VII.1. Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative Multiple Family Housing Concept Plan Review; Lindahl
August 20, 2019 City Council Report 2019-084
Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative Multiple Family Housing
Concept Plan Review
Proposed Action: As a concept review, this application does not require formal action by the
City. Rather, the applicant requests feedback on the proposals so they can work toward
preparing a future, formal submittal. Any comments provided shall be for guidance only and
not be considered binding upon the City regarding any future, formal application. Key items
for the City to consider when reviewing this application include:
• Should the City consider rezoning the property from R-5, High Density Multiple Family to
Mixed Use?
• Should the City consider using a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow deviation from
the zoning standards? If so, what would the City look for in exchange for the PUD?
• The proposal currently fails to meet several important design standards including: minimum
floor to area ratio (FAR), parking, exterior materials, and façade articulation.
Overview
The applicant, Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative (Vista 44 Housing Limited Partnership),
requests concept plan review of a 4 story 50 unit affordable multifamily apartment building. The
subject property is owned by the Parish of St. Gabriel the Archangel of Hopkins, Minnesota and
located on the south 1 acre (green space) of St. Joseph’s Church parking lot. The site is
currently guided by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as HDR - High Density Residential and
zoned R-5, High Density Multiple Family. As part of their future formal application, the
applicant anticipates rezoning to Mixed Use. As such, this staff report reviews the concept plan
against the Mixed Use zoning standards. Based on the review detailed below, it is likely the
applicant will also need approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow flexibility from
some of the Mixed Use Standards in exchange for a higher quality development. This report
summarizes the concept proposal, reviews the proposal against the Mixed Use district
development standards and outlines a likely formal review process.
Primary Issues to Consider
• Background
• Subdivision Design
• Land Use & Zoning Review
• Engineering Comments
• Potential Review Process
Supporting Documents
• Applicant’s Narrative
• Concept Plans
• Engineering Comments
• Public Comments
_____________________
Jason Lindahl, AICP
City Planner
Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N ____ Source: _____________
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________________________________
Notes:
City Council Report 2019-084
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The 2.5-acre subject property was originally platted as part of the West Minneapolis Addition in
1887. The property is currently used as a 170 stall surface parking lot for St. Joseph Church and
the Chesterton Academy (scheduled to open in September). At the southern end of the parking
lot is approximately 1-acre green space. The applicant plans to subdivide off the 1-acre green
space for the proposed 50 unit multiple family apartment building. It should be noted that the
proposed subdivision and multiple family apartment building detailed below will not reduce the
amount of existing off-street parking provided for the either church or school.
Public Comments. In addition to the public hearing, the City received 11 written or verbal
comments regarding this proposal (see attached). These comments are summarized below.
• Jeff Budish, Vice President at Colliers Capital Markets & Investment Services and owner of
the property at 12th and Mainstreet, expressed support for the project.
• Charlie Flynn (phone call). Mr. Flynn identified himself as a Hopkins resident and Beacon
board member. He expressed support for the proposal citing the need for affordable
housing and Beacon’s strong reputation for high quality construction and quality facility
management.
• J. Hemker of 32 – 11th Avenue South expressed opposition for the project and concerns
about parking, noise and construction in Hopkins and the 350’ public notice limit.
• Judy Johnson of 32 – 11th Avenue South expressed support for the project citing the need
for Hopkins to be welcoming.
• Pat Lea of 32 – 11th Avenue South expressed opposition for the project and concerns about
the size of the building, traffic, and overall disturbance from other construction projects.
• Brigid Peterson of 32 – 11th Avenue South expressed opposition for the project and
concerns about building staffing, congestion, parking, traffic on 13th Avenue and school bus
pick up.
• Jim Shirley of 32 – 11th Avenue South expressed opposition for the project and concerns
about the amount of both rental and affordable housing in Hopkins.
• Francis Tangney 32 – 11th Avenue South attended the Beacon Tour offered to CitiGables
residents and expressed support for the project.
• Lyle Wandrei of 32 – 11th Avenue South expressed opposition for the project and concerns
about the amount of rental in Hopkins, congestion, parking and the amount of required
greenspace.
• Terry Zauhar (2 letters) of 32 – 11th Avenue South expressed opposition for the project and
concerns about the amount of rental in Hopkins, foot traffic from the development on his
property, parking, property values, greenspace, issues with homeless populations, public
notice of this item and potential property sale limitations placed on the subject property by
the seller to the church.
• Greg Zoidis of 201 Homedale Road expressed support for the proposal citing Beacon’s high
quality construction and quality facility management.
Planning & Zoning Commission Action. The Planning & Zoning Commission held a public
hearing to review this item (Planning Application 2019-11-CON) during its regular meeting on
July 23, 2019. During that meeting, the Commission heard a summary presentation from staff
and comments from the applicant and the public. The following six people spoke during the
public hearing.
City Council Report 2019-084
Page 3
• Pastor Joanna Mitchell spoke generally about the need for more affordable housing and
specifically in support of Beacon and their proposal.
• John Herbeck, owner of the apartment building at 1210 1st Street South, asked questions
about parking, rents and how the project would be financed.
• Jenny Dillion of 206 Harrison Avenue North talked about her past work with Habitat for
Humanity, the services Beacon and their partner Volunteers of America will offer in this
building and how important it is for people to have stable housing.
• Dennis Roof of 5855 Cheshire Parkway in Plymouth and owner of a neighboring apartment
building stated his preference for middle-income housing and his concerns about parking
and storm water management.
• Greg Zoidis of 201 Homedale Road spoke about the need for more affordable housing and
stated his support for the proposal.
• Butch Johnson of 140 – 11th Avenue North spoke generally about the issue of parking in
Hopkins and his concern with parking at this development.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Commission stated general support for the project
but stressed the need to comply with the minimum zoning standards of the Mixed Use district
with the exception of the floor to area ratio (FAR) standard.
SUBDIVISION DESIGN
To facilitate the proposed concept plan, the applicant would need to subdivide the subject
property. As proposed on the concept plan, this subdivision would likely meet the requirements
of the zoning ordinance and therefore be processed through the Administrative Subdivision
process. It should be noted that approval of an Administrative Subdivision does not require
formal review by the Planning & Zoning Commission or action by the City Council.
With any subdivision, the City has the ability to collect park dedication in the form of land or a
fee. The standard park dedication fee for multiple family residential subdivisions is $3,000 per
unit. Based on the concept plan’s 50 unit design, this project would be required to pay park
dedication of $150,000.
LAND USE & ZONING REVIEW
The land use and zoning section reviews the concept plans against the goals and policies in the
comprehensive plan (both 2030 and draft 2040) as well as the specific zoning standards of the
Mixed Use district. Staff’s review and findings related to each standard are provided below.
Land Use. The Subject property is guided HDR – High Density Residential by the 2030
Comprehensive Plan. According to the narrative for this land use classification, it allows for
high-density residential uses including multi-unit and multi-building developments. The high-
density category accommodates more intense housing, such as apartments and condominium
developments. The density range for this category establishes a minimum threshold of 17+
units per acre, ultimately resulting in multi-storied structures.
The Residential Land Use Pattern goal from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan states the City
should work toward a balanced supply of housing, which is important to Hopkins’ efforts to
serve the needs of a broad range of residents. The land use plan identifies land use patterns
that will support a variety of residential uses including medium to high density uses, such as
condos, townhomes and apartments. In addition, the Housing chapter of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan includes the goal - continue to strive for a mix of housing that
City Council Report 2019-084
Page 4
accommodates a balance of all housing needs. Policies to support these goals include:
• Ensure that the infilling of vacant parcels and the rehabilitation of existing developed land
will be in accordance with uses specified in the Comprehensive Plan.
• Work to assure strong and well-maintained neighborhoods.
• Work to enhance a variety of residential land uses in the City.
• Work to balance the supply of multiple family residential uses within the City.
By comparison, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins guides this property
as Downtown Center. The City envisions this area as the central economic, social and civic
district for Hopkins and the region. Development in this area should include moderate to high
density mixed use development designed to complement and enhance the existing development
pattern in these areas and support the public investment in transit. This area is expected to
absorb significant amount of anticipated future growth.
Maintaining downtown Hopkins’ unique identity and sense of place must be a central
consideration when planning for future growth. Mixed uses (vertical and horizontal) are
encouraged. Overall, this land use category should include medium to larger scale neighborhood
and regional uses. Densities in this area typically range from 20-100 units per acre, with 50-100
units per acre within ¼ mile of an LRT station platform. The estimated mix of uses throughout
the land use category should be 40% commercial and 60% residential.
The 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins organizes goals and policies by the
four environments – Built, Natural, Social and Economic. Goals and policies that support this
proposal are listed below by those environments.
Built Environment - Land Use Goals
1. Welcome growth to the city by directing most of new housing and employment to the city’s
mixed use centers and employment districts, allowing for the continuation of the scale and
character of Hopkins’ existing neighborhoods.
• Encourage the development of housing and employment in Neighborhoods, Centers,
and Districts future land use categories, as defined and designated in the comprehensive
plan.
• Encourage transit-oriented development (development that emphasizes pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity and a broader mix of uses at densities that support transit) in areas
with high quality transit service, especially within a quarter mile of light rail stations or
high frequency bus routes.
• Plan for appropriate amenities, high quality design, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and
open space in high growth areas, particularly in the Neighborhood Center, Activity
Center, and Downtown Center future land use categories or other areas in close
proximity to transit.
2. Create and develop mixed use centers and districts throughout the city, to support livability
and community vitality.
• Promote the development of high density transit oriented mixed use development
City Council Report 2019-084
Page 5
around planned Green Line Extension light rail stations
5. Reinforce Hopkins’ unique identity and sense of community through high quality urban
design.
• Reinforce the distinctive characteristics of Downtown and existing neighborhoods by
encouraging developments that are compatible in design and supportive within their
context.
7. Encourage all public and private developments to be well designed, durable, human-scaled,
and pedestrian oriented.
• Encourage all new projects to have a positive relationship to the street by orienting main
entrances to the front of the property, connecting the front door to the sidewalk, and
reducing parking between the building and the street as much as possible.
• Encourage all development projects to be durable and environmentally responsible.
• Encourage all developments to incorporate common spaces (interior or exterior) that
help enhance the public realm and sense of community.
Built Environment - Housing Goals
1. Grow the supply of housing in Hopkins, particularly in targeted areas.
• Support the development of moderate to high-density housing in appropriate locations,
particularly near commercial nodes and activity centers.
2. Maintain an inventory of housing that is affordable to low and moderate income households.
• Support preservation, production, and protection of affordable housing units.
• Support programs and initiatives that create long-term affordable units.
• Strengthen partnerships with developers, nonprofits, banks, and others to create and
preserve affordable units.
Economic Environment – Economic Competitiveness Goals
4. Promote economic equity in Hopkins, to benefit residents regardless of identity or
background.
• Encourage the development and maintenance of affordable housing and commercial
space.
Zoning Review. The subject property is zoned R-5, High Density Multiple Family. The site is
also located within the Downtown Overlay District. Based on the goals and policies of the 2040
Comprehensive Plan and project needs, the applicant anticipates requesting rezoning to the
Mixed Use district. These standards and staff’s findings for each are detailed below.
Downtown Development Standards. The Downtown Development standards address parking
design, location of the pedestrian entrance, and the building bulks standards including height,
setbacks and floor to area ratio (FAR).
City Council Report 2019-084
Page 6
• Parking Design. Each off-street parking area is encouraged to be designed and located so
that parking lots on adjacent parcels may be linked. The off-street parking design and
location appear to lend itself to a potential connection with parking for a future development
to the north.
• Pedestrian Entrance. The principal functional doorway for public or direct-entry access into
a building shall face the fronting street. Corner entrances shall be provided on corner lot
buildings or have dual entries. A secondary entrance may be oriented towards off-street
surface parking. The current design meets this standard.
• Height. The Mixed Use district requires a minimum 4-story building from the alley south of
Mainstreet to Excelsior Boulevard. The concept plan calls for a 4-story building in
conformance with this standard.
• Floor to Area Ratio (FAR). The Mixed Use district establishes a minimum 3 and a
maximum 5 floor to area ration (FAR). FAR is a measurement of density calculated by
dividing the floor area of a building by the lot area of the parcel on which the building is
located. According to the applicant’s plans, the subject property has a FAR of 1.63, which
is below the minimum requirement.
• Setbacks. Setback standards for the Mixed Use district are detailed in the table below. From
this information, the concept plan meets the required setback.
Setback Requirements for the Mixed Use District
Category Required Proposed Status
Front (East) Minimum = 1’
Maximum = 5’
5’ Conforming
Side (North & South) 0’ (Zero) North = 58’
South = 5’
Conforming
Rear (West) 10’ 40’ 6 and ½” Conforming
Off-Street Parking & Travel Demand Management. The Mixed Use district requires a minimum
of one enclosed parking stall per unit and one guest stall per 15 units. Based on these standards,
the property must provide 50 enclosed stalls and 4 guest stalls for a total of 54 stalls. By
comparison, the concept plan includes 43 enclosed and 12 surface stalls for a total of 55 stalls.
The concept plan also identifies 11 additional “proof of parking” stalls that could be constructed
should conditions warrant. However, staff believes that access limitations will necessitate
elimination of at least 2 surface and 1 “proof of parking” stalls bringing the concept design to a
total of 53 stalls. This is 1 stall short of the overall requirement and 7 stalls short of the enclosed
parking requirement. Staff recommends the applicant redesign the parking maximize the
number of underground stalls and comply with minimum 55 off-street stall requirement (subject
to completion of an parking and travel demand study).
Category Angled Parking Standards
Angle 0° 30° 45° 60° 75° 90°
Maneuvering Lane Width 12’ 13’ 16’ 18’ 21’ 24’
Stall Length 18’ – 20’ 18’ – 20’ 18’ – 20’ 18’ – 20’ 18’ – 20’ 18’ – 20’
City Council Report 2019-084
Page 7
The City’s off-street parking standards allow for and the applicant has agreed to conduct, a
parking and travel demand management study to identify specific traffic impacts and parking
needs for the proposed uses. The applicant plans to conduct this study as part of their future
formal land use and zoning applications.
Bicycle Parking. According to the applicant’s narrative, the proposed development will conform
to the Mixed Use district bicycle parking standards of 1 long-term bicycle parking space per 2
units and 1 short-term bicycle parking space per 20 units. However, their plans fail to illustrate
the location of these required short and long-term bicycle parking spaces. Based on the current
design, the development must provide a minimum of 3 short term and 25 long term bicycle
parking stalls.
Shadow Study. The Mixed Use district requires a shadow study for all buildings four stories or
higher. The applicant’s narrative pledges to provide a shadow study as part of their formal land
use and zoning application. No such information was included in their concept plan submittal.
Exterior. The Mixed Use district requires the primary exterior treatment of walls facing a public
right-of–way or parking lot on a structure shall be brick, cast concrete, stone, marble or other
material similar in appearance and durability. Regular or decorative concrete block, float finish
stucco, EIFS-type stucco, cementitious fiberboard, or wood clapboard may be used on the front
façade as a secondary treatment or trim but shall not be a primary exterior treatment of a wall
facing a public right-of-way. Staff defines primary as at least 80% of the wall while secondary
could be up to 20% of the wall. As illustrated on the attached building elevations, the building
fails to meet the exterior materials standards. The plans show the building is 53.8% brick on the
north elevation, 25% brick on the south elevation, 54.3% brick on the east elevation and 50%
brick on the west elevation. Staff recommends the applicant revise their plans to meet the
minimum 80% primary and 20% secondary materials requirement.
Building Orientation. Buildings within the Mixed Use district must be oriented toward the
pedestrian by providing a direct link between each building and the pedestrian walking system,
with emphasis on directing people to a transit station. The concept plan illustrates the main
pedestrian entrance to the building will connect to the City’s trail and sidewalk network along
12th Avenue North. This network provides direct pedestrian access to the existing transit routes
along Mainstreet and 11th Avenue South as well as a connection to the future Downtown
Hopkins and Shady Oak light rail transit stations.
Façade. The primary street side façade of a building shall not consist of an unarticulated blank
wall, flat front facades or an unbroken series of garage doors. The front of a building shall be
broken up into individual bays of a minimum of 25 feet and maximum of 40 feet wide. The
concept plan fails to meet this standard on any side of the building. The south side of the
buildings has breaks of more than 60 feet while the east and west sides have breaks exceeding 70
feet. Staff recommends the applicant revise their plans to meet the minimum façade articulation
standards.
Sidewalks. The Mixed Use district requires a minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk along the frontage
of all public streets and within and along the frontage of all new development or redevelopment.
The concept plan shows sidewalks along both 1st Street South and 12th Avenue South but does
not include sidewalk along 13th Avenue South. The applicant shall revise their plans to include a
sidewalk at least 5 feet wide along 13th Avenue South that connects to the existing sidewalk to
City Council Report 2019-084
Page 8
the north. Dedication of additional right-of-way may be necessary to accommodate the required
sidewalk.
Pedestrian/Streetscapes. The Mixed Use district requires pedestrian streetscape improvements
along all sidewalks. If the existing right-of-way does not allow for street trees, landscaping, trees,
planters or street furniture, they will be added to the interior side of the sidewalk where the
setback will allow.
Pedestrian improvements of at least 25 percent of the landscaping budget shall be included in
the development. These improvements shall create a high quality pedestrian experience through
the provision of benches, planters, drinking fountains, waste containers, median landscaping, etc.
Pedestrian-scale light fixtures that shine downward on the sidewalks and walkways shall be no
greater than 12 feet in height and must be provided along all sidewalks and walkways to provide
ample lighting during nighttime hours for employees, residents, and customers.
Landscaping. All open areas of a lot that are not used or improved for required parking areas
and drives shall be landscaped with a combination of over-story trees, under-story trees, shrubs,
flowers and ground cover materials. The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover,
bushes, shrubbery, trees, sculptures, fountains, decorative walks or other similar site design
features or materials. The applicant shall provide a detailed landscaping plan demonstrating
compliance with these requirement and the minimum project value standards as part of their
formal land use and zoning application.
Signs, Canopies and Awnings. The concept plans do not include sign plans. All signs must be
approved through a separate administrative permit subject to conformance with the standards of
the Mixed Use district and sign regulations contained in Section 570.
Trash Enclosure. The applicant plans to store trash containers within the underground parking
garage. The applicant shall designate an on-site location for trash pickup. Trash pick-up shall
not occur within the public right-of-way.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
The Engineering Department completed an initial review of the applicant’s concept plans.
Based on this review, the Engineering Department offers the following comments.
• The applicant will need to escrow funds with the city to have a traffic and parking study
completed.
• The applicant will need to escrow funds with the city to allow for a review of the city’s water
model to ensure the building can be served and to recommend improvements by the
developer if necessary.
POTENTIAL REVIEW PROCESS
Based on the applicant’s concept plan, staff anticipates this project will need the approval listed
below. The applicant should use feedback from the Planning & Zoning Commission and City
Council to prepare these applications.
• Comprehensive Plan amendment.
• Rezoning from R-5, High Density Residential to Mixed Use with a Planned Unit
City Council Report 2019-084
Page 9
Development (PUD).
• Administrative Subdivision approval. As proposed by the concept plan, this process would
not require additional review by the Planning & Zoning Commission or approval by the City
Council.
• Execution of a Planned Unit Development Agreement.
• Approvals from the Nile Mile Creek Watershed District.
Planned Unit Development. The purpose of a planned unit development is to allow flexibility
from traditional development standards in return for a higher quality development. Typically, the
City looks for a developer to exceed other zoning standards, building code requirements or meet
other goals of the Comprehensive Plan. In exchange for the flexibility offered by the planned
unit development, the applicant is expected to detail how they intend to provide a higher quality
development or meet other City goals. A list of items to consider when evaluating the use of a
planned unit development for this site could include, but is not limited to, the items listed below.
• Architectural design and building materials
• Natural resource protection and storm water management
• Pedestrian and bicycle facilities
• Energy conservation and renewable energy
• Open space
• Public art
• Buffering and landscaping
\\lisa\share\Planning\2019\Projects\2019-11-CON Beacon Multifamily Housing Concept Plan\190624 Jason Lindahl Mixed Use Memo.docx Page 1 of 2
RE: COMPLIANCE WITH MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
The goal of this multi-unit development is to comply with as many mixed-use zoning standards as possible while integrating
with its surroundings in compatible use, scale and operation transitions to neighboring uses. In addition, these standards must
be balanced with the privacy and comfort of this specific multi-unit population.
543.03 Parking Per statute a minimum of one enclosed parking stall per unit and one guest stall per 15 units must be
provided. Vista 44 will provide 43 enclosed stalls for 50 units along with 13 surface stalls. Four of the surface stalls will be for
guests and 9 will be for residents if not reduced by a TDM plan/parking & transportation study approved by the City Council.
Proof of parking will provide the balance of the required number of parking spaces.
543.04 Travel Demand Management Plan Beacon is commissioning a TDM plan/parking and transportation study.
543.05 Shared Parking Not being considered at this time.
543.06 Bicycle Parking The required 1 bike parking space per unit will be provided for long term use in addition to 1 per 20
units for short term. Such parking will meet the rest of standards 543.06.
543.07 Shadow Study A shadow study will be provided.
543.08 Exterior Beacon requests alternative compliance for Nichiha siding to be allowed as a primary exterior treatment..
543.09 Building Orientation A direct link between the building and the pedestrian walking system will be provided with
emphasis on directing people to a transit station.
1. Façade: the front of the building will be articulated.
2. Blocks: Not applicable
3. Height: Not applicable
543.10 Transparency A minimum of 60% of the front street facing façade between 2 and 8 feet will be comprised of clear
windows that allow views of indoor space. Side facades facing a public right of way will have a minimum of 30 percent clear
windows.
543.11 Sidewalks Sidewalks with a minimum width of 5 feet will be constructed along all public streets.
JASON LINDAHL
jlindahl@hopkinsmn.com
BART NELSON
bnelson@urban-works.com
City Planner
City Hall
1010 First Street South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
CC
Chris Dettling
UrbanWorks Architecture LLC
901 North Third Street Suite 145
Minneapolis, MN 55401
612.455.3100
June 27, 2019
Beacon Vista 44
19-0013
\\lisa\share\Planning\2019\Projects\2019-11-CON Beacon Multifamily Housing Concept Plan\190624 Jason Lindahl Mixed Use Memo.docx Page 2 of 2
543.12 Pedestrian/Streetscapes The standards in 543.12 will be met.
543.13 Landscaping The standards in 543.13 will be met.
543.14 Indoor/Outdoor Operations A conditional use permit may be required for a play area.
543.15 Signs, Canopies and Awnings The standards in 543.15 will be met.
543.16 Drive through Not applicable.
543.17 Urban Neighborhood Not applicable.
543.18 Downtown
1. Not applicable
2. Development standards will be met
3. Outdoor Gathering Space standards will be met.
4. Minimum height will be met.
5. Setback standards will not be met due to the privacy and comfort of the specific resident population.
Downtown Overlay District
Awnings Awnings are not included in the design at this time..
Color The building will use primarily earth tones with light and bright colors used only as minor accents.
Fenestration Large windows will allow visual connection with 1st Floor amenity spaces. Reflective or tinted glass more than
40% will not be allowed
Franchise Architecture Vista 44 will not be branded using an architectural style of a company.
Heights & Setbacks Vista 44 will not exceed four stories and any setbacks (desired for resident privacy) from other
neighboring buildings will be pedestrian-oriented and contribute to the quality and character of the streetscape.
Landscaping Landscape treatments will be used to enhance the pedestrian experience, complement architectural features
and scree utility areas.
Lighting Building and signage lighting will be indirect with the light source hidden from direct pedestrian and motorist view.
Colored lighting schemes will be avoided.
Materials & Detailing Beacon requests Nichiha as an alternative primary exterior material.
Parking & Rear Entrances Off street parking is located within the structure or to the rear of the building. Entrance to the
garage will be clean and improved with an architectural feature.
Roofs & Parapets A flat roof is preferred by Beacon but if neighbors request a sloped roof it will be used to reduce the overall
height of the façade and define the residential character of the upper floors.
Signs Vista 44 will comply with standards outlined in the Downtown Overlay District
Streetscape The new streetscape incorporate approved Hopkins streetscape elements.
Utility Areas & Mechanical Equipment Screening Vista 44 will comply with the standards outlined in the Downtown Overlay
District.
Width The façade of Vista 44 will be articulated with divisions or breaks in materials in facades that are longer than 45 feet.
RESTAURANTS
1 Thirsty Bales 0.1
2 Wild Boar Bar & Grill 0.2
3 Nacho’s Mexican Grill 0.2
4 Wendy’s 0.3
5 Star Wok 0.2
6 Samba Taste of Brazil 0.2
7 Hoagie’s Family Restaurant 0.3
8 Mainstreet Bar & Grill 0.3
9 Pub 819 0.3
10 Tibet Corner 0.3
11 Jasmine Garden Restaurant 0.3
12 Chipotle Mexican Grill 0.3
13 Aji Japanese Restaurant 0.3
14 LTD Brewery 0.3
COFFEE
1 Munkabeans Café 0.2
2 Cream & Amber 0.3
3 Amy’s Cupcake W 0.4
GROCERIES
1 Hopkins Farmer’s Market 0.2
2 Driskill’s Downtown Market 0.3
3 Paradise Market 0.3
4 Midnite Market 0.4
5 La Bamba - Mexican Bakery 0.6
PARKS
1 Central Park 0.1
2 Downtown Park 0.2
3 Maetzold Field 0.4
4 Buffer Park 0.7
5 Overpass Skatepark 0.7
6 Burnes Park 0.7
SCHOOLS / CHILD CARE
1 Noah’s Ark 0.2
2 Curren School 0.3
3 Ubah Medical Academy 0.3
4 Alice Smith Elementary School 0.8
5 Orchard Park Child Care 0.8
6 Eisenhower Elementary 0.7
ENTERTAINMENT
1 Mann Hopkins Cinema 6 0.1
2 Hopkins Center fo rthe Arts 0.1
3 Boutin Art Gallery 0.2
4 Hopkins Historucal Society 0.2
5 Hopkins Library 0.2
6 Royal Comedy Theatre 0.3
BANKS
1 Wells Fargo Bank 0.1
2 Citizens Independent Park 0.2
3 US Bank Branch 0.3
4 US Bank - Drive-Up 0.3
PLACES OF WORSHIP
1 St Gabriel the Archangel 0.1
2 Mizpah United Church of Christ 0.7
3 Cross of Glory Baptist Church 0.7
4 Faith Presbytarian Church 0.9
OTHER
1 Holiday Gas Station 0.2
2 Shamblott Family Dentistry 0.2
3 Hopkins Center Drug 0.3
4 My House Fitness 0.5
5 Snap Fitness 0.5
6 Studio 5 Pilates & Wellness 0.5
11
3
1
1
1
3
3
4
2
2
3
4
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
2 3
3
5
6 7 8
9
10
11
12 13
14
2
4
4 26
5
4
Planned Downtown Hopkins
Southwest LRT Station
Planned Shady Oak Station
and Park & Ride
The Artery
169
EXCELSIOR BLVD
SITE
MAINSTREET ROUTE 670 EXPROUTE 12
ROUTE 12
MINNES
O
T
A
RI
V
E
R
B
L
U
F
F
S
L
R
T
R
E
GI
O
N
A
L
T
R
AI
L
LA
K
E
M
I
N
N
E
T
O
N
K
A
L
R
T
R
E
G
I
O
N
A
L
T
R
A
I
L
NINE MILE CREEK REGIONAL TRAILCEDAR LAKE TRAILROUTE
6
1
2
&
6
6
4
E
X
PROUTE 61511TH AVE S8TH AVE SSHADY OAK RD 1/2 M ile 1/4 M ile TRANSIT
670 Express: Excelsior - Mpls
615 Ridgedale - Co Rd 73 - St Louis Park
664 Express: Hopkins - Excelsior Blvd - Mpls
12 Uptown - Excelsior Blvd - Hopkins - Opus
612 Uptown - Excelsior Blvd - Hopkins - Opus
2 1
5
4
5
6
2
1
3
1HOPKINS, MN / 07.12.2019 / 19-0013
Vista 44
VICINITY MAP
600’0’
1ST ST S 12TH AVE S13TH AVE SCONCEPT REVIEW APPLICATION 2HOPKINS, MN / 07.12.2019 / 19-0013
Vista 44 30’0’
SITE
SUB LEVEL
1ST ST S 12TH AVE S13TH AVE SCONCEPT REVIEW APPLICATION 3HOPKINS, MN / 07.12.2019 / 19-0013
Vista 44 40’0’
1056 SF
1240 SF
925 SF
925 SF
1195 SF
960 SF 960 SF
1195 SF
1ST LEVEL
1ST ST S 12TH AVE S13TH AVE SPROOF OF PARKING
PLAYGROUND PATIO
CONCEPT REVIEW APPLICATION 4HOPKINS, MN / 07.12.2019 / 19-0013
Vista 44 40’0’
1056 SF
1240 SF
925 SF
925 SF
1195 SF
960 SF
1195 SF
960 SF 960 SF 1075 SF
687 SF
863 SF
960 SF 1200 SF
2-4 LEVELS
12TH AVE S13TH AVE S1ST ST S
CONCEPT REVIEW APPLICATION 5HOPKINS, MN / 07.12.2019 / 19-0013
Vista 44 40’0’
CONCEPT REVIEW APPLICATION 6HOPKINS, MN / 07.12.2019 / 19-0013
Vista 44
NORTH ELEVATION
Brick:
53.8% Facade Coverage
Fiber Cement Lap Siding - Navy:
29.3% Facade Coverage
Fiber Cement Panel - Light Gray:
11.3% Facade Coverage
InsulTech:
5.6% Facade Coverage
CONCEPT REVIEW APPLICATION 7HOPKINS, MN / 07.12.2019 / 19-0013
Vista 44 20’0’
SOUTH ELEVATION
Brick:
25% Facade Coverage
Fiber Cement Panel - Light Gray:
31.4% Facade Coverage
Fiber Cement Lap Siding - Navy:
33.5% Facade CoverageInsulTech:
10.1% Facade Coverage
CONCEPT REVIEW APPLICATION 8HOPKINS, MN / 07.12.2019 / 19-0013
Vista 44 20’0’
EAST ELEVATION
Fiber Cement Lap Siding - Navy:
13.9% Facade Coverage
Fiber Cement Panel - Light Gray:
22.9% Facade Coverage
Brick:
54.3% Facade Coverage
InsulTech:
8.9% Facade Coverage
CONCEPT REVIEW APPLICATION 9HOPKINS, MN / 07.12.2019 / 19-0013
Vista 44 20’0’
WEST ELEVATION
Fiber Cement Lap Siding - Navy:
19.5% Facade Coverage
InsulTech:
10.1% Facade Coverage
Brick:
50.1% Facade Coverage
Fiber Cement Panel - Light Gray:
20.3% Facade Coverage
CONCEPT REVIEW APPLICATION 10HOPKINS, MN / 07.12.2019 / 19-0013
Vista 44 20’0’
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
PARKINGCORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDORSECTION
CONCEPT REVIEW APPLICATION 11HOPKINS, MN / 07.12.2019 / 19-0013
Vista 44
Development Summary
Beacon Vista 44 - Hopkins PUD
Updated 06/04/2018Updated 06/27/2019
Description Gross SF Parking GSF Utilities Residential
GSF Res. Amenity Residential
NLSF Efficiency Open Space Paved Surfaces Enclosed Stalls Surface Stalls Res. Units
0 Parking 17,592 17,592 350 - - 43 13
1 Residential Lobby/ Apartments 17,592 200 9,995 7,397 8,455 84.6% 18,208 7,760 8
2 Apartments 17,592 200 17,592 14,202 80.7%14
3 Apartments 17,592 200 17,592 14,202 80.7%14
4 Apartments 17,592 200 17,592 14,202 80.7%14
Total 87,960 17,592 800 62,771 7,397 51,061 81.3% 18,208 7,760 43 13 50
Unit Mix Mix # of Units # of Beds Units SF NLSF
Studio 0.0%- - - -
1 Bedroom 6.0%3 3 687 2,061
2 Bedroom 64.0%32 64 965 30,880
3 Bedroom 30.0%15 45 1,208 18,120
Total 100%50 112 1,021 51,061
Metrics
Total Dwelling Units 50
Enclosed Stalls / Dwelling Unit 0.86
Total Stalls (Enclosed + Surface)56
Total Stalls / Dwelling Unit 1.12
Average Unit Size 1,021
Above Grade SF / Unit 1,407
Gross SF / Unit 1,759
Site SF 43,560
Site Acreage 1.00
Dwelling Unit / Acre 50.00
FAR 1.63
CONCEPT REVIEW APPLICATION 12HOPKINS, MN / 07.12.2019 / 19-0013
Vista 44 40’0’
CITY OF HOPKINS
Memorandum
To: Jason Lindahl, City Planner
From: Nate Stanley, City Engineer
Date: July 12, 2019
Subject: Beacon Development – Vista 44 Comments
_____________________________________________________________________
In regards to the subject project, Engineering has the following comments:
The applicant will need to escrow funds with the city to have a traffic and parking
study completed.
The applicant will need to escrow funds with the city to allow for a review of the
city’s water model to ensure the building can be served and to recommend
improvements by the developer if necessary.
Engineering Dept.
From:Brigid Peterson
To:Jason Lindahl
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Hopkins Planning & Zoning Committee Meeting 7-29-2019
Date:Wednesday, July 24, 2019 1:17:02 PM
Jason,
The meeting concerning the Beacon request to build a Family Supportive Housing building on
12th Ave So in Hopkins was very informative.
As a owner at CitiGables across the street, I would like to pass on concerns that were
expressed after the meeting to ensure they are addressed.
Jim Shirley has made a strong point that Hopkins should make more Senior housing available
to long time residents as Hopkins already has a lot of low income housing. How much
consideration was given to the proposal to turn down Beacon and examine senior housing? Is
this a funding issue as we must have an investor come forward? What about low-income
senior housing?
We should clarify the use of the 7 staff of Volunteers of American?
1. Are all seven staff Full-time at this location?
2. Does the staffing change as the needs of the occupants change?
3. Does this staff exclusively serve the occupants of this building OR are the services open
to others? If so, please clarify further as this can bring additional traffic and parking
issues.
Building concerns
1. As you heard, many residents are concerned about congestion & parking.
When reviewing the drawings, it seems that all visitors will be guided to enter the
public parking from 13th Ave.
However, since the front of the building is on 12th Avenue, it encourages street
parking on 12th Avenue. What can be done to encourage parking in the guest
parking of the building? Was there any thought about changing the building or
parking orientation?
2. 13th Ave is a narrow street. Will the street be widened to accommodate
increased traffic?
3. How will school buses be picking up children? This building will bring in around
100 children to the area. CitiGables residents are concerned with school buses
idling on 12th Ave in the early morning hours.
Thanks!
Brigid
Brigid Peterson
32 - 11th Ave S
Apr 314
Hopkins MN 55343
From:Greg Zoidis
To:Jason Lindahl
Cc:zoidae@aol.com
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Vista 44 Affordable Housing
Date:Thursday, August 15, 2019 10:57:35 AM
Hi Mr. Lindahl, my name is Greg Zoidis and I’ve lived at 201 Homedale Road in Hopkins for almost 30
years. I’m a member of Plymouth Congregational Church downtown and on the board of Beacon
Interfaith Housing Collaborative. I’m also a “small time” senior housing developer with projects in St.
Louis Park, Eagan & Chanhassen (under construction). I’m writing in support of Vista 44 which will
provide supportive, high-quality apartment homes for 50 families.
I know there has been opposition to this project from some neighbors but I don’t think they’ve taken
the time to visit other Beacon communities and seen the high quality construction and quality
management of those apartments. With SWLRT we can expect lots of high-end development like the
Moline in our community over the next several years. As a person of faith, I believe in our obligation
to support those in our community who need help finding safe housing. The development of this
small parcel for affordable housing would be a significant benefit for our community- proving that
we support those who need help while adding to our tax base. To me, this project is a no-brainer
and I sure hope the City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission support Vista 44 as it goes
through the application and approval process.
Greg Zoidis
(612) 578-2138 cell
(763) 591-5135 office
gzoidis@prncapital.com
From:Budish, Jeff
To:Jason Lindahl
Subject:[EXTERNAL] RE: [EXTERNAL] Beacon Multifamily
Date:Tuesday, July 16, 2019 9:27:17 AM
Thank you! I will not be there, but think the concept plans look good. That is a great site.
Jeff Budish
Vice President
Capital Markets & Investment Services
Direct 952 897 7755 | Mobile 952 210 0598
Colliers | Minneapolis-St. Paul
4350 Baker Road, Suite 400 | Minnetonka, MN 55343
https://www.colliersinvestmentservices.com/multifamily-retail
From: Jason Lindahl <jlindahl@HOPKINSmn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 8:36 AM
To: Budish, Jeff <Jeff.Budish@colliers.com>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Beacon Multifamily
Hi Jeff – Beacon describes their project as multifamily affordable housing for families. I don’t believe
they have finalized their funding sources yet but it would typical for them to apply for affordable
housing tax credits. As this point, the concept review process focuses on how the proposal conforms
with the zoning standards.
You can review their concept plans on the City’s website by clicking here.
Thanks
Jason
Jason Lindahl | City Planner | City of Hopkins
1010 1st St S | Hopkins, MN 55343 | 952-548-6342 | 952-935-1384 Fax
www.hopkinsmn.com
From: Budish, Jeff <Jeff.Budish@colliers.com>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 5:52 PM
To: Jason Lindahl <jlindahl@HOPKINSmn.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Beacon Multifamily
Jason,
What type of Multifamily housing is this project at the St Joseph’s church in Hopkins. Tax
credit / Affordable? I am an owner in the property at 12th @ Main St.
Thanks!
Jeff Budish
Vice President
Capital Markets & Investment Services
Direct 952 897 7755 | Mobile 952 210 0598
Colliers | Minneapolis-St. Paul
4350 Baker Road, Suite 400 | Minnetonka, MN 55343
https://www.colliersinvestmentservices.com/multifamily-retail
From:ajdance@usfamily.net
To:Jason Lindahl
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Vista 44
Date:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 7:30:07 PM
Hello Mr. Lindahl,
I am a supporter of Vista 44.
My family moved to Hopkins in 1950. Katherine Curren was my grade school, I graduated from
HHS in 1962. Hopkins is a special community for myself and my family.
I am very much in favor of the Vista 44 community building in Hopkins for these reasons:
- Hopkins is a welcoming community
- People in a homeless situation need support, encouragement, education, etc
- People cannot get a job without an address, and cannot get a address without a job
- We, at Citigables are a senior community, having various job and housing histories – we can
be supportive and encouraging
- People need hope and Hopkins people can give hope to recover from a “hopeless” situation
A concerned citizen,
Judy L. Johnson
Citigables
Virus-free. www.avast.com
From:z-man
To:Jason Lindahl
Cc:z-man; jslay50@gmail.com
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Beacon Interfaith Housing Notice
Date:Monday, July 22, 2019 1:32:48 PM
Hi Jason
My name is Terry Zauhar and I live in the Citigables Townhome complex that is located kitty-corner
from the Hopkins City hall on First Street South between 11th and 12th Avenue. Our 14 townhome
units would be adjacent to the Beacon Housing complex. I am and have been on the Board of
Directors of our Townhome Association for many years and have lived here for over +20 years. I will
not be available to come to the Public Hearing on Tuesday; I am hopeful our President, Ms. Judy
Slayton will be able to attend but she will be traveling back from out-of-state and not sure she can
make it back. So I wanted to get your our concerns to you regarding this proposed first step on the
Beacon Housing Complex.
Here are the primary concerns we have with this type of building coming into our neighborhood and
they are not in any particular priority order as they are listed:
1. More Rental Units in Hopkins - 65% of the available housing in Hopkins is rental units. We
just finished up getting the Moline and Gallery Flats just east of us completed and occupied.
We have many, many other smaller apartment buildings around the area, most of them only a
few blocks away from our complex. There is plenty of lower income apartments available in
the area. Do we need more of that type of housing to keep driving up that rental
percentage??
2. Foot Traffic on our Private Drive - We have a private road on the back of our units leading
into our garages. Increased foot traffic ( this private road will be the “shortcut” of walkers
from Beacon to downtown) is bound to happen. We have had instances when we have a
garage door open, things end up missing/stolen. I lost a bicycle myself from leading the door
open just for a few minutes and then the bike is gone. When development can increase crime
via increased foot traffic, that is not a good thing.
3. Parking - I had a conversation with Jay Strachota, Parks and Streets, Superintendent recently
about our concern of our residents not being able to see around the closed parked cars that
park so very close to our exit out to 12th avenue. I stressed the safety concern we had for not
being able to see to pull out considering how quickly the cars turn off 1st street onto 12th
avenue. Safety issue or not, Jay explained to me in a very nice way that parking downtown
was difficult already and hence no “yellow line” could be added and take away even ONE
space. So now, we are going to put more pressure on the street parking with a building that
could house 150-200 people. I know the Beacon proposal has parking onsite for the
residents. But visitor parking will run over onto the streets and we are already very tight, as
explained to me by Mr. Strachota.
4. Property Values - A building of this type so close to us that blocks the green space of the park
has to hurt our market values of our property. This building will not be like the Moline with
regards to “upping” the property values considering how upscale it is the high cost of the
rents.
5. Green Space - We have so little of it left in our community. Putting up a four story building
eats up something that we are sure has the potential to be something that the community
can use and be proud of vs putting in anther four story building that takes away 100% the
beauty of Central Park to the residents of Hopkins who live to the East of the park.
6. Homeless/at Risk - With all the news about the trouble the City of Minneapolis has had on
this issue, it certainly begs the question if Hopkins does not have a homeless issue, why
should a building be located here to bring the homeless into our city?? We certainly realize
that people need help and more chance in life; we also realize the potential for increased
crime in our city via the struggle these folks are enduring. That struggle many times include
alcohol and drugs; and to support those habits, crime happens. These are facts endorsed by
all the struggles the city of Minneapolis is having.
Thanks so much for the letter on the Public Hearing and the opportunity to voice some of our
concerns to you regarding the project.
I have copied our President, Judy Slatyon, and hopefully you be able to meet her on Tuesday night.
Best regards,
Terry E. Zauhar
1107 1st Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343
Home 951-938-5465
Mobile 612-859-2386
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From:z-man
To:Jason Lindahl
Cc:z-man
Subject:[EXTERNAL] RE: [EXTERNAL] Beacon Interfaith Housing Notice
Date:Monday, August 12, 2019 10:24:26 AM
Hi Jason
Hope all is well. I see that the progress looks to be going well at the City Hall renovation so I hope
you are looking forward to getting back into our neighborhood. I have a few more questions for you
regarding the Beacon housing project that have come up since your Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting on July 23rd.
1. How wide was the distribution of the Public Hearing Notice ? Someone who attended the
meeting told me it was something like residences within 350 of the proposed building site.
This does not seem like a very deep dive into the population of Hopkins who might have some
either positive or negative feelings about the project. The concern would be this: a very
small number of residences were given the notice; hence a very small number of complaints
regarding the project could be construed the City of Hopkins that there is no concern buy the
citizens so hence we can move forward. Seems like something like this should have had
notice in the local paper vs a small, very limited direct mail notice.
2. How will the process work going forward ? Next step is the City Council meeting on August
20th. Will the council see the written comments (like mine and others) prior to the council
meeting? Or will they see them at the meeting. Will Beacon representatives present like they
did at the zoning meeting? Concern here is that Beacon comes in with the heavy duty
corporate presentations and that can be kind of overwhelming for the citizens who do not get
any formal time in front of either the zoning commission or the council. People tend to be
pretty quiet in formal meetings and he concern is that Beacon presentations trump the
feelings the of the citizens.
3. What happens after the council meeting in terms of decision making and timing? I am
assuming that a yes/no decision will not happen on site at the meeting on the 20th but would
like some clarity on that and how the process will work post the council meeting on the 20th.
4. In talking with some Hopkins Old timers, some who have served in high capacity at the city
government, I need some help in determining whether or not the church has the right to sell
the property to a developer like this. I have been told that there is a real possibility that the
land owner who sold the land to the church had a terms and condition agreement that was
part of the sales contract that stated that the church could not sell the land for commercial or
residential development. I certainly do not know if this is true or not, but I need some help
proving that the church is legally ok in selling the property to a developer. Has the City of
Hopkins reviewed the sales agreement between the church and the original seller of the land
to the church? Can I see this document somehow, someway ??
Thanks much, Jason. Be glad to swing by in person this week to discuss my questions as well.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Terry E. Zauhar
(612) 859-2386
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Jason Lindahl
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 2:02 PM
To: 'z-man'
Cc: jslay50@gmail.com
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Beacon Interfaith Housing Notice
Hi Terry – Thanks for sharing your comments. I will add them to the file for this project and share
them with the Planning & Zoning Commission when they review this application tomorrow night.
The City Council will also review this item during their meeting on Tuesday, August 20th starting at 7
PM.
Thanks
Jason
Jason Lindahl | City Planner | City of Hopkins
1010 1st St S | Hopkins, MN 55343 | 952-548-6342 | 952-935-1384 Fax
www.hopkinsmn.com
From: z-man <tzauhar@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 1:33 PM
To: Jason Lindahl <jlindahl@HOPKINSmn.com>
Cc: z-man <tzauhar@comcast.net>; jslay50@gmail.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Beacon Interfaith Housing Notice
Hi Jason
My name is Terry Zauhar and I live in the Citigables Townhome complex that is located kitty-corner
from the Hopkins City hall on First Street South between 11th and 12th Avenue. Our 14 townhome
units would be adjacent to the Beacon Housing complex. I am and have been on the Board of
Directors of our Townhome Association for many years and have lived here for over +20 years. I will
not be available to come to the Public Hearing on Tuesday; I am hopeful our President, Ms. Judy
Slayton will be able to attend but she will be traveling back from out-of-state and not sure she can
make it back. So I wanted to get your our concerns to you regarding this proposed first step on the
Beacon Housing Complex.
Here are the primary concerns we have with this type of building coming into our neighborhood and
they are not in any particular priority order as they are listed:
1. More Rental Units in Hopkins - 65% of the available housing in Hopkins is rental units. We
just finished up getting the Moline and Gallery Flats just east of us completed and occupied.
We have many, many other smaller apartment buildings around the area, most of them only a
few blocks away from our complex. There is plenty of lower income apartments available in
the area. Do we need more of that type of housing to keep driving up that rental
percentage??
2. Foot Traffic on our Private Drive - We have a private road on the back of our units leading
into our garages. Increased foot traffic ( this private road will be the “shortcut” of walkers
from Beacon to downtown) is bound to happen. We have had instances when we have a
garage door open, things end up missing/stolen. I lost a bicycle myself from leading the door
open just for a few minutes and then the bike is gone. When development can increase crime
via increased foot traffic, that is not a good thing.
3. Parking - I had a conversation with Jay Strachota, Parks and Streets, Superintendent recently
about our concern of our residents not being able to see around the closed parked cars that
park so very close to our exit out to 12th avenue. I stressed the safety concern we had for not
being able to see to pull out considering how quickly the cars turn off 1st street onto 12th
avenue. Safety issue or not, Jay explained to me in a very nice way that parking downtown
was difficult already and hence no “yellow line” could be added and take away even ONE
space. So now, we are going to put more pressure on the street parking with a building that
could house 150-200 people. I know the Beacon proposal has parking onsite for the
residents. But visitor parking will run over onto the streets and we are already very tight, as
explained to me by Mr. Strachota.
4. Property Values - A building of this type so close to us that blocks the green space of the park
has to hurt our market values of our property. This building will not be like the Moline with
regards to “upping” the property values considering how upscale it is the high cost of the
rents.
5. Green Space - We have so little of it left in our community. Putting up a four story building
eats up something that we are sure has the potential to be something that the community
can use and be proud of vs putting in anther four story building that takes away 100% the
beauty of Central Park to the residents of Hopkins who live to the East of the park.
6. Homeless/at Risk - With all the news about the trouble the City of Minneapolis has had on
this issue, it certainly begs the question if Hopkins does not have a homeless issue, why
should a building be located here to bring the homeless into our city?? We certainly realize
that people need help and more chance in life; we also realize the potential for increased
crime in our city via the struggle these folks are enduring. That struggle many times include
alcohol and drugs; and to support those habits, crime happens. These are facts endorsed by
all the struggles the city of Minneapolis is having.
Thanks so much for the letter on the Public Hearing and the opportunity to voice some of our
concerns to you regarding the project.
I have copied our President, Judy Slatyon, and hopefully you be able to meet her on Tuesday night.
Best regards,
Terry E. Zauhar
1107 1st Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343
Home 951-938-5465
Mobile 612-859-2386
Sent from Mail for Windows 10