Loading...
VII.4. Beacon Interfaith Housing Apartment Building (Vista 44) Rezoning & Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Site Plan Review; Lindahl November 4, 2019 City Council Report 2019-112 Beacon Interfaith Housing Apartment Building (Vista 44) Rezoning & Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Site Plan Review Proposed Action: Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission adopt the following motions: • Move to adopt Resolution 2019-089 approving the first reading of Ordinance 2019-1144 rezoning the subject from R-5 High Density Multiple Family to Mixed Use with a planned unit development, subject to conditions. • Move to adopt Resolution 2019-090 approving the PUD site plan for the Beacon Multiple Family Apartment Building (Vista 44), subject to conditions. Overview The applicant, Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative (Vista 44 Housing Limited Partnership), requests site plan, rezoning and planned unit development (PUD) approvals to allow construction of a 4-story 50-unit 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 HDR - High Density Residential by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and zoned R-5, High Density Multiple Family. The key policy decision with this application is the proposed rezoning from R-5, High Density Multiple Family to Mixed Use with a PUD. The Mixed Use district was identified because it more closely fit the applicant’s vision for the development, the surrounding downtown development pattern, and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Both the R-5 and Mixed Use districts have similar building height and density standards. However, the Mixed Use district offers additional development standards that are more consistent with the downtown development pattern and supportive of transit than the existing R-5 zoning. Should the City approve the rezoning, the project also requires site plan approval under the Mixed Use standards. The Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing to review this item on October 22, 2019. Based on the findings in this report, both the Planning & Zoning Commission and staff recommend approval of these requests subject to the conditions detailed in the attached resolutions. Primary Issues to Consider • Rezoning & PUD Review • Site Plan Review • Engineering Review • Subdivision Review Supporting Documents • Resolutions • Ordinance 2019-1144 • Site Location Map • Applicant’s Narrative • Public Comments • Plans • Engineering Comments • Parking & Traffic Study Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N ____ Source: _____________ Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________________________________ Notes: City Council Report 2019-112 Page 2 BACKGROUND Development Proposal. Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative is proposing a 4-story 50-unit multifamily apartment building on a 1 acre portion of the parking lot for St. Joseph church and Chesterton Academy. The proposed development would be located on the green space portion of the parking lot and not reduce the amount of parking available to the church or school. Based on the applicant’s plans, the following approvals are necessary for this project: • Rezoning from R-5, High Density Residential to Mixed Use with a Planned Unit Development (PUD). • Execution of a Planned Unit Development Agreement. • Site Plan Review • Administrative Subdivision and easement vacation. • Approvals from the Nile Mile Creek Watershed District. According to the applicant, the Vista 44 development will provide rental housing to families earning 50% or less of the area median income (AMI) and will be financed by federal low-income housing tax credits allocated by the State or Minnesota along with various loans and grants from other national, state, local public and private philanthropic sources. There are no City funds supporting this project. Although Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative is a non-profit 501(c)3 tax exempt organization, the development will not be exempt from property taxes. In addition to property taxes that will accrue to the state, City of Hopkins and the school district (estimated to be about $50,000 annually); the development will also pay permitting and utility fees estimated to be over $300,000. Concept Plan Review. The Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council reviewed a concept plan for this project during their respective July 23 and August 20 meetings. During the concept plan review, Beacon offered tours of their Edina development to the City Council, Planning & Zoning Commission and Hopkins residents. After holding a public hearing at the Planning & Zoning Commission and hearing additional public comments both in support and opposition to the project, the City stated general support for the project and rezoning to the Mixed Use zoning district with a planned unit development. Deviations from the zoning standards could be accommodated through a planned unit development process and the applicant should state what additional features they intend to provide with their development in exchange for the PUD. The applicant should use feedback from the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council to prepare their formal application. Neighborhood Meeting. The City’s public engagement process for this development goes above and beyond the typical statutory requirements for a public hearing and review by the Planning & Zoning Commission and approval by the City Council. It also requires the applicant to host a neighborhood meeting before the public hearing to explain the project, answer questions and take any comments. This meeting took place on October 10, 2019 at St. Joseph’s Church. The sign in sheet and a summary of the comments from the meeting are attached for your reference. Twelve people (including Beacon staff) attended the meeting and raised concerns about the building’s height, setbacks and pedestrian cut-through traffic across the townhome property to the east. Written Comments. To date, the City has received eleven separate comments about the Beacon proposal (6 in support and 5 against). These comments are from the following individuals or groups: 1. Kyle Bresin – supports proposal 2. CitiGables Condominiums – petition opposing the proposal. 3. CitiGables Townhomes – petition opposing the proposal. City Council Report 2019-112 Page 3 4. Faith Leaders – letter supporting the proposal. 5. Sarah Granger – supports proposal. 6. Maureen Golden – supports proposal. 7. Judy Saumweber – supports proposal. 8. Jim and Michelle Smith – opposes proposal. 9. Pat and Bob Stacken – opposes proposal. 10. Jerry and Marie Trafas – opposes proposal. 11. Cheryl Youakim – supports proposal. Planning & Zoning Commission Action. The Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing to review this item (Planning Application 2019-17-SP RZ & PUD) during its regular meeting on October 22, 2019. During that meeting, the Commission heard a summary presentation from staff and comments from both the applicant and the public. The first group to speak during the public hearing were members of the Beacon development team. Kevin Walker of Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative provided a summary presentation. Anna Petersmeyer, COO of Volunteers of America, shared information on Volunteers of America and the services that would be available to residents of Vista 44. Bart Nelson of Urban Works Architecture discussed the floor to area ratio, parking requirements and design standards for the development. Commissioner Hanneman questioned if there would be a preference for Hopkins. Mr. Walker provided information on the coordinated entry application system administered by Hennepin County and confirmed previous history with a community does not give an advantage. Commissioner Daly asked for more information on the green space for the development. Mr. Nelson shared that there are plans for a playground area, rain garden and will retain as much of the surrounding green space as possible. Following Beacon’s presentation, 23 individuals (12 in support and 11 against) came forward to address the Commission. 1. Rev. Zoe Kaester of Mizpah United Church of Christ in Hopkins spoke in support of the development. 2. Judy Johnson, 32 11th Avenue South, spoke in support of the development. 3. Alan Johnson, 32 11th Avenue South, spoke in support of the development. 4. Rabbi Jill Crimmings of Bet Shalom Congregation in Minnetonka, spoke in support of the development. 5. Tom Hudock, 325 13th Avenue North, spoke in support of the development. 6. Michael Semsch, president of National Handicap Housing, spoke in support of the development. 7. Charlie Flynn, 374 Althea Lane, spoke in support of the development. 8. Tim Buckley, 18 12th Avenue North, is not opposed to the development, but commented on current road conditions on 12th Avenue North and questioned if there would be street improvements with the project. Mr. Lindahl replied that no street improvements are included in the proposal, but the City does have a Street Improvement Plan that designates sections of the community for improvements each year. Mr. Lindahl said he would reach out to the City Engineer for a timeline. 9. Charles Claud, 32 11th Avenue South #109, shared concerns regarding the potential for unexpected expenses related to civil engineering, including parking, street conditions, and sewage and stormwater management. City Council Report 2019-112 Page 4 10. Gary McGlennen, 32 11th Avenue South #111, spoke in opposition of the development. Mr. McGlennen questioned the applicant paying for the traffic study. Mr. Lindahl clarified the process for traffic studies and that the City chooses the consultant, not the applicant. Noting a last minute change to the plans, Mr. McGlennen suggested the Planning Commission choose to continue for more information. 11. Jim Shurley, 32 11th Avenue South, spoke in opposition of the development with concern for the change in zoning. 12. Rep. Cheryl Youakim, 129 7th Avenue North, spoke in support of the development. 13. Pastor Scott Searl of Shepard of the Hills in Edina, spoke in support of the development. 14. Marie Trafas, 402 14th Avenue North, spoke in opposition of the development, instead preferring senior-owned condominiums. 15. Jay Hornbacher, 10 7th Avenue North, spoke in support of the development. 16. Terrie Winegar, 106 12th Avenue South, spoke in opposition of the development. 17. Greg Zoidis, 201 Homedale Road and Beacon Interfaith board member, spoke in support of the development. 18. Mark Muenchow, 1117 1st Street South, spoke in opposition of the development. 19. Elaine Schweitzer, 1101 1st Street South, spoke in opposition of the development, citing concern with neighborhood safety, background checks and application requirements for tenants. Mr. Lindahl replied that City policy requires rental property owners to administer background checks on all future tenants and to have that information on file. 20. William, a Hopkins resident, is supportive of the development, but had questions about illegal drug use or excessive use of alcohol by residents of the development and if there will be support systems in place for those dealing specifically with addiction issues and the long-term plan for continuing all supportive services. 21. Joan Schwartzbauer, 32 11th Avenue South, spoke in opposition of the development. 22. Michelle Poirier, 102 Wayside Road W, discussed value in ownership vs rental as well as lack of parking in the area. 23. Judy Slayton, 1005 1st Street South, asked the Commission to envision long term. After the public hearing, the following questions were addressed: • Unexpected expenses related to civil engineering including street conditions, parking, and sewage and stormwater management. Mr. Lindahl replied that the traffic study showed that the development would not create a need for improvements to the surrounding streets. The City Engineer reviewed the plans and did not identify the current water and sewer capacity as an issue. With regard to stormwater management, there is a condition of approval from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. • Mr. Lindahl presented clarification on staff recommendations provided in the reports and the legal authority of the City in reviewing proposals. • Commissioner Daly questioned the density change that would occur with the zoning change from R-5 to Mixed Use. Mr. Lindahl did not have exact numbers at the time, but replied that they would be similar. • Commissioner Hanneman asked about the contract for the development as supportive housing and the possibility for it to change in the future. Chris Dettling of Beacon Interfaith replied that a requirement by one of the financing sources (Minnesota Housing Finance Agency) is that supportive services be provided to the residents of the building for the duration of the loan agreement, typically 30-45 years. City Council Report 2019-112 Page 5 • Concern over safety and background check requirements. Mr. Walker of Beacon Interfaith commented that the application process is thorough and noted that those whom could adversely affect the well-being or pose a risk to the safety of the other tenants and the surrounding community will not be allowed to rent in the development. After the public hearing and some general discussion, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve both (1) the rezoning to Mixed Use with a PUD and (2) the Site. Each vote was 4-2 with Commissioners Balan and Stiele voting against the motions citing a desire for more time to review the recently revised site plan. REZONING & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property from R-5, High Density Multiple Family to Mixed Use with a planned unit development (PUD). The Mixed Use district was selected because it more closely fit with the applicant’s vision for the development and the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Both districts have similar building height and density standards. However, the Mixed Use district offers additional façade (building appearance), setback, parking, building orientation and exterior materials standards that are more consistent with the general downtown development pattern and supportive of transit than the existing B-5 zoning. Rezoning applications are considered quasi-judicial actions. In such cases, the City is acting as a judge to determine if the regulations within the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Ordinance are being followed. Generally, if this application meets the City's established requirements, it should be approved. The criteria to weigh when considering a rezoning application are detailed below. Based on these findings, staff recommends approval of the request to rezone the subject property from R-5, High Density Multiple Family to Mixed Use with a planned unit development (PUD), subject to conditions. It should be noted that State law requires a Super Majority vote of the City Council to approve any rezoning that changes from residential to commercial. In this case, the Mixed Use district allows commercial uses so the City Attorney finds a 4/5 vote of the City Council is necessary to approve this request. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds rezoning the subject property from R-5, High Density Multiple Family to Mixed Use with a planned unit development (PUD) would be consistent with both the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins. Staff reviewed the application under both comprehensive plans to provide the City Council a boarder future planning context as we transition to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. However, the 2030 plan stands as the City’s official policy document until final approval of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 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 City Council Report 2019-112 Page 6 apartments. In addition, the Housing chapter of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan includes the goal - continue to strive for a mix of housing that 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 a 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 in the Downtown Center. 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 around City Council Report 2019-112 Page 7 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. Compatibility with Present and Future Land Uses. Rezoning the subject property from R-5, High Density Multiple Family to Mixed Use with a planned unit development (PUD) would be consistent with surrounding present and future land uses. These uses are detailed in the table below. Surrounding Existing and Future Land Uses Analysis Direction Existing 2030 Future Land Use 2040 Future Land Use North Parking lot Multiple Family Residential Downtown Center South Multiple Family Residential Multiple Family Residential Downtown Center East Multiple Family Residential Multiple Family Residential Downtown Center West Park Park Open & Social Space The existing land uses surrounding the subject property include a surface parking lot and commercial City Council Report 2019-112 Page 8 to the north, multiple family housing to the south and east and Central Park to the west. Future land use designations for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan call for multiple family residential and park uses consistent with the existing land use pattern. The draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins plans for the subject property and those to the north, south and east to all be guided as Downtown Center (see description in Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan section above). Central Park to the west is guided Open and Social Space, which calls for a wide range of public and private uses where the community may gather for education, social and recreation activities. Uses in this district may include community centers, conservation areas, colleges or universities, libraries, parks, public or private schools, regional trails or recreational facilities. These areas are intended to retain their existing boundaries and character but may improve to meet the changing educational, social and recreational needs of the community. Conformance with New Zoning Standards. The zoning regulations for the Mixed Use district include both development and dimensional regulations and are reviewed in detail in the Site Plan Review section below. For the most part, the proposal meets the development standards for the Mixed Uses district with the exception for these items identified in the PUD section below. These deviation are acceptable to staff based on the planned unit development proposal from the applicant. This proposal and the necessary deviations from the Mixed Use district standards are detailed in the Planned Use Development section below. 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 this case, the applicant requests deviation from the maximum front (east) side setback from 5 to 7 feet, exterior building materials, floor to area ratio from 3.0 to 1.63, façade articulation and underground parking from 50 to 46 stalls. In exchange, the development will provide an additional 21 long-term and 13 short-term bicycle parking stalls beyond the ordinance requirement, incorporate public art into the building’s façade next to the front door and wrapped it around the on-site electrical transformer box; and install a 10 kilowatt rooftop solar system providing a cleaner and more affordable energy source for the building’s residents. In addition, the City is recommending the PUD require the applicant to provide supportive services to its residents as long as the property remains affordable housing. Based on the applicant’s proposal, staff recommends approval of a planned unit development, subject to conditions. SITE PLAN REVIEW Site plan review applications are considered quasi-judicial actions. In such cases, the City is acting as a judge to determine if the regulations within the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Ordinances are being followed. Generally, if this application meets the City's established requirements, it should be approved. The Mixed Use district standards are detailed in City Code Section 543 – Mixed Use. As planned, the subject property is largely compliant with the performance standards of the Mixed Use district. Proposed deviations are detailed in the PUD section above. Review of this development against the Mixed Use district’s standards is provided below. Based on these findings, staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to conditions. 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). • 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 City Council Report 2019-112 Page 9 to lend itself to a potential connection with parking for a future redevelopment of the church parking lot 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 applicant’s plans call for a 4-story 49’ 10” 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 ratio (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. This is below the minimum requirement, resulting in a smaller and less dense building than the applicant could be entitled to under the Mixed Use district. Deviation from this standard is acceptable based on the PUD proposal. • Setbacks. The table below compares setbacks for the existing R-5 district and the proposed Mixed Use district zoning categories. As designed, the site would not meet the setback requirements of the R-5 district but conforms with all but the front (east) yard maximum setback of the Mixed Use district. Setback Comparison for the R-5 & Mixed Use Districts Category R-5 District Mixed Use District Proposed Status Front (East) 30’ Minimum = 1’ Maximum = 5’ 7’ Non- Conforming Side (North & South) 15’ or ½ Height= 25’ 0’ (Zero) North = 27’ South = 8’ Conforming Rear (West) 25’ or ½ Height= 25’ 10’ 35’ 9” Conforming In the Mixed Use district, buildings require a minimum 1’ and a maximum 5’ front yard setback. The applicant is proposing a 7’ front (east side) setback. Prior to the Planning & Zoning Commission, the applicant revised their plans to increase the south and east side setbacks. This change was necessary to create area for a required 15’ setback from the St. Joseph’s church parking lot. It had the added effect of eliminating the optional proof of parking along the northern property line. Several of the comments from the public and the applicant requested south and east setbacks greater than the required 5’ maximum. Staff is agreeable to increased south and east side setbacks through the PUD provided it does not create other zoning violations. Off-Street Parking & Travel Demand Management. As designed, the proposal exceeds the overall off-street parking requirements for properties in the Mixed Use district but falls short of the required number of underground parking stalls. 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 should provide 50 underground and 4 guest stalls for a total of 54 stalls. City Council Report 2019-112 Page 10 By comparison, the applicant’s plans increased the number of underground parking stalls from 43 in the concept plan to 46 in the current plan. In addition, the site will have 12 surface stalls for a total of 56 off-street parking stalls or 2 more than required. The City’s off-street parking standards allow for, and the applicant agreed to conduct, a parking and travel demand management study to identify specific traffic impacts and parking needs. Findings from the study are detailed in the Engineer Review section below. Originally the concept plan included 11 additional “proof of parking” stalls that could be constructed should conditions warrant. However, the applicant removed this proof of parking when it was determined by both the zoning standards and the traffic and parking study that these stalls were not required. Bicycle Parking. As planned, the subject property will exceed the bicycle parking requirements of the Mixed Use district. The Mixed Use district requires 1 long-term bicycle parking space per 2 units and 1 short-term bicycle parking space per 20 units. Based on these standards, the development is required to provide 25 long-term and 3 short-term bicycle parking stalls. As part of the PUD, the applicant is proposing to provide 46 long-term and 16 short-term bicycle parking stalls. This is 21 more long-term and 13 more short-term bicycle parking stalls than required by the Mixed Use district standards. Staff finds this additional bicycle parking will be especially important given the subject property’s location close to transit and downtown Hopkins. Shadow Study. The Mixed Use district requires a shadow study for all buildings four stories or higher. The applicant’s plan include a shadow study that shows no significant impact on surrounding properties. Exterior. The Mixed Use district requires the primary exterior treatment of walls facing a public right-of–way or parking lot on a structure to 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. While the applicant’s plans fail to meet these standards, they have revised the exterior materials based on comments from the City Council during the concept plan review process. The revised plans now include a greater mix of brick and fiber cement siding in more colors to enhance the appearance of the building. The plans show the building is 44.8% brick on the north elevation, 56.5% brick on the south elevation, 74.6% brick on the east elevation and 64% brick on the west elevation. The proposed mix of exterior materials is acceptable based on the PUD proposal. Building Orientation. As proposed, the development meets the Building Orientation standards of the Mixed Use district. 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 plans show 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 applicant’s plans show greater façade articulation than allowed in the Mixed Use district. The Mixed Use district façade articulation standards call for the primary street side façade of a building shall not consist of an unarticulated blank wall, flat front facades or an unbroken series of City Council Report 2019-112 Page 11 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. According to the applicant, in response to comments received from City Council during the concept plan review they have revised the east (12th Avenue South) façade to be more substantially articulated and have given more emphasis to the building’s masonry base via different brick surface textures and color. This design is acceptable based on the PUD proposal. 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. There are existing sidewalks along both 1st Street South and 12th Avenue South. The applicant will add sidewalk along 13th Avenue South that connects to the existing sidewalk. To facilitate this sidewalk design, the City Engineer shall require the applicant to dedicate the necessary easement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. 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. A condition of approval shall require the applicant to provide and receive approval of a lighting and photometric plan prior to the second reading of the rezoning ordinance. To meet this standard, the applicant shall provide three street lights as required by the City Engineer along 1st Street South as well as other improvements necessary to meet the 25 percent of landscaping budget requirement. Landscaping. The applicant’s plans meet the minimum landscaping requirements of the mixed use district. This standard requires landscaping improvements equal to 1 percent + .10 percent of project value in excess of $4,000,000. According to the applicant, the project is valued at $11,000,000, which requires $121,000 of landscape improvements. The applicant’s landscape plan includes a variety of plantings and meets this requirement. Signs, Canopies and Awnings. The applicant’s submittal does 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. According to the applicant, the trash service will pull into the driveway to the underground garage and remove the trash containers from within the garage for each pickup. Trash pick-up shall not occur within the public right-of-way. ENGINEERING REVIEW An engineering review was completed on October 14, 2019 on the plans and transportation and parking study submitted for Site Plan Review, Rezoning/PUD and Administrative Subdivision dated City Council Report 2019-112 Page 12 09/20/2019. Plan Comments • Nine Mile Creek Watershed District approval required. Provide copies of all watershed permits. • Utility service excavations extending beyond the centerline of a roadway require a patch extending across the full width of the roadway. The road section patch must meet city of Hopkins standards. • A review of the city’s water model will need to be completed to ensure adequate capacity and fire flow exist at this location. The costs for review will be borne by the applicant. • Any old or unused sanitary sewer and water service lines extending into the site must be removed to their respective mains and disconnected. • The sanitary sewer at the proposed service connection location is PVC. • New sidewalk along the perimeter of the building must meet the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) act standards. • As part of the sidewalk improvements, the applicant must install a pedestrian curb ramp at the northeast quadrant of 13th Avenue S/1st Street S. • New driveway aprons shall meet city of Hopkins standards. Transportation and Parking Study Comments • Traffic generation from the proposed development is not expected to cause undue congestion or require traffic control changes as the surrounding roadway network has sufficient capacity. • Traffic generation from the proposed development is not expected to create safety problems or concerns. • Parking generation from the proposed development is not expected to create undue stress on the on-street system. Per the ITE Parking Generation Manual, this development is expected to create a peak parking demand requiring 68 spaces; the proposed on-site parking created is 69 spaces, 11 of which are proof of parking at this time. Ample on-street parking is available on adjacent streets. If on-street parking issues do arise in the future, the proof of parking may need to be developed. SUBDIVISION REVIEW 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. 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 will not reduce the amount of existing off-street parking provided for either the church or school. To facilitate this design, the applicant will need to subdivide the subject property. As proposed, 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. As part of this process, the applicant will need to dedicate an easement for the sidewalk along 13th Avenue South, vacate an existing utility easement and revise the plans to conform with all required setbacks including a 15’ from the edge of the church’s parking lot to the southern property line shard with the Beacon development. City Council Report 2019-112 Page 2 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 plan’s 50 unit design, this project would be required to pay park dedication of $150,000. ALTERNATIVES 1. Vote to approve. Voting to approve the first reading of the rezoning and site plan applications will allow the applicant to proceed with construction of a 4-story 50-unit apartment building, subject to approval of the second reading of the rezoning ordinance. 2. Vote to deny. Voting to deny the rezoning and site plan applications will not allow the applicant to proceed with construction of a 4-story 50-unit apartment building. Should the City Council consider this option, the City Attorney recommends it direct staff to prepare written findings based on the Council’s discussion and reasons for denial. NOTE: As detailed in the Rezoning section of the report, state law requires a super majority (or 4/5) vote to approve the rezoning. In addition, the site plan application is dependent on approval of the rezoning application. Should the City Council vote to deny the rezoning application, the City Attorney recommends the Council also deny the site plan based on the finding that it is inconsistent with the existing R-5 zoning. 3. Continue for further information. If the City Council finds that further information is needed, the items should be continued. 1 CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION 2019-089 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 2019-1144 REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM R-5 HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY TO MIXEDUSE – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WHEREAS, the applicant, Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative, on behalf of the Parish of St. Gabriel the Archangel of Hopkins, Minnesota, initiated an application (“Application”) requesting to rezone the real property legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”) from R-5 High Density Multiple Family to Mixed Use – Planned Unit Development to allow for the development of a 4-story, 50-unit multiple family apartment building; and WHEREAS, in connection with the Application, the applicant also submitted a separate application for a site plan for the planned unit development and an administrative subdivision application; and WHEREAS, the procedural history of the Application is as follows: 1. That the Application was initiated by the applicant on September 20, 2019. 2. That the Hopkins Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to published and mailed notice, held a public hearing on the Application and reviewed such Application on October 22, 2019 in accordance with state and local laws: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard. 3. That comments and analysis of all persons present, including City staff, were considered by the Hopkins Planning and Zoning Commission who, via Planning and Zoning Resolution 2019-12, recommended approval of said Application following the aforementioned public hearing; and WHEREAS, City staff has also recommended approval of the Application based on the findings outlined in the staff report presented to the City Council on the date of this Resolution, which is hereby fully incorporated into this Resolution as additional findings of the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Ci ty Council of the City of Hopkins the following: 1. All recitals set forth in this Resolution are incorporated into and made part of this Resolution, and more specifically, constitute the express findings of the City Council. 2 2. Based on the findings contained herein which include the staff report referenced above, the Application to rezone the Property to Mixed Use – Planned Unit Development to allow for the proposed development is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: a. Execution by the applicant of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement that meets all requirements of the City Attorney. b. Approval of the associated site plan application for the 4-story, 50-unit multiple family apartment complex and adherence to all related conditions. c. Approval of the associated subdivision application separating the Property from its current parcel and adherence to all related conditions. d. Approval of the aforementioned multi-family development by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and any other entity with jurisdiction over this matter and adherence to all related conditions. 3. Upon each of the aforementioned conditions being met, City staff shall update the City’s official zoning map to reflect the rezoning of the Property memorialized herein. ________________________ ATTEST: Jason Gaad, Mayor __________________________ Amy Domeier, City Clerk A-1 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Property Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, inclusive, Block 8, West Minneapolis, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with that part of the adjacent vacated alley that accrued thereto by reason of the vacation thereof, and part of Lots 13 and 20, said West Minneapolis, which lie southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 16; thence North 03 degrees 02 minutes 02 seconds East along the east line of said Block 8, a distance of 156.25 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 86 degrees 52 minutes 42 seconds West a distance of 264.42 feet to the west line of said Lot 20 and said line there terminating. 1 619648v1HP145-58 CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2019-090 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PUD SITE PLAN FOR THE BEACON MULTIPLE FAMILY APARTMENT BUILDING SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WHEREAS, the applicant, Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative, on behalf of the Parish of St. Gabriel the Archangel of Hopkins, Minnesota, initiated an application (“Application”) for site plan approval to allow development of a 4-story 50-unit multiple family apartment building on the property legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, in connection with the Application, the applicant also submitted a separate application to rezone the Property to Mixed Use – Planned Unit Development and an administrative subdivision application; and WHEREAS, the procedural history of the Application is as follows: 1. That the Application was initiated by the applicant on September 20, 2019. 2. That the Hopkins Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to published and mailed notice, held a public hearing on the Application and reviewed such Application on October 22, 2019 in accordance with applicable state and local laws: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard. 3. That comments and analysis of all persons present, including City staff, were considered by the Hopkins Planning and Zoning Commission who, pursuant to Planning and Zoning Resolution 2019-13, recommended approval of said Application following the aforementioned public hearing; and WHEREAS, City staff has also recommended approval of the Application based on the findings outlined in the staff report presented to the City Council on the date of this Resolution, which is incorporated into this Resolution as additional findings of the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hopkins that all recitals set forth in this Resolution are incorporated into and made part of this Resolution, and more specifically, constitute the express findings of the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota that based on the findings contained herein, the Application meets all of the City’s applicable regulations and is hereby approved, subject to the conditions listed below: 1. Approval of the associated rezoning application and execution by the applicant of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement that meets all requirements of the City Attorney, including without limitation the execution and recording of a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions memorializing all PUD requirements and as 2 619648v1HP145-58 detailed in the staff report presented to the City Council on the date of this Resolution. 2. Conformance with all applicable standards of the Mixed Use zoning district, subject to any flexibility expressly provided through the approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). 3. Adherence to all necessary permits and requirements of the City’s building, engineering and fire departments. 4. Approval of the applicant’s corresponding subdivision application and conformance with all related conditions, including without limitation granting any easements deemed necessary by the City. 5. Approval of the development project by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and any other entity with jurisdiction, and adherence to all related conditions. 6. Vacation of that certain 14’ utility easement that runs through the Property. The applicant shall submit to the City a petition to vacate said easement which will be processed in accordance with state and local laws, and shall further work to accommodate any utilities that maintain infrastructure within said easement, if any, as required under state laws, rules and regulations. 7. Payment of all applicable development fees including, but not limited to utility connection and availability charges, park dedication and City Attorney fees, which shall be more specifically memorialized in the aforementioned Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this 4th day of November, 2019. ______________________________________ Jason Gadd, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Amy Domeier, City Clerk A-1 619648v1HP145-58 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Property Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, inclusive, Block 8, West Minneapolis, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with that part of the adjacent vacated alley that accrued thereto by reason of the vacation thereof, and part of Lots 13 and 20, said West Minneapolis, which lie southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 16; thence North 03 degrees 02 minutes 02 seconds East along the east line of said Block 8, a distance of 156.25 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 86 degrees 52 minutes 42 seconds West a distance of 264.42 feet to the west line of said Lot 20 and said line there terminating. 1 619781v2HP145-58 CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2019-1144 AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM R-5 HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY TO MIXED USE – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the present zoning classification of R-5, High Density Multiple Family, upon the following described premises is hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof, said premises are hereby zoned Mixed Use with a Planned Unit Development (PUD). 2. The legal description of the properties to be rezoned is as follows: Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, inclusive, Block 8, West Minneapolis, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with that part of the adjacent vacated alley that accrued thereto by reason of the vacation thereof, and part of Lots 13 and 20, said West Minneapolis, which lie southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 16; thence North 03 degrees 02 minutes 02 seconds East along the east line of said Block 8, a distance of 156.25 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 86 degrees 52 minutes 42 seconds West a distance of 264.42 feet to the west line of said Lot 20 and said line there terminating. First Reading: November 4, 2019 Second Reading: November 19, 2019 Date of Publication: November 28, 2019 Date Ordinance Takes Effect: November 28, 2019 ________________________ ATTEST: Jason Gaad, Mayor __________________________ Amy Domeier, City Clerk Site Location Map for Beacon Development Subject Property     September 20, 2019    Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative (Beacon) requests the following five (5) entitlement applications  for Vista 44:     A. Site Plan Review: Beacon requests approval for the site plan as indicated on the attached  drawings for a four story, 50‐unit, multifamily housing development on the approximately one  acre parcel located on the south end of Saint Joseph’s Church parking lot.    B. Rezoning: Beacon requests approval to rezone from R‐5, High Density Residential to Mixed Use  Zoning. This is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.    C. Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Beacon requests the 2030 Comprehensive Plan be amended to  classify the Owner’s parcel as Mixed Use instead of the current High Density Residential.  In  addition, Beacon requests that the future 2040 Comprehensive Plan include the parcel as Mixed  Use in the Downtown Activity Land Use Classification.    D. Administrative Lot Split: Beacon requests that the lot be administratively split to create a new tax  parcel. This is simpler and more cost effective than re‐platting.     E. Planned Unit Development (PUD): As part of the land use application for Vista 44 Beacon is  requesting that the development be approved as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The  flexibility afforded by a PUD will allow for minor deviations from strict adherence to the Mixed  Use zoning standards in exchange for exceeding the standards in other areas. These minor  concessions, we believe, will be outweighed by the benefits the development can offer and will  result in an overall better development enabling the project to meet important city and  community goals and values.     1. Exterior Materials: The Mixed‐Use zoning classification requires the primary exterior  treatment of walls facing a public right‐of‐way or parking lot to be brick, or other material  similar in appearance and durability. After hearing feedback from the Planning Commission  and the City Council during concept review sessions and in discussions with City staff, a  greater amount of brick on street fronting facades relative to non‐street fronting facades is  preferred.  In response to this, we have added more brick to the east and south facades.  Since  we do not meet the minimum 80% primary material standard, Beacon is requesting flexibility  with regard to material type and percentage. Overall, we will have higher quality exterior  materials compared to many of the surrounding buildings and certainly higher quality  secondary materials—not just the code minimum (perhaps in recognition that the Mixed Use  code was written long before some of the modern materials were in use). We believe the  combination of materials we have proposed will deliver a great looking building and the  durability will ensure the building looks good well into the future.     2. Façade Articulation:  Mixed Use zoning requires that the front façade be divided into  minimum 20’‐0” and maximum 40’‐0” wide segments. While we do not technically meet those                  specific dimensional requirements, in response to comments received at Planning Commission  and City Council meetings we have revised the east (front) façade to be more substantially  articulated and have given more emphasis to the masonry base via different brick surface  textures and color.    3. Parking: Proposed plans call for 46 enclosed parking stalls and 12 exterior surface stalls.  The  number of surface and underground parking spaces will be consistent with the results of the   Traffic Demand Management Plan commissioned by the city. If the amount of parking  recommended by the study exceeds what we have proposed we are willing to provide 11  spaces as Proof of Parking which will allow additional parking to be constructed in the future if  actual demand exceeds the number of stalls constructed.  The proof of parking area will be  used as additional green space, enhanced stormwater management (through the reduction of  impervious surfaces), and a green buffer to the expansive parking lot to the north.      4. Environmental Sustainability and Energy Efficiency: PUD approval will enable us to invest in  sustainability through increased energy efficiency above and beyond code, additional  landscaping though the creation of a rain garden, energy production through a planned 10k  rooftop solar array,  and a robust underground stormwater management system.    5. Setbacks:  Mixed‐Use zoning classification requires setbacks to be no more than 5’. Setbacks  on the South and East are 5’‐0”.  Beacon is proposing an increased setback on the North (36’‐3  3/8”), and West (37’‐9 5/8”) to allow for more solar access to the neighboring properties, and  provide more landscaping. These increased setbacks enhance pedestrian walkability along the  sidewalk as well as resident comfort in the ground floor units. Portions of the building are set  back further (1’‐4” on the east and 4’‐8” on the south) to provide visual interest of the façade  and enhanced pedestrian and resident experience. The proposed site layout also allows for a  sidewalk to be added along with a grass boulevard strip with boulevard trees along the  western property line. To facilitate this, Beacon is willing to enter into an easement  agreement with the city along the western property line (or dedicate an 8’strip of land if the  property is replatted).         6. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Mixed‐Use zoning classification allows a FAR of 5. We have proposed a  FAR of 1.63 which is considerably lower than allowed.  This will result in a building that is  significantly smaller than what Beacon is entitled to build under Mixed‐Use zoning while being  more compatible with the surrounding properties.      7. Bicycle Parking: The development will provide 46 long term bicycle parking spaces within the  enclosed parking level as well as 16 short term bicycle parking spaces at the exterior.  This  exceeds the required number by 21 and 13 respectively.     8. Site Amenities: In addition to the exterior bike parking and sidewalk/boulevard  improvements, we also propose an exterior patio and a play structure (which is more  convenient for our youngest children and their parents then Central Park across the street).  We also propose to beautify the site by removing some of the overhead power lines that  crisscross the site.    From:Cheryl Youakim To:Jason Lindahl Subject:[EXTERNAL] Vista 44 Date:Thursday, September 26, 2019 10:27:28 PM Hello Jason, I wanted to reach out express my support for the Vista 44 project Beacon Housing is proposing for Hopkins. Over the years I have watched the wonderful work they have done in the area of affordable housing. I recently met with members of their board to hear about the Vista 44 project. And, I toured their 66 West Apartments in Edina as well. I believe that they would be a great addition and provide an needed service to our community. So, please add my voice of support to those you have recently received. And please let me know if you have any questions for me. Thank you, Cheryl Rep. Cheryl Youakim House Education Policy Chair Hopkins & St. Louis Park - 46B 591 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 (651)296-9889 rep.cheryl.youakim@house.mn Please sign up for my Weekly Updates at: https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/ASP/join.asp?id=15450 Jason Lindahl, City Planner City of Hopkins, MN Updated Oct. 16, 2019 Dear Mr. Lindahl, We are clergy and faith leaders representing congregations across Hopkins and the surrounding area, writing to share our support for Vista 44. The vision of Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative is that all people have a home, and as faith leaders, we are called to bring that vision to life. Leaders from the Hopkins School District, the ICA Food Shelf, and others have confirmed the need for more affordable homes in Hopkins for families with children. Beacon offers us a path forward for our community with Vista 44. Beacon has a history of success in building stable homes for those who need them most, addressing homelessness across the metro area – and partnering with Volunteers of America will allow Beacon to bring those expert resources to Hopkins. Among Beacon’s current projects are building supportive housing for men exiting incarceration, addressing the encampment of 2018 by building supportive housing for those experiencing homelessness in the Native community, and maintaining its existing 17 developments of high-quality apartment homes for individuals and families. As people of faith, we hear the call to justice, and the call to participate when we see a chance to act. We know that stable homes transform lives. We know we have the power to bring stable homes to more people in our community through Vista 44, and we stand in full support of the development. We turn to you, the city, to take the next step towards ending homelessness in our communities (and beyond!) by continuing to support Vista 44 as the project progresses through applications and approvals. You have the opportunity to change lives. We are counting on you now to put the needs of people with the lowest incomes at the center and invest in their future – a future where all people have a home. In faith, Rev. Zoe Kuester, Mizpah United Church of Christ, Hopkins Rev. Scott Searl, Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, Hopkins Rev. John Nelson, Gethsemane Lutheran Church, Hopkins Rev. Sarah Moat, Gethsemane Lutheran Church, Hopkins Fr. James Liekhus, St. Gabriel the Archangel Catholic Church, Hopkins Deacon Francis Tangney, St. Gabriel the Archangel Catholic Church, Hopkins Rabbi David Locketz, Bet Shalom Congregation, Minnetonka Rabbi Jill Crimmings, Bet Shalom Congregation, Minnetonka Cantor Richard Schwartz, Bet Shalom Congregation, Minnetonka Mike Ulasich, Mills Church, Minnetonka Rev. Meta Herrick Carlson, Bethlehem Lutheran Church Twin Cities (Minnetonka campus) Rev. Jay Rudi, Oak Knoll Lutheran Church, Minnetonka Rev. Kayla Monson, Oak Knoll Lutheran Church, Minnetonka Rev. Jeff Sartain, Edina Community Lutheran Church Rev. Jay Carlson, Edina Community Lutheran Church Deacon Lauren Morse-Wendt, Edina Community Lutheran Church Rev. Oby Ballinger, Edina Morningside Community Church Rev. Tom Cook, St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church, Edina Rev. Amelia Arthur, St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church, Edina Rev. Barb Martin, Union Congregational Church, St. Louis Park Rev. Dave Langille, St. Martin’s by-the-Lake Episcopal Church, Minnetonka Beach Rev. Cindy Hillger, St. Martin’s by-the-Lake Episcopal Church, Minnetonka Beach Rev. Christian Briones, Mayflower Church, Minneapolis Rev. Emily Goldthwaite Fries, Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative From:Jerry & Marie Trafas To:Jason Lindahl Subject:[EXTERNAL] Hopkins council and planning review plan affordable housing on 12th Date:Monday, October 14, 2019 4:05:37 PM Jason, I would like to introduce my husband and I. Jerry and Marie Trafas..402 14th Ave No..952 933-2370 We moved to Hopkins in 1970... rented a home on 5th Ave No and in Feb 1972 purchased our home at 402 14th ave. We have 2 children who attended Hopkins school and loved Hopkins. Home received residence of the year award 2014. We now are both 78 and so want to buy a senior condo in Hopkins. We are trying to get into City Gables but no units are available as yet for us. We want to be in walking distance of the downtown like we are now. We love our home but my husband has had cancer twice and the winter and yard work are just too much for us. We want to continue to support the local merchants and pay taxes just like we have done since 1972. We have heard about the affordable housing building that is being considered on 12th. We think that another senior owned condo building that tenants pay taxes and own is needed more. We have owned our home and paid taxes here for 47 years and want to stay here. There are others here that feel the same. Please reconsider this for Hopkins. Citi Gables has 49 units. There are 612 low incomer housing units already in Hopkins. We are going to attend the Zoning and Planning meeting on October 22 at 6:30 p.m. Jerry and Marie Trafas From:Judy To:Jason Lindahl Subject:[EXTERNAL] Support for Beacon affordable housing land use application Date:Tuesday, September 24, 2019 11:37:11 AM Hello Mr. Lindahl, As a Hopkins resident I am writing to express my support for Beacon's proposed family supportive housing proposal, Vista 44, in Hopkins. I hope that the Hopkins Planning and Zoning commission and the City Council will say yes to Beacon's land use application. Thank you, Judy Saumweber 1011 Feltl Court Apt 909 Hopkins, MN 55343 From:Patricia Stacken To:Jason Lindahl Subject:[EXTERNAL] proposed apartment building Date:Monday, October 14, 2019 12:03:59 PM Dear Jason Lindahl, We’re sending this email in regard to the proposed apartment building on the site located on the north side of 1st Street South between 12th and 13th Avenues South. We have lived in Hopkins for 42 years and believe it’s the best place to live! We recently sold our house on the avenues and moved to Citi Gables. We feel so fortunate to have such a beautiful place to retire at. It was so important for us to be able to stay in Hopkins and be condo owners. These units don’t come up for sale often and this is the only place, in Hopkins, for senior living on one level. We feel that there is enough rental property in Hopkins and strongly urge you to consider owned housing, preferably for 55+. We know plenty of other seniors who share the same views. Thank you for all you do to make Hopkins so extraordinary! Sincerely, Pat and Bob Stacken From:Kyle Bresin To:Jason Lindahl Subject:Vista 44 Support Date:Wednesday, October 30, 2019 11:38:40 AM Hello there, my Name is Kyle Bresin, a long-time (decade or more) resident of Hopkins. I live at 25 15th Ave N, Hopkins MN just a few blocks away from the Vista 44 proposed site. I often walk the dog near that site. My wife runs past that site on her morning jog every morning. My children have soccer practice in Central Park adjacent to that site. And I have two children in the same school distract as currently assigned to the site. And I just wanted to voice my support for the project. Sounds like it is desperately needed. I think more families in the area, regardless of economic condition, is a good thing for Hopkins. I have listened to some of first-hand accounts of residence who are against the proposal, and they all smack of the same sort of arguments that they used to shout down the proposed dog park that was planned for that same lot. A bunch of reactionary, unsubstantiated imagined nonsense fueled by bias. One of the conversations I had, they essentially admitted that they'd be fine with the building as proposed, if the planned occupants of the building were more retirees like them. Zoning is about buildings and acceptable usage of those buildings. It shouldn't be about judging the potential people who might use those buildings. Please pass on my support and my hope to the council that they will vote to approve the site (assuming it meets all necessary codes and other important city planning goals). Thanks for your time, kyle. Kyle B. kyle@bresin.com From:Maureen Golden To:Jason Lindahl Subject:Vista 44 Date:Tuesday, October 29, 2019 12:42:07 PM Mr. Lindahl, I am a resident of CitiGables Condominiums, which is just across the street from the proposed Vista 44 and I would like to voice my support for this much needed affordable housing in our community. As a city, if we can support the behemoth that is The Moline, and be grateful for the business it brings, it would seem that we could also support a much smaller building that would provide more affordable housing to so many that need it. It has been my observation that Hopkins is already very diverse, both ethnically and economically, and would be welcoming to this new addition. Sincerely, Maureen Golden 1ST STREET SOUTH13TH AVENUE SOUTH12TH AVENUE SOUTHAeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand100) AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand100) AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand100) AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand100) AeccDbSvFigure (AeccSurvey100) AeccDbSvFigure (AeccSurvey100) AeccDbSvFigure (AeccSurvey100) AeccDbSvFigure (AeccSurvey100) AeccDbSvFigure (AeccSurvey100) AeccDbSvFigure (AeccSurvey100) AeccDbSvFigure (AeccSurvey100) PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESURFACE PARKING 5' HEIGHT STEEL FENCE FE-01 PEDESTRIAN LIGHT LT-01 CONCRETE WALKWAY, SEE CIVIL P-01 ACCESS TO UNDERGROUND PARKING RETAINING WALL, SEE CIVIL TRANSFORMER EXISTING LIGHT POLE / OVERHEAD WIRE, TO REMAIN ACTIVITY LAWN PLAYGROUND ENTRY PLAZAPATIO CONCRETE WALKWAY, SEE CIVIL P-01 PLANTING BED, SEE PLANTING PLAN ENTRY RAMP AND WALL, SEE ARCH ENTRY STAIR BIKE RACKS CONCRETE WALKWAY, SEE CIVIL RAINGARDEN, SEE PLANTING PLAN 6'-0"6'-0"PEDESTRIAN LIGHT LT-01 BIKE RACKS SF-01 SF-01 SITE BENCH - TYPE B SITE BENCH - TYPE A SF-02 SF-03 CONCRETE - TYPE B P-02 ROCK MULCH SURROUND MM-01 STEEL EDGING ED-01 CONTAINMENT CURB CB-01 51'-10"23'-10"52'-7"21'-4" 5'-0"5'-0"6'-0" CURB SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY DETAIL MANUFACTURER PRODUCT/MODEL COLOR/FINISH COMMENTS CONTAINMENT CURB 184 LF 5/L501 CUSTOM CONCRETE STANDARD CONCRETE 12" WIDE X 12" HEIGHT, REINFORCE AS NEEDED EDGING SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY DETAIL MANUFACTURER PRODUCT/MODEL COLOR/FINISH COMMENTS STEEL EDGING 752 LF 3/L501 RYERSON 3/16" GALV. STEEL BLACK 4"X 3/16" WITH 12" STAKES - RYERSON OR APPROVED EQUAL FENCE & GUARDRAIL SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY DETAIL MANUFACTURER PRODUCT/MODEL COLOR/FINISH COMMENTS FENCE 256 LF 4/L501 AMERISTAR FENCE MONTAGE PLUS / MAJESTIC BLACK 5` HEIGHT WITH FROST FOOTINGS LIGHTING SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY DETAIL MANUFACTURER PRODUCT/MODEL COLOR/FINISH COMMENTS PEDESTRIAN LIGHT 6 LIGMAN ANESTI POST TOP BLACK PROVIDE 13` HEIGHT STEEL POLE MINERAL MULCH SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY DETAIL MANUFACTURER PRODUCT/MODEL COLOR/FINISH COMMENTS ROCK MULCH 1,110 SF N/A DRESSER GRAY TRAP ROCK NATURAL 3/4" DIA, 3" DEPTH OVER LANDSCAPE FABRIC PAVING SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY DETAIL MANUFACTURER PRODUCT/MODEL COLOR/FINISH COMMENTS CONCRETE PAVING - TYPE A 5,930 SF N/A CONCRETE STANDARD GREY, JOINT AS SHOWN SEE CIVIL FOR PROFILE CONCRETE PAVING - TYPE B 571 SF N/A COLORED CONCRETE CHARCOAL INTEGRAL COLOR / LIGHT SANDBLAST FINISH 2` X 4` JOINT PATTERN - SAW CUT, SEE CIVIL FOR PAVING PROFILE SITE FURNITURE SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY DETAIL MANUFACTURER PRODUCT/MODEL COLOR/FINISH COMMENTS BIKE RACK 8 2/L501 LANDSCAPE FORMS EMERSON BIKE RACK BLACK IN GROUND MOUNT PER MANUFACTUERES DIRECTION SITE BENCH - TYPE A 1 1/L501 LANDSCAPEFORMS BANCAL BENCH IPE / METAL - STORMCLOUD 88" BACKED, SURFACE MOUNT PER MANUFACTURER`S DIRECTION SITE BENCH - TYPE B 1 1/L501 LANDSCAPE FORMS BANCAL BENCH IPE / METAL - STORMCLOUD 88" BACKLESS, SURFACE MOUNT PER MANUFACTURER`S DIRECTION CB-01 ED-01 FE-01 LT-01 MM-01 P-01 P-02 SF-01 SF-02 SF-03 REFERENCE NOTES SCHEDULE SEE CIVIL SEE CIVIL N/A N/A SITE INFORMATION: LOT AREA:41,514 SF BUILDING FOOTPRINT:17,910 SF (43.1%) LANDSCAPE AREA:11,937 SF (28.8%) IMPERVIOUS AREA:11,667 SF (28.1%)© URBANWORKS ARCHITECTURE LLC, 2017901 NORTH THIRD STREET, SUITE 145, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY REVISIONS DATE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN REVIEW 10.22.2019 9/17/2019 8:40:25 AM19-0013 devon.lundy_detached.rvt10/22/2019 19-0013 SITE PLAN REVIEW B. Doucette J. Symynkywicz 401 North 2nd Avenue, Suite 410 Minneapolis, MN 55401 p: 612.332.7522 13th Avenue South & 1st Street SouthHopkins, MNMATERIALS AND LAYOUT PLAN L110 NORTH 0 SCALE:1"=12' 12 24 36 1ST STREET SOUTH13TH AVENUE SOUTH12TH AVENUE SOUTHAeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand100) AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand100) AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand100) AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand100) AeccDbSvFigure (AeccSurvey100) AeccDbSvFigure (AeccSurvey100) AeccDbSvFigure (AeccSurvey100) AeccDbSvFigure (AeccSurvey100) AeccDbSvFigure (AeccSurvey100) AeccDbSvFigure (AeccSurvey100) AeccDbSvFigure (AeccSurvey100) TURF BOULEVARD EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN, PROTECT DURING CONSTRUCTION4 - HY-P 18 - HE-C 4 - HY-P 14 - RI-A TURF SOD 2 - BE-P 2 - QU-B 7 - SY-R TURF BOULEVARD RAINGARDEN MIX (925 sf) 2 - AE-S 2 - QU-W 74 - SO-S 50 - DI-L 10 - RI-A 40 - SO-S 18 - HE-C 5 - PH-O 5 - HY-P 17 - PH-O 7 - HY-P 32 - HE-C 16 - PH-O 68 - CA-A 23 - DI-L 6 - GL-T6 - RI-A 13 - RI-A 13 - RI-A 47 - TA-M 41 - CH 5 - AC-R 9 - PH-O 18 - HY-P 18 - DI-L 3 - QU-W3 - QU-W PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINETREES CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME AC-R ACER RUBRUM `ARMSTRONG` / ARMSTRONG RED MAPLE AE-S AESCULUS SYLVATICA `AUTUMN SPLENDOR` / AUTUMN SPLENDOR BUCKEYE BE-P BETULA POPULIFOLIA `WHITESPIRE` / WHITESPIRE BIRCH GL-T GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SKYCOLE` TM / SKYLINE THORNLESS HONEY LOCUST QU-B QUERCUS BICOLOR / SWAMP WHITE OAK QU-W QUERCUS X WAREI `LONG` TM / REGAL PRINCE OAK SY-R SYRINGA RETICULATA `IVORY SILK` / IVORY SILK JAPANESE TREE LILAC TREE SCHEDULE SHRUBS CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CH CORNUS HESSEI `GARDEN GLOW` / DOGWOOD DI-L DIERVILLA LONICERA / DWARF BUSH HONEYSUCKLE HY-P HYDRANGEA PANICULATA `LIMELIGHT` / LIMELIGHT HYDRANGEA PH-O PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS `DONNA MAY` / DONNA MAY NINEBARK RI-A RIBES ALPINUM / ALPINE CURRANT SO-S SORBARIA SORBIFOLIA `SEM` / SEM ASH LEAF SPIREA TA-M TAXUS X MEDIA `TAUNTONII` / TAUTON YEW GRASSES CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CA-A CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA `KARL FOERSTER` / FEATHER REED GRASS PERENNIALS CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME HE-C HEMEROCALLIS X `CHICAGO APACHE` / DAYLILY SHRUB / PERENNIAL SCHEDULE SHRUB AREAS CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME RAINGARDEN MIX ALLIUM STELLATUM / PRAIRIE ONION IRIS VERSICOLOR / BLUE FLAG LIATRIS SPICATA `KOBOLD` / SPIKE GAYFEATHER PANICUM VIRGATUM / SWITCH GRASS RUDBECKIA HIRTA / BLACK-EYED SUSAN GROUND COVERS CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME T-SOD TURF / SOD GROUNDCOVER SCHEDULE ESTIMATED PROJECT VALUE: ($11,000,000) REQUIRED MIN. LANDSCAPE VALUE: $121,0000 (1% + .10%) -IRRIGATION $20,000 -PLAYGROUND                $20,000 -SITE FURNITURE             $8,000 o (BIKE RACKS / BENCHES / TABLES) -CONCRETE PATIO          $15,000 -RAIN GARDEN                 $10,000 -TREES                           $24,000 -SHRUBS                $  6,000 -GRASSES/PERENNIALS $3,500 -SOD                                $10,000 -MULCH/EDGER               $6,000 © URBANWORKS ARCHITECTURE LLC, 2017901 NORTH THIRD STREET, SUITE 145, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY REVISIONS DATE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN REVIEW 10.22.2019 9/17/2019 8:40:25 AM19-0013 devon.lundy_detached.rvt10/22/2019 19-0013 SITE PLAN REVIEW B. Doucette J. Symynkywicz 401 North 2nd Avenue, Suite 410 Minneapolis, MN 55401 p: 612.332.7522 13th Avenue South & 1st Street SouthHopkins, MNLANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN L140 NORTH 0 SCALE:1"=12' 12 24 36 UP A3012 A301 A302 A302 1 2 1 1 A401 A3032 A303 1 A304 1 A304 2 T TO PROPERTY LINE 35'-9 5/8"222'-1 7/8"121'-8 1/2"TO PROPERTY LINE27'-0 3/4"66'-4 1/2" 9'- 0 " 9'- 0 " 9'- 0 " 9'- 0 " 9'- 0 " 9'- 0 " 9'- 0 " 9'- 0 " 9'- 0 "5'-0"21'-2 1/8"12'-0"155'-7 5/8"50'-3"CANOPY OVERHEADCANOPY OVERHEADCANOPY OVERHEADCANOPY OVERHEADSTREET LIGHTING CONSISTENT w/ HOPKINS DESIGN STANDARDSSTREET LIGHTING CONSISTENT w/ HOPKINS DESIGN STANDARDSSTREET LIGHTING CONSISTENT w/ HOPKINS DESIGN STANDARDSCANOPY OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER PAD; TO BE WRAPPED w/ ARTIST-DESIGNED GRAPHIC, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY XCEL ENERGY.GUEST BIKE PARKING (6)CANOPY/TRELLIS OVERHEADPLAYGROUND; REFER TO LANDSCAPERAIN GARDEN; REFER TO LANDSCAPE BIKE PARKING (10)SITE LIGHTINGPLAY LAWN; REFER TO LANDSCAPEBENCHES; REFER TO LANDSCAPERESIDENTIAL EGRESSRESIDENTIAL MAIN ENTRY 1:20 SLOPED WALKBUILDING REAR ENTRYBUILDING EGRESSRETAINING WALLSPROPERTY LINEEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE EXISTING PROPERTY LINESLOPED DRIVEWAY; REFER TO CIVIL1ST STREET S 12TH AVE S13TH AVE SFUTURE SOLAR ARRAY; SIZE AND LAYOUT T.B.D. AND FINAL DESIGN MAY VARY VENTILATION INTAKE AREA WELL12'-0 1/4"10'-10"5'-1 1/4"7'-0" TO PROPERTY LINE 8'-1 1/4" TO PROPERTY LINE5'-1 1/4"PROPERTY LINE8'-1 1/4" TO71'-4 3/8"CANOPY FACE: 2'-2" TO PROPERTY LINE CANOPY-MOUNTED BUILDING SIGNAGE 12'-9"12'-0 1/2"32'-1"PROPOSEDREVISED PROPERTY BOUNDARY @ BACK OF CURB PROPOSED ON-GRADE PARKING (12)EXISTINGPROPERTY LINEBOULEVARD 7'-0 1/8" +/- WALK 6'-0" 9'- 0 "9'-0"A301 3 A301 4EXISTING ADJACENT ROW OF PARKING WILL BE RESTRIPEDR 1 4' - 9 1/8" R 1 1 ' - 6 3 / 4 " R 1 1 ' - 3 3 /8 " BEACON IS WILLING TO ENTER INTO AN EASEMENT OVER WEST SIDEWALK AREA NEW EDGE OF PARKING AREA AFTER RESTRIPINGNEW EDGE OF NEIGHBORING PARKING AREA AFTER RESTRIPINGNEW CURB CUT EXISTING CURB CUT & SIDEWALK EXISTING ADJACENT ROW OF PARKING TO BE RESTRIPEDEXISTING CURB CUT FUTURE SIDEWALK CONNECTION; N.I.C. EASEMENT 8'-0"27'-9 7/8"15'-0"5'-0"17'-11" +/-18'-0"18'-0"BOULEVARD 5'-11 7/8" +/- WALK 6'-0"© URBANWORKS ARCHITECTURE LLC, 2019901 NORTH THIRD STREET, SUITE 145, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY REVISIONS DATE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/22/2019 3:09:38 PMC:\!Revit Project Files\A20 19-0013 Central_JHighley@urban-works.com.rvt13th Avenue South & 1st Street SouthHopkins, MN9/20/2019 19-0013 SITE PLAN REVIEW JH DPSL ARCHITECTURAL LANDSCAPE PLAN AL101Vista 443/32" = 1'-0"AL101 AL101 -ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN1 UPUP A3012 A301 A302 A302 1 2 1 1 A401 A3032 A303 1 A304 1 A304 2 A301 3 A301 4 T TO PROPERTY LINE 35'-9 5/8"222'-1 7/8"121'-8 1/2"TO PROPERTY LINE27'-0 3/4"66'-4 1/2"5'-0"21'-2 1/8"12'-0"5'-0"155'-7 5/8"50'-3"PROPERTY LINEEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE1ST STREET S 12TH AVE S13TH AVE S5'-1 1/4"7'-0" TO PROPERTY LINE 8'-1 1/4" TO PROPERTY LINE5'-1 1/4"PROPERTY LINE8'-1 1/4" TO71'-4 3/8"CANOPY FACE: 2'-2" TO PROPERTY LINE PROPOSEDREVISED PROPERTY BOUNDARY @ BACK OF CURB EXISTINGPROPERTY LINEBOULEVARD 7'-0 1/8" +/- WALK 6'-0"15'-0"5'-0"EASEMENT 8'-0"27'-9 7/8"17'-11" +/-© URBANWORKS ARCHITECTURE LLC, 2019901 NORTH THIRD STREET, SUITE 145, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY REVISIONS DATE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/22/2019 3:09:42 PMC:\!Revit Project Files\A20 19-0013 Central_JHighley@urban-works.com.rvt13th Avenue South & 1st Street SouthHopkins, MN9/20/2019 19-0013 SITE PLAN REVIEW Author Checker SITE SETBACKS AL102Vista 443/32" = 1'-0"AL102 ARCHITECTURAL SETBACK PLAN1 UP UP GENERAL NOTES: 1.--ALL WALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF WALL SYSTEM UNLESS NOTED BY THE SYMBOL INDICATING CENTERLINE STUD 2. 3. -- NO PENENTRATIONS OR OPENINGS ALLOWED IN SHAFT WALLS UNLESS THEY EXPRESSLY SERVE THE SHAFT REFER TO INTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE FOR FLOOR FINISH KEY 4.PROVIDE NON-COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS IN RETURN PLENUMS (WALLS ON SOFFIT) 5.PROVIDE WALL BLOCKING AT KITCHEN WALLS AS INDICATED ON SHEET KEYNOTES: A3012 A301 A302 1 1 A B D F H J G C24'-0"31'-0"16'-10"14'-2"14'-2"16'-10"E 10 9 17'-4"27'-0"27'-0"27'-0"12'-4"14'-8"13'-10"4'-8"11'-8"12'-2"5'-2"31'-0"18'-0" 8 7 6 55.6 4.6 4.4 33.3 2 1 3 A451 BIKES 002 | 261 SF ELEC. 003 | 254 SF 1 A401 1 A452 15'-0 3/4"24'-0"16'-10"28'-4"16'-10"WATER 062 | 500 SF TEMP DUMPSTER HOLDING TEMP DUMPSTER HOLDING 4 6'-11"8'-4"TRASH 061 | 306 SF LOBBY072 | 48 SFELEV073 | 61 SFA3032 A303 1 A304 1 2 A401 2.96% 10'-8" 7 A501 PARKING (46) 001 | 15240 SF STAIR A 071 | 151 SF STAIR B 074 | 149 SF 0 6 1 071 072 0620740030026 A501 18'-0"8'-6"8'-6"18'-0" 2 A4514 A451 5 A451 1 A451 2 A452 3 A452 4 A452 5 A452 1 A453 2 A453 3 A453 4 A453 5 A453 1 A454 2 A454 8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6" 8'-6"8'-6" 8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"1'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"8'-6"© URBANWORKS ARCHITECTURE LLC, 2019901 NORTH THIRD STREET, SUITE 145, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY REVISIONS DATE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/17/2019 9:30:42 AMC:\!Revit Project Files\19-0013 - Vista 44\A20 19-0013 devon.lundy.rvt13th Avenue South & 1st Street SouthHopkins, MN9/20/2019 19-0013 SITE PLAN REVIEW Author Checker SUBLEVEL PLAN A001Vista 441/8" = 1'-0"A001 A001 -LEVEL 0 -SUBLEVEL PLAN1 GENERAL NOTES: 1.REFER TO SPEC EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE FOR MATERIAL DETAILS KEYNOTES: LEVEL 1 916' -0" LEVEL 2 927' -5 7/8" ROOF 958' -11 1/2" SUBLEVEL 1 905' -0" LEVEL 3 937' -11 3/4" LEVEL 4 948' -5 5/8" 10 9 8 7 6 5 3 2 1 4'-2 1/2"10'-5 7/8"10'-5 7/8"10'-5 7/8"11'-5 7/8"11'-0"4 E05 E09E12 E07E10E05 E05 E12 E02 E14 EXTERIOR MATERIAL AREAS (INCLUSIVE OF WINDOWS) LAP -PAINTED -1230 12.4% LAP -WOOD -3071 42.8% BRICK -CLAY 1 -2486 25.5% BRICK -CLAY 2 -2528 16.3% BRICK -BASE 1 -1604 14.7% (WINDOWS -2568) TOTAL:10919 E07 E07E11E9 E12 E10 E12 E10 E07 E12 E10 E12 E10 E12 E9E12E11E9E12E11E9E12E11E9E9 E11 E9E07E07 E01 E07E10E05 E07E10E05 E07E10E05E10E05E09E9E05E09E9E05E09 E9E05E08 E9E05E08E05E10E09E07E07E07E07E07 E14 E13 E12 E12 E12 E12 LEVEL 1 916' -0" LEVEL 2 927' -5 7/8" ROOF 958' -11 1/2" SUBLEVEL 1 905' -0" LEVEL 3 937' -11 3/4" LEVEL 4 948' -5 5/8" A B D F H JGCE 4'-2 3/8"10'-5 7/8"10'-5 7/8"10'-5 7/8"11'-5 7/8"11'-0"E01 E02E05E08 E09E10 E13E11 E12 E14 E16 E17E07 E18E05E18 E05 E08 E10E13E12E07 E14 E11E9E12 E11E9E12E12E9 E9 E9 E12 E13 E12 E17 E14 E13 EXTERIOR MATERIAL AREAS (INCLUSIVE OF WINDOWS) LAP - PAINTED - 951 16.4% LAP - WOOD - 528 9.1% BRICK - CLAY 1 - 1834 31.5% BRICK - CLAY 2 - 1427 25.9% BRICK - BASE 1 - 1003 17.2% (WINDOW - 1715) TOTAL: 5816 LEVEL 2 927' -5 7/8" LEVEL 3 937' -11 3/4" 1/3 RUNNING BOND, TYP. 1/2 RUNNING BOND BETWEEN WINDOWS PER ELEVATION; RECESS BRICK 1/2" BETWEEN NOTED PROTRUDED BRICKS PROTRUDED BRICK EVERY- OTHER COURSE 1/2" BEYOND FACE OF WALL BETWEEN WINDOWS PER ELEVATION ROWLOCK COURSE @ HEADER CAST STONE SILL 3'-4"© URBANWORKS ARCHITECTURE LLC, 2019901 NORTH THIRD STREET, SUITE 145, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY REVISIONS DATE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/17/2019 9:30:43 AMC:\!Revit Project Files\19-0013 - Vista 44\A20 19-0013 devon.lundy.rvt13th Avenue South & 1st Street SouthHopkins, MN9/20/2019 19-0013 SITE PLAN REVIEW JTH DPSL BUILDING ELEVATIONS A301Vista 44E01 BRICK COLOR 1 E02 BRICK COLOR 2 E05 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING - PAINTED E07 PREFINISHED METAL PARAPET CAP E08 PREFINISHED METAL CORNICE, TALL E9 E09 PREFINISHED METAL CORNICE, SHORT E10 COMPOSITE/FIBERGLASS WINDOW SYSTEM; BLACK PREFINISHED E11 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM; BLACK ANODIZED E12 CAST STONE SILL E13 ROWLOCK BRICK HEADER E14 ROWLOCK BRICK COURSE E15 RECESSED BRICK DETAIL E16 BRICK BAS RELIEF PANEL; DESIGN T.B.D E17 MAGIC-PAK LOUVER E18 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING - WOOD LOOK E19 GARAGE DOOR 1/8" = 1'-0"A301 SOUTH ELEVATION (1st STREET S.)1 1/8" = 1'-0"A301 EAST ELEVATION (12th AVENUE S.)2 3/4" = 1'-0"A301 BRICK COURSING -BLOCK-BRICK TRANSITION3 3/4" = 1'-0"A301 BRICK COURSING -WINDOW PATTERN4 GENERAL NOTES: 1.REFER TO SPEC EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE FOR MATERIAL DETAILS KEYNOTES: LEVEL 1 916' -0" LEVEL 2 927' -5 7/8" ROOF 958' -11 1/2" SUBLEVEL 1 905' -0" LEVEL 3 937' -11 3/4" LEVEL 4 948' -5 5/8" 10987653214 E07 E10 E05 E08 E09 E05 E07 E02 E08 E07 E09 E07 E07 E07 E13E11E14E13 E05 11'-0"11'-5 7/8"10'-5 7/8"10'-5 7/8"10'-5 7/8"3'-0"E17 EXTERIOR MATERIAL AREAS (INCLUSIVE OF WINDOWS) LAP -PAINTED -1291 12.4% LAP -WOOD -4460 42.8% BRICK -CLAY 1 -2652 25.5% BRICK -CLAY 2 -695 6.7% BRICK -BASE 1 -1312 12.6% BRICK -BASE 2 -0 (WINDOW -2612) TOTAL:10359 E10 E11 E9 E12 E14 E05 E10 E10 E07 E05 E10 E12 E10 E10E12E9 E10 E07E05 E05 E10E11 E12E14E01 E05 E10 E07E10E12 E05 E10E11 E12E14E01 E05E10 E05 E10E11 E12E14E01 E05 E10 E05 E10E11 E12E14 E01 E09 E10 E07E05 E12 E09 E10 E07E05 E12 E09 E10 E07E05 E12E10E05E07 E15 E15 E15 E15 E15 E15 LEVEL 1 916' -0" LEVEL 2 927' -5 7/8" ROOF 958' -11 1/2" SUBLEVEL 1 905' -0" LEVEL 3 937' -11 3/4" LEVEL 4 948' -5 5/8" ABDFHJGCE E05 E08E10E01 E11 E05 E02E13 E14 E09E10 E09 E12 E07 3'-0"10'-5 7/8"10'-5 7/8"10'-5 7/8"11'-5 7/8"11'-0"E17 E07 E05 E01 E17 E12E9 E11 E11 E9 E12 E17 E10 E02E07 E19 E13 E05E14 E05 E10 E05E07E17E10E05E07 E15 E15 E15 E15 E15 EXTERIOR MATERIAL AREAS (INCLUSIVE OF WINDOWS) LAP -PAINTED -840 14.4% LAP -WOOD -1280 21.9% BRICK -CLAY 1 -1687 28.9% BRICK -CLAY 2 -953 16.3% BRICK -BASE 1 -1099 18.8% (WINDOWS 1695) TOTAL:5859 sf © URBANWORKS ARCHITECTURE LLC, 2019901 NORTH THIRD STREET, SUITE 145, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY REVISIONS DATE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/17/2019 9:30:48 AMC:\!Revit Project Files\19-0013 - Vista 44\A20 19-0013 devon.lundy.rvt13th Avenue South & 1st Street SouthHopkins, MN9/20/2019 19-0013 SITE PLAN REVIEW JTH DPSL BUILDING ELEVATIONS A302Vista 44E01 BRICK COLOR 1 E02 BRICK COLOR 2 E05 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING - PAINTED E07 PREFINISHED METAL PARAPET CAP E08 PREFINISHED METAL CORNICE, TALL E9 E09 PREFINISHED METAL CORNICE, SHORT E10 COMPOSITE/FIBERGLASS WINDOW SYSTEM; BLACK PREFINISHED E11 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM; BLACK ANODIZED E12 CAST STONE SILL E13 ROWLOCK BRICK HEADER E14 ROWLOCK BRICK COURSE E15 RECESSED BRICK DETAIL E16 BRICK BAS RELIEF PANEL; DESIGN T.B.D E17 MAGIC-PAK LOUVER E18 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING - WOOD LOOK E19 GARAGE DOOR 1/8" = 1'-0"A302 NORTH ELEVATION1 1/8" = 1'-0"A302 WEST ELEVATION (13th AVENUE S.)2 October 14, 2019 Vista 44 – Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative Engineering Review An engineering review was completed on October 14, 2019 on the plans and transportation and parking study submitted for Site Plan Review, Rezoning, Comp Plan Amendment, Administrative Lot Split and PUD, dated 09/20/2019. Plan Comments • Nine Mile Creek Watershed District approval required. Provide copies of all watershed permits. • Utility service excavations extending beyond the centerline of a roadway require a patch extending across the full width of the roadway. The road section patch must meet city of Hopkins standards. • A review of the city’s water model will need to be completed to ensure adequate capacity and fire flow exist at this location. The costs for review will be borne by the applicant. • Any old or unused sanitary sewer and water service lines extending into the site must be removed to their respective mains and disconnected. • The sanitary sewer at the proposed service connection location is PVC. • New sidewalk along the perimeter of the building must meet the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) act standards. • As part of the sidewalk improvements the applicant must install a pedestrian curb ramp at the northeast quadrant of 13th Avenue S/1st Street S. • New driveway aprons shall meet city of Hopkins standards. Transportation and Parking Study Comments • Traffic generation from the proposed development is not expected to cause undue congestion or require traffic control changes as the surrounding roadway network has sufficient capacity. • Traffic generation from the proposed development is not expected create safety problems or concerns. • Parking generation from the proposed development is not expected to create undue stress on the on-street system. Per the ITE Parking Generation Manual, this development is expected to create a peak parking demand requiring 68 spaces, the proposed on-site parking created is 69 spaces, 11 of which are proof of parking at this time. Ample on- street parking is available on adjacent streets. If on-street parking issues due arise in the future, the proof of parking may need to be developed. Nate Stanley, P.E. City Engineer Transportation and Parking Study Beacon Vista 44 Hopkins, MN Submitted by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 12224 Nicollet Avenue Burnsville, MN 55337 P: 952-890-0509 F: 952-890-8065 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Certification Beacon Vista 44 ǀ T19119787 Certification Transportation and Parking Study for Beacon Vista 44 City of Hopkins, MN BMI Project No. – T19.119787 October 11, 2019 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. By: Ross Tillman, P.E. License No. 51692 Date: 10/11/19 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Table of Contents Beacon Vista 44 ǀ T19119787 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 1 II. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 III. Existing Conditions Review .................................................................................................... 2 IV. Safety Review ......................................................................................................................... 5 V. Proposed Site Improvements Review .................................................................................... 5 VII. Conclusions & Recommendations ......................................................................................... 7 Appendix Appendix A: Existing Conditions Appendix B: ADT Count Information Appendix C: Proposed Site 1 I. Executive Summary Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative intends to develop Vista 44 on the north side of 1st Street S between 13th Avenue S and 12th Avenue S, just south of downtown Hopkins, MN. The Beacon Vista 44 project is a multi-unit supportive housing development which consists of 50 apartment units and 2,000 SF of office. These offices along with a commons area, fitness room, and children’s room support the residents of Beacon Vista 44. The following summarizes the main outcomes of this study: There have been 14 crashes at the intersections surrounding the project site between 2013 and 2015. 12 crashes were property damage only and two were injury related. The number of crashes and severity of crashes does not indicate a significant crash concern at the intersections surrounding the project site. The surrounding roadway network has sufficient capacity as designed to handle the flow of traffic with the proposed project, therefore, no additional traffic control changes or roadway geometric changes are needed to maintain capacity. The proposed development provides for 46 underground spaces and 23 surface spaces including 11 proof of parking spaces for a total of 69 parking spaces. This meets the minimum for a mixed-use development in Hopkins, which is 55 off- street spaces. By comparison, per the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 68 spaces would be required to meet the peak parking demand for this site. However, a review of on- street parking shows that there is ample unused on-street parking available on the streets surrounding the site at both the peak time and throughout the day if additional parking is needed. Therefore, this study concludes that there is sufficient parking in the area to handle the parking demand anticipated with this new development. The development is planned to have sidewalks internally to the site and externally surrounding the site. This additional sidewalk will help to fill in missing sidewalk on 13th Avenue S. to provide better access to existing transit on Mainstreet and Excelsior Boulevard. There are no marked on-street bike facilities in this area, but there are planned on-street facilities for 1st Street S, Mainstreet, and 11th Avenue S in the future. The development will add 62 bike parking spaces for its residents, staff, and guests. II. Introduction The Beacon Vista 44 project is a multi-unit supportive housing development which is a blend of traditional apartments and offices providing on-site services available for residents to help increase resident’s income, education outcomes, health, and housing stability. The development consists of 50 apartment units and 2,000 SF of offices. These offices along with a commons area, fitness room, and children’s room are there to support the residents of Beacon Vista 44. There will be approximately seven staff on site during business hours and one staff at the front desk evenings and weekends. These office staff will only see residents of the building to offer on-site services. The commons area is a typical community room which will be used by the residents for gathering spaces for activities (ex. birthday parties, game nights, book clubs) but also for resident engagement and programming (ex. resident meetings, cooking classes, yoga, homework help). The children’s area will be used in a 2 similar way but focused on the kids which live in the building often while parents are participating in activities in the community room. The purpose of this transportation and parking study is to identify potential transportation or parking issues created as a result of the proposed development and recommend solutions to mitigate the potential issues to provide a safe transportation facility for vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. III. Existing Conditions Review Beacon Vista 44 is proposed to be located on the north side of 1st Street S between 13th Avenue S and 12th Avenue S, just south of downtown Hopkins, MN. See Appendix for aerial of existing conditions. There are three driveways proposed for site access. Two on 13th Avenue S and one on 12th Avenue S. 1st Street S is a two-lane road which runs from 8th Avenue S to where it dead ends into Central Park at 13th Avenue S. It measures 34 feet from back-of-curb to back-of-curb. 1st Street S has a functional classification of local road per the Minnesota Department of Transportation Map for Hennepin County. 1st Street S has a posted speed limit of 30 MPH with parallel parking present on the north side in this area. East of 12th Street S, the parking on the north side of the street is limited to 2-Hrs 8am to 6pm. 1st Street S at 13th Avenue S 13th Avenue S is a two-lane roadway with a functional classification of local road. It measures 25 feet north of 1st Street S from back-of-curb to back-of-curb and has a speed limit of 30 MPH. North of 1st Street S. parking is prohibited on the east side of the street and for 380’ on the west side of the street. South of 1st Street S, parallel parking is allowed on the west side in a parking inset along the park and on the east side from 150ft south of South 1st Street to the Excelsior Boulevard “frontage road”. 1st Street S is stop controlled at 13th Avenue S. All approaches at the intersection are single-lane shared approaches. 1st Street S at 12th Avenue S 12th Avenue S is a two-lane roadway with a functional classification of local road. It measures 36 feet from back-of-curb to back-of-curb and has a speed limit of 30 MPH. North and south of 1st Street S., parallel parking is allowed on both sides of the street. 12th Avenue S is stop controlled at 1st Street S. All approaches at the intersection are single- lane shared approaches. Pedestrian/Bicyclist Accommodations Adjacent to the proposed project site, sidewalk is present along the north side of 1st Street S and the west side of 13th Avenue S. North of the project site, there is sidewalk present on both sides of 13th Avenue S. In this area, there are also two striped pedestrian school crossings on 13th Avenue S for Chesterton Academy. Along 12th Avenue, adjacent to the site and beyond, sidewalk is available on both sides. These sidewalks provide connection to existing transit stops, parks, regional trails, and other retail/commercial amenities in the area. There are no marked on-street bike facilities in this area, but there is a wide path available around Central Park and regional trails within ¼ mile of the proposed project site. See Figure 1. 3 On-Street bike facilities are recommended for both 1st Street S and Mainstreet and 11th Avenue S per the City of Hopkins Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan. On-Street bike lanes are proposed for 1st Street S and Mainstreet, whereas, an on-street bike boulevard is proposed for 11th Avenue S. See Figure 2 from the draft plan. Figure 1 – Regional Trails Near Project Site Figure 2 – Hopkins Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan Recommended Routes Near Project Site Project Site Project Site 4 Transit Accommodations Currently, Metro Transit route 12 which connects Minneapolis to Hopkins runs just one block to the south along Excelsior Boulevard. Metro Transit routes 612, 664, and 670 run along Mainstreet providing express service from Hopkins to Minneapolis. Transit route 615 has a stop at 11th Avenue S and Mainstreet and provides connection from Hopkins to St. Louis Park or Minnetonka. In the future, the METRO Southwest Light Rail Transit line is scheduled to open in 2023 and will run from downtown Minneapolis to Eden Prairie. The line will provide many opportunities for growth, including jobs, and residential and business development. This proposed development is located within ½ mile of two future light rail stations, Downtown Hopkins and Shady Oak. See Figure 3. Figure 3 –Transit Near Project Site Parking Utilization Existing on-street parking surrounding the site was reviewed to determine the utilization of existing on-street parking spaces in the area. The number of parked cars was recorded for 13th Avenue S, 1st Street S, and 12th Avenue S at 11 different times of day including AM, PM, and Midday hours to assess the demand at various times. There are a total of 158 on street parking spaces surrounding the site. The results of parking demand observations in the peak period and throughout the day are shown below in Tables 1 and 2. Peak parking demand in the area occurred from 3:00 to 6:00pm primarily on 12th Avenue S and 13th Avenue S. The on-street spaces are 29% occupied on average throughout the day and 33% occupied during the peak demand period. These results show that there is ample on-street parking available on the streets surrounding the site at both the peak time and throughout the day. On-street parking would be available for the new residents or visitors of the proposed project. 5 Table 1: Existing Parking Utilization Daily Average Location Both Sides Available Parking Parking Utilization # of 25' Stalls Available Avg. Stalls in Use Avg. % Occupancy Max Stalls in Use Remaining Capacity Max % Occupancy Segment 1: 13th Ave S (north block) 9 0.10 1.1% 1 8 11.1% Segment 2: 13th Ave S (south block) 38 14.20 37.4% 19 19 50.0% Segment 3: 1st St S (west block) 20 1.70 8.5% 2 18 10.0% Segment 4: 1st St S (east block) 20 0.60 3.0% 2 18 10.0% Segment 5: 12th Ave S (north block) 35 14.40 41.1% 23 12 65.7% Segment 6: 12th Ave S (south block) 36 14.70 40.8% 21 15 58.3% TOTAL 158 46 29% 68 90 43% Table 2: Peak Parking Utilization (3-6pm) Location Both Sides Available Parking Parking Utilization # of 25' Stalls Available Avg. Stalls in Use Avg. % Occupancy Max Stalls in Use Remaining Capacity Max % Occupancy Segment 1: 13th Ave S (north block) 9 0.00 0.0% 0 9 0.0% Segment 2: 13th Ave S (south block) 38 17.00 44.7% 19 19 50.0% Segment 3: 1st St S (west block) 20 1.50 7.5% 2 18 10.0% Segment 4: 1st St S (east block) 20 0.50 2.5% 1 19 5.0% Segment 5: 12th Ave S (north block) 35 20.25 57.9% 23 12 65.7% Segment 6: 12th Ave S (south block) 36 12.75 35.4% 16 20 44.4% TOTAL 158 52 33% 61 97 39% The proposed development provides for 46 underground spaces and 23 surface spaces including 11 proof of parking spaces for a total of 69 parking spaces. A review of the surrounding on-street parking shows that there is ample unused on-street parking available on the streets surrounding the site if additional parking is needed. Parking Requirements The mixed-use district zoning for the City of Hopkins requires a minimum of one enclosed parking stall per unit and one guest parking stall per 15 units. Based on these standards, the development must provide 55 stalls. 6 By comparison, the Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (2010) was used to determine the parking generation anticipated with the proposed site uses based on this manual. Table 3 summarizes the projected peak parking demand based on the numbers in the ITE Manual. This shows a need of 68 parking spaces to serve this development. Table 3: ITE Parking Generation for Proposed Development Land Use ITE Code Proposed Size Projected Parking Space Need Mid-Rise Apartments 221 50 Units 62 Office 701 7 Daytime Employees 6 TOTAL 68 National research has shown that development sites located adjacent to bus transit or light rail have been shown to have less parking demand than what is required in the ITE manual. In a study published by the Transportation Research Record, “Evaluating the Impact of Transit Service on Parking Demand and Requirements” by Daniel H. Rowe, C.-H. Christine Bae, and Qing Shen a hypothesis of that greater levels of transit service will yield a lower parking demand for multifamily residential developments in urban centers was evaluated. The study focused on sites that fall in the “Low/Mid-Rise Apartment” category such as what is being proposed with Vista 44. The study found that the combination of mixed-use development, shorter distances to many destinations, higher jobs-to-housing balance, and more frequent and diverse transit services may provide people with viable alternatives to owning or driving a car. This alternative resulted in a shift in less demand for residential parking spaces. The two sites studied had an actual average parking demand of 0.52 and 1.08 spaces per dwelling unit. These numbers are 58% and 12% less, respectively, than what was required in the ITE manual. This is due to the fact that the ITE numbers are largely based on observations and studies of locations in suburban environments. The study did find that the quality of transit service appeared to have an impact on the average parking demand. The site that had 58% less parking demand that what the ITE manual required had a higher level of transit service with better frequency and reliability. The actual parking demand at Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative’s, the Vista 44 developer, other properties supports the results of this National research. Beacon owns more than 600 units of multi-family housing across the Twin Cities and their experience at their other developments primarily serving families shows the actual average parking ratio across their family developments is between 0.98 and 1.31 spaces/unit (this building shares parking with a church). 7 IV. Safety Review An analysis of crash history for the roadways adjacent to the site was completed using the crash data available through the MnDOT for January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2015. See Table 4. Overall, the number of crashes and severity of crashes does not indicate a significant crash concern at the intersections surrounding the project site as there were two or less crashes per year on average occurring at the intersections. The intersection with the highest number of crashes in 2013-2015 was the intersection of 11th Avenue S and 1st Street S. The intersection of 11th Avenue S and 1st Street S is the busiest intersection in the study area as 11th Avenue S is a primary route between Excelsior Boulevard and Mainstreet. In addition, large traffic generators such as City Hall and Wells Fargo are located at this intersection. Limited sight distance is also present at this 4-way stop intersection. Table 4: Crash Summary 2013-2015 Number of Crashes Severity Crash Type 12th Avenue S /1st Street S 1 1 Property Damage Only Left Turn 12th Avenue S /Mainstreet 4 4 Property Damage Only 2 Right Angle 1 Rear End 1 Sideswipe 13th Avenue S/1st Street S 0 - - 13th Avenue S /Mainstreet 3 2 Property Damage Only 1 Possible Injury 1 Right Turn/Bicyclist Collision 2 Parked Vehicle – Rear end 11th Avenue S/1st Street S 6 5 Property Damage Only 1 Possible Injury 3 Right Angle 1 Rear End 1 Sideswipe 1 single vehicle/sign pole Total 14 12 Property Damage Only 2 Possible Injury V. Proposed Site Improvements Review The proposed development consists of 50 apartment units and 2,000 SF of offices. These offices along with a commons area, fitness room, and children’s room support the residents of Beacon Vista 44. There will be approximately seven staff on site during business hours and one staff at the front desk evenings and weekends. These office staff will only see residents of the building to offer on-site services. There are three driveways proposed for site access. Two on 13th Avenue S and one on 12th Avenue S. The first driveway on 13th Avenue S is located 45 ft north of 1st Street S and provides access to the 43-space underground parking garage. The second driveway on 13th Avenue S is located 85 ft north of the first driveway and provides the outlet for a single lane, one-way access aisle. This aisle runs on the north side of the building and connects 12th Avenue S to 13th Avenue S to provide up to 23 surface parking spaces for residents and guests. The 12th Avenue S driveway for this access aisle is located 155 ft north of 1st Street S. Additional pedestrian and bicycle accommodations are planned to be provided with the 8 development. Sidewalk will be provided on the east side of 13th Avenue S adjacent to the site which addresses the existing missing sidewalk connection. Bicycle parking will also be provided. The development will add 46 long term bicycle parking spaces within the enclosed parking level as well as 16 short term bicycle parking spaces on the exterior. This exceeds the required number by 21 and 13 respectively. The proposed site plan is shown in the Appendix. Trip Generation Trip generation was completed using the Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017. Trip generation rates were evaluated using data for Mid-Rise Apartment (ITE 221) and Small Office (ITE 712). The site is anticipated to generate 328 daily trips with 27 in the AM Peak hour and 32 in the PM Peak Hour. The trip generation is summarized in Table 5. Table 5: Trip Generation Summary Land Use ITE Code Proposed Size AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Mid-Rise Apartments 221 50 Units 5 14 15 9 136 136 Small Office 712 7 Daytime Employees 6 2 3 5 28 28 AM Peak Hour total 27 PM Peak Hour total 32 Weekday total 328 Trip Distribution These project trips are dedicated trips to the site, then back to the point of origination. It is assumed they will enter and exit the same driveway or underground parking access using the following distribution: o 25% of the trips will enter from the north using Mainstreet o 75% will enter from the south by using 1st Street S to Excelsior Boulevard Future Year Forecast Annual growth of traffic is always anticipated on roadways due to development nearby and in other locations throughout the City. Table 5-1 of the Hennepin County Transportation Systems Plan states that a 1% per year growth in traffic is anticipated from 2005 to 2030. Therefore, an annual growth rate of 1% was used to forecast the 2039 ADT volumes. Capacity Calculations 2016 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes were collected from MnDOT for traffic volumes in the vicinity of the project site. Volumes were not available in the immediate area, so ADT volumes within one to two blocks were used. The ADT on 1st Street S was 2,700 vehicles per day east of 11th Avenue S. The volume on 12th Avenue S, north of Mainstreet, was 2,000 vehicles per day. The volume on Main Street was 5,400 vehicles per day. An ADT number was not available from MnDOT for 13th Avenue S. See Appendix for ADT count information. The 2016 ADT counts were grown using the 1% annual growth rate. Based on the 2016 and 2039 volumes, the project trips are estimated to add no more than 10% additional daily traffic to the surrounding roadways. To quantify the impact to the surrounding 9 roadways based on their current capacity, volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios were calculated. V/C ratios for traffic can be used for generalized planning. When using a V/C ratio, traffic volume is compared to estimated current facility capacity. The V/C ratio for urban streets is separated into six levels, and assigned a letter from A to F. A street with a V/C ratio of 1.0 is considered at capacity. The capacity used in the V/C calculation for the roadways surrounding the site was determined from Section 2-50.7 of the MnDOT Road Design Manual which references LOS E as meeting capacity for the roadway. Per Exhibit 16-16 of the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition, LOS E corresponds to 14,700 vehicles per day for a two-lane urban roadway. Figure 4 –V/C Ratios and Level of Service for Arterials Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209 (Washington, D.C., 1994). Table 6 shows that the roadways surrounding the site have V/C ratios from 0.14 to 0.47 and operate at LOS A per the values shown Figure 4. This shows that these surrounding roadways have ample capacity to handle the traffic generated by the proposed project. Table 6: Volume to Capacity Ratios Location 2016 ADT 2016 ADT with new Trips 2016 v/c ratio (LOS) with new trips 2039 ADT 2039 ADT with new Trips 2039 v/c ratio (LOS) with new trips 1st Street S 2,700 2,950 0.20 (A) 3,395 3,645 0.25 (A) 12th Avenue S 2,000 2,050 0.14 (A) 2,515 2,565 0.17 (A) Mainstreet 5,400 5,480 0.37 (A) 6,890 6,970 0.47 (A) 10 VI. Conclusions & Recommendations Safety There have been 14 crashes at the study intersections between 2013 and 2015. 12 crashes were property damage only and two were injury related. The number of crashes and severity of crashes does not indicate a significant crash concern at the intersections surrounding the project site. Proposed Site Improvements The surrounding roadway network has sufficient capacity as designed to handle the flow of traffic with the proposed project, therefore, no additional traffic control changes or roadway geometric changes are needed to maintain capacity. The proposed development provides for 46 underground spaces and 23 surface spaces including 11 proof of parking spaces for a total of 69 parking spaces. This meets the minimum for a mixed-use development in Hopkins, which is 55 off-street spaces. By comparison, per the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 68 spaces would be required to meet the peak parking demand for this site. Research has shown that for sites located within higher-level transit service, the actual parking demand is up to 58% less than what is required in the ITE manual. Whether looking at the city’s requirement or the ITE Manual’s parking space requirements with or without adjustments for proximity to transit, there is sufficient parking in the area to handle the parking demand anticipated with this new development. A review of on-street parking shows that there is ample unused on-street parking available on the streets surrounding the site at both the peak time and throughout the day if additional parking is needed. Therefore, this study concludes that there is sufficient parking in the area to handle the parking demand anticipated with this new development. Pedestrian / Bicyclist / Transit accommodations The development is planned to have sidewalks internally to the site and externally surrounding the site. This additional sidewalk will help to fill in missing sidewalk on 13th Avenue S. to provide better access to existing transit on Mainstreet and Excelsior Boulevard. There are no marked on-street bike facilities in this area, but there are planned on-street facilities for 1st Street S, Mainstreet, and 11th Avenue S in the future. In addition, the development will add 46 long term bicycle parking spaces within the enclosed parking level as well as 16 short term bicycle parking spaces on the exterior for its residents, staff, and guests. This exceeds the required minimum number by 21 and 13 respectively.