALS FOR LOW-AND-MODERAT� INCOME HOUSING Total Full Share Goal Subgoal for Subgoal for for Low-and- Households Household New Subsi- Moderate- Freestanding Allocation Plan: Currently Growth: dized Income Growth Fair Share Inadequately Distribution � Housing Housing Centers Percentage Housed Percentage Units (Col . 2 & 4) Anoka 2. b2 1, 756 1. 48 500 2,256 Belle Plaine . 33 224 . 24 81 305 Chaska 1 . 28 865 3 . 26 1 , 103 1 , 968 Farmington . 38 257 . 53 179 436 Forest Lake • . b4 435 . 70 236 671 Hastings 1. 71 1, 134 1. 79 � 605 1 , 739 ,7ordan . 30 204 . 32 108 312 Lakeville 1. 22 805 2 . 94 994 . 1, 799 Prior Lake . 48 323 1. 35 456 779 Rosemount . 71 574 1 . 60 541 1 ,115 Shakopee 1 . 68 1, 115 2 . 34 792 ' 1 , 907 Stillwater 1. 57 1, 043 . 87 294 1 ,337 Waconia . 48 323 . 32 , 108 431 Total 13. 40* 9, 058 17. 74* 5 , 997 15 ,055 Metropolitan Totals 100. 00** 66 , 015 100. 00 ' 33 ,835 99 ,850 * New Prague' s fair share of this subgoal was redistributed to. the other freestanding growth centers . ** Colum will not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. i Appendix B Income Elioibility Limits For Low and Noderate Income Housing �� Household Size Low Income �loderate Income 1 6,800 10,850 2 7,750 12,400 — 3 8,750 13,950 4 9,700 15,500 5 10,500 16,500 _ 6 11 ,200 17,450 7 12,500 18,450 — 8 12,800 19,400 _ (1 ) H.I1.D. now defines these categories as "low" and "very low" income families with "low" replacing the moderate category and "very low" re�lacing the low category used by Metropolitan Council in the Housin9 Guide. •v�a�rrrpa�o�d anoqn ay� �y�m a�unpuo��n uy um-gsnwu,o� pun �uno� ay� hq pacrre;rnak aq �yp u�d h�;r�od �rama� aro�o� panourldn un o� �uaurpuauro �y •g •�wnrad uo;r.�-�rnr�v�uo� kamav n uog h�ua6d �o�uo� um�.m�od �o�auu�yy T ay� o� uo;r.��-�dcfb auogaq �uaurpuauro un�c( b sro nrd;rnau uog uo,-s��ruauo� ay� o� aroqodm�d �;r �nuqnsr �nyv `u�c! h�;r�od uarr►�y �o� ay� go nraynau sr:�r uy uo�r��;ruauo� ay� hq pano�rddn r�;rg�adv xou �uurnu n ur sra�;r�nq ansroc(9;rp — uay�o uo �ramav 6u?��;rxa hun ano�rdurr uo �a�ro o� 6uys�odo�rd �uauruuano6 �o� �iun `uoyvsrrunuo� pub �uno� ay� hq �nno�rdcJn pun ma;rnak y�nQ o� �uanbas�qnS 'L •Fi�6u�rpuo��n u�! fi�;r�od �maQ �o� ay� go �nno�rddn �r um-.�;rpuo� p�noyp uoyg�;nuwo� ay1 •poo��pun h�ur�a� a�ro `�uaw6pn� �%r ur `ym�m v�uaura�a unad a�oy� uo h�uo uoy99�r�uu�0� _ ay� o� quo?�npuawwo�au �;r a�v►u pun va�rn�rag avoy� uo �uawu,o� arnra9a�r �n�Q `2�9n�rnnbun vo u?-u�2�un uay�'a �;r sra?�;rd'r�ng arouoy6ak pavoclo�rd uo sr.�uau�uuano6 �n�o� �ua�n�pn 6u?p�ro6ak um�nuruogu;r asmn�aq 2pnw aq �ouu� unad h�;r�od �ran�a Q aur.yua ay� g o ma�rnau airaym Qa sro� a voy� u:r `�uno� ayl '9 — •uor,,�rr�nn �;ry� a�npouawo��n o� u�cl h�;�od a�� papuauro s�n�y �uno� ay� �nyx uo;r�;rg;r.�ou an-ra�ak �v�r,rg — �Smw uoyp9'ruuuo� a�y� `�romaurmr� �uau�doaanaa a�y� pun u�d h��od �uno� a�y� �y�rm a�urounrosuo� ur �ou urr�d Fi�r�od uamaq �n�o� hun 6u�-no�rddn ako�ag •5 •uQypsrruwo� ay� o� sruor.xvpuauauo�au �r �;nuvum� uay�- pun �6urpu�-g aa�-r�uwo� ay� ma;rna� �;rm �Uno� ay1 •�uno� ay� o� uo�npuau�wo�ak b p�romarog pun `�uawwo� ggn�� pUn urr�d ay� nra;rnak �;rm �uno� ay� qo aa�-.�ru.auo� a�;r�(ouddn uy •� — •v6u?�aaw �y�n9 6u;r6uv�r�ro pub 9�ar.�rod � 6u;rhgr�ou kog a�q;rsruodsrak aq �nyp uo�r�srrunuo� ay1 • s�run �ua�uu�rano6 — ��o� �m gg�� uo;r��nuwo� ko �uno� 2y� hq pa�m-.�rur q6ur.�aaw �n a�nurpuoo� �rryv Uo;rqsrruauo� ay� `a�qrr�;>-#�mrd �ua�xa ay� oi •uoyQsinuwo� pun �uno� ay� uaam�aq uo.r�n�;rg;r.�ou �nn�nw aprrd-�uy �ny9 �run xua�uuuano6 �o� _ ay� �y�rm ggn�� uo�rs�srr�u�uo� uo �uno� hq pa��rr.�;ru;r q6ur.�aaw �uanha9qnQ FiUy '£ •un�d uamas� �o� ayx uo �uau�wo� gqn�-p �uno� pun uo;rv�;nuwo� s�sm�srrp o� s�run �u2uruuano6 �n�o� pa�aggn ay� y�rm ggb�9� �uno� put� uoys�muwo� qo — 6u�r�-aaw �u�ro� n a6ub�nrn �yv uoyymuu.,o� ay1 'fi�;�-�od �u2wr�oa2nap avuo;r6 -au o� d;ryquo�r.yn�au �;r pun un�d �crrasr �o� ay� 6uys��n�v�yp uo:rvsr,rwwo� ay� o� PaP'rw"'rog aq �;rm w»pumrouraw �n�nragak gg�q n 'ma;rgak 9gv�Q �►rv�-9b 'z — 'crraynau uog ggb�q o� urr�c( ay� p�r�nnrog pun �-dra�ak a6pa�mou��n �;nn uo�v;ru;ru�py �mr�raga� ay1 •u�d n uo uo;r.��n �nu;rg s2�� uo;r99�ru,wo� ay� , auogaq `�uawwo� pun ma�r�ak kog �uno� un�odou�a�y ay� o� o�-auvy� s�uaw -puauro pa�oc�mrd p�un 4'u�! h�r�od '�(dN2y ��o� �nu9'n4 �nyp uory�;nuwo� ayl '[ urr�d �r�od uanras ��o� uQ sra�npa�oud 6u�uvN •y — AI XIaN3ddYl APPENOIX V Hopkins Financial Data 1 . History and Projection of Genral Fund Revenue and Expenditures. _ 2. Hopkins Bonded Indebtedness : 1974-1980 3. History and Projection of Market Value 4. List of Special Revenue Funds. � - Appendix 1 • History and Projection of General Fund Revenues and Expenditures. - REVENUE Licenses, Permits, Other - Fines, Public Revenue Special Other Service and Non- Property Assess- Service Enter- Revenue - Year Taxes State Aids ments Ch�.rges prises� Recei ts Total 1974 �1 ,013,327 $ 425,316 $336,704 $362,681 $ 549,901 $20,562 $2,708,491 - 1975 1 ,149,693 429,784 392,992 282,037 715,726 33,660 3,003,892 1976 1 ,337,277 429,855 289,528 248,773 788,279 21 ,737 3,115,449 1977 1 ,565,239 429,459 309,351 264,317 783,268 12,827 3,364,461 _ 1978 1 ,605,238 515,711 259,739 283,469 930,016 31 ,052 3,625,225 Est. 1979 1 ,615,171 619,095 260,000 380,053 956,547 38,420 3,869,286 Est. - 1980 1 ,488,129 743,000 260,000 399,988 1 ,239,361 55,750 4,186,228 Projected - 1981 1 ,530,000 802,440 260,000 403,000 1 ,339,000 50,000 4,384,000 1982 1 ,630,000 867,000 260,000 411 ,000 1 ,446,000 50,000 4,664,000 1983 1 ,730,000 936,000 260,000 419,000 1 ,561 ,000 50,000 4,956,000 1984 1 ,830,000 1 ,011 ,000 260,000 428,000 1 ,686,000 50,000 5,265,000 1985 1 ,930,000 1 ,092,000 260,000 436,000 1 ,821 ,000 50,000 5,589,000 - EXPENDITURES _ Gene ral - Govern- Public Bond Re- Year� ment Safety Utilities Streets demption . Other Total 1974 $346,440 $ 536,318 $ 500,958 $349,154 $290,000 $ 838,667 $2,861 ,537 1975� 306,141 598,694 524,851 450,922 285,000 791 ,890 2,957,498 1976� 330,519 664,834 604,227 430,739 285,000 915,543 3,230,872 197J' 351 ,357 614,275 652,196 436,437 275,000 1 ,005,839 3,335,104 - 197E� 374,995 729,863 664,917 479,160 280,000 1 ,130,003 3,658,938 Est. 197�i 379,998 759,855 793,683 595,166 280,000 1 ,360,781 4,169,489 - Est. 198Ci 401 ,562 890,345 1 ,084,586 655,741 305,000 1 ,890,969 4,518,203 _ Projected 1981 397,000 862,000 1 ,038,000 630,000 300,000 1 ,157,000 4,384,000 198�: 406,000 950,000 1 ,136,000 682,000 300,000 1 ,190,000 4,664,000 198�� 416,000 1 ,012,000 1 ,238,000 736,000 300,000 1 ,254,000 4,956,000 - 1984� 426,000 1 ,078,000 1 ,346,000 793,000 300,000 1 ,322,000 5,265,000 198�� 437,000 1 ,147,000 1 ,459,000 853,000 300,000 1 ,393,000 5,589,000 Appendix 2: Hopkins Bonded Indebtedness 1974-1980 r HOPKINS BONDED INDEBTEDNESS - YEAR END Amount of — Bond Redemption Principal Interest Total Principal and Interest — 1974 $3,680,000 $1 ,310,594 $4,990,594 --- 1975 3,395,000 1 ,143,798 4,538,798 $451 ,796 1976 3,110,000 989,249 4,099,249 439,549 1977 2,835,000 846,586 3,681 ,586 417,663 1978 2,555,000 716,006 3,271 ,006 410,580 — 1979 3,611 ,000 1 ,063,098 4,674,098 424,909 1980 Estimated 3,306,000 901 ,352 4,207,352 521 ,746 Appendix 3: History and Projection of Market Valuation of Land in Hopkins YEAR MARKET VALUATION 1974 $170,839,926 1975 200,432,895 � . 1976 217,348,909 _ 1977 230,568,016 1978 259,160,380 — 1979 298,020,360 1980 318,000,000 Projected 1981 350,000,000 1982 385,000,000 1983 423,000,000 1984 466,000,000 �` 1985 512,000,000 , .n Appendix 4: List of Special Revenue Funds Although the general revenue fund represents the largest share of the monies spen� by the city, a number of other funds provide a resource for a variety � of special community needs. The follow�ng is a list of Hopkins Special Revenue Funds: — * Federal Revenue Sharing • * Community Development * Beach Concession * Comprehensive Plan * Real Estate Purchases and Sales * Storm Sewer * Park Grant — * Central Business District Redevelopment * South Hopkins Industrial Redevelopment — * State Grant Tree Removal * State Grant Para-Transit ._ * Community Development Discretionary * Parking * Minnesota State Aid Highways r * Minnesota Housing and Finance Agency Grant Plan * Environmental _ �