VII.2. First Reading of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezoning Ordinance and a PUD Site Plan for 501 Mainstreet and 15 6th Avenue North; Krzos
1
City Council Report 2025-164
To: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
Mike Mornson, City Manager
From: Ryan Krzos, City Planner
Date: November 18, 2025
Subject: First Reading of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezoning Ordinance
and a PUD Site Plan for 501 Mainstreet and 15 6th Avenue North
_____________________________________________________________________
REQUEST
501 Mainstreet LLC (Footprint Development), requests approval of a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to allow redevelopment of two properties at 501 Mainstreet and 15
6th Avenue North. The proposal includes construction of a four-story, 41-unit apartment
building with related parking, landscaping, and site improvements. The PUD is
requested to allow flexibility from standard zoning requirements, primarily for parking,
setbacks and lot coverage, in exchange for enhanced design, sustainability, and
community benefits. Approval of the PUD requires adoption of a rezoning Ordinance
applying a PUD zoning overlay and approval of a Site Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the
following motion: “Move to adopt Resolution 2025-067 approving a first reading of the
Planned Unit Development Rezoning Ordinance and approving the PUD Site Plan for
501 Mainstreet and 15 6th Avenue North.”
ANALYSIS
Background
A background of the site and its availability as a development site is included in the
materials for the March 25, 2025 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. At that
meeting an initial concept for the proposal was presented for the City feedback. The
main difference between the concept and the current proposal is the increase in units
(from 38 to 41), increase in above grade story height (from three to four), and removal
of the sunken garden level units from the plan in lieu of a c-shaped building with
courtyard.
Site Context
• 501 Mainstreet: Vacant parcel at the northwest corner of Mainstreet and 5th
Avenue North within downtown Hopkins.
• 15 - 6th Avenue North: Vacant lot located to the north of the 501 Mainstreet site,
proposed for surface parking supporting the residential use.
Planning & Development
2
• Surrounding Uses:
o North: Multi unit residential buildings
o South: Retail uses
o East: Auto-related commercial and residential neighborhood
o West: Downtown commercial corridor
Both properties are within the Downtown Hopkins area guided as Activity Center in the
2040 Comprehensive Plan.
The 501 Mainstreet site’s historical land uses including a fueling station and auto repair,
operated until 2014 when the building was demolished. Environmental testing indicated
soil contamination of the site, and additional testing is in the process of being updated.
In accordance with state law, additional mitigation efforts may be required for the
redevelopment; depending on the outcome of the additional testing or whether
substances are encountered during construction activities.
Project Summary
501 Mainstreet 15 - 6th Avenue North
Site Area 17,271 sq. ft. 9,337 sq. ft.
Proposed Use Multi-Household Living (41 units) Surface parking (26 stalls)
Building Height Four stories; 45 feet —
Units 8 studios, 25 one-bedrooms, 8
two-bedrooms
—
Parking Provided 3 surface stalls 26 surface stalls
Hardcover Ratio 74.5% 89.3%
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
Architecture and Design
The proposed building features a contemporary urban design with brick base detailing,
lap siding, and stone accents, consistent with the character of Mainstreet. The building
includes a courtyard and defined entry along Mainstreet. The fourth story is articulated
with a material change to reduce visual bulk. Proposed materials include:
• Three tones of brick masonry
• 4” horizontal lap siding
• Prefinished metal panels
• High-efficiency composite windows
• Stone sills and metal balcony railings
Rooftop solar arrays and mechanical equipment are screened by a proposed 18-inch
parapet.
Parking and Access
Vehicular access is provided from 6th Avenue North to serve both the internal and
surface parking. The total of 28 stalls results in a parking ratio of 0.7 stalls per unit, less
than the standard one stall per studio/1-bed unit and two per 2+ bed units in the RX-D
3
district. The applicant has requested PUD flexibility for this standard, citing proximity to
transit and amenities as well as anticipated resident demographics.
Landscaping and Screening
The landscape plan proposes new Honeylocust and Hackberry trees, and native shrubs
and grasses; and screening with 6-foot wood fencing and arborvitae hedges along
parking areas. Hardscape areas include decorative pavers and benches along the
Mainstreet frontage.
Sustainability Features
The project integrates several sustainable elements:
• Rooftop solar panels for renewable energy generation.
• Certified to the Phius (Passive House Institute of the U.S.) Core building
standard.
• Wood-frame construction with a special emphasis on reducing overall embodied
carbon within the construction of the building.
PUD Flexibility Requested
Standard RX-D Requirement Proposed PUD Flexibility
Minimum Motor
Vehicle Parking
1 stall per 1 bed/studio
2 stalls per 2+ bed
unit (49 stalls)
29 stalls (0.7
per unit)
Reduction of 21
stalls
Location of Off-
Street Motor
Vehicle Parking
Required residential off-street
parking must be located on
the same lot as the building
or use they serve.
26 of 29 stalls
off-site
Deviation from
policy
Impervious Site
Coverage
70% 74.5% (501
Mainstreet) /
89.3% (15 6th
Ave N)
Allow increased
coverage
Front Street
Setbacks
7.5 ft. min, 15 ft. max. 3 ft. Reduction by 4.5 ft.
Non-Front Street
Setbacks
5 ft. min., 25 ft. max 0.5 ft. Reduction by 4.5 ft
Street Façade
Materials
65% minimum Major material
35% maximum Minor
Material
51% brick
(Major)
49% lap siding
(Minor)
Reduction of 14% of
major material
minimum, increase
to minor material
maximum
Transparency on
Non-Front
Facades
18% min, measured per
story;
Average of
11% on North,
12% on West
Reduction by 7% on
North and 6% on
West
Ground Story
Elevation
The ground story must be
between 18 in. and 30 in.
above grade
12 inches Reduction by 6
inches
4
Tree Removal Trees may be removed if
mitigated by one of the
following:
1. Planting of replacement
trees
2. Payment of a fee in-lieu of
replacement trees
3. Combination of fee and
plantings.
Removal of 11
trees on 6th
Avenue Site.
Waiver of policy as
there are no
additional planting
opportunities, and
the City is providing
a land write-down.
Parking Area
Landscaping
For rows of parking with more
than 8 spaces, a landscape
island is required for every
9th parking space; Each
parking space must be
located within 50 feet of a
tree planted within the
parking lot interior; and at
maturity, tree canopies must
shade a minimum of 30
percent of the interior of the
parking lot
No islands or
trees within
interior of
parking lot
Deviation from
policy
Side Yard Buffer A 5-foot 'Light Buffer' is
required along the side yard
of the parking area and the
NX2 zoned property to the
north.
1 foot buffer
excluding
landscaping
Reduction by 4 ft
and deviation from
landscaping policy
Staff finds that the requested flexibility from standards is warranted in exchange for the
project’s benefits. The proposal sufficiently addresses the site’s context and
characteristics and reasonably balances the provision of surface parking with site
improvements, landscaping, and building placement.
Policy Analysis
1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
The 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides the site as Activity Center, intended for higher-
density housing and active street-level uses in walkable, transit-oriented settings. The
project aligns with these goals by developing underutilized land for housing and
improving the downtown streetscape. The plan encourages the promotion of non-auto
modes of transportation, including walking, biking, and public transportation.
Additionally, the plan calls for the redevelopment and reuse of brownfield sites in the
city.
2. Zoning and PUD Criteria
The RX-D district encourages compact, pedestrian-oriented development. A summary
of applicable zoning requirements and evaluation of the compliance of the proposal is
included here. The PUD process allows flexibility in dimensional or performance
standards when public benefits are provided. In this case, the public benefits include:
• Infill redevelopment on City-owned property
5
• Affordable-by-design smaller units, (does include 4 new units of affordable
housing restricted at 60% of AMI required per inclusionary housing policy).
• Sustainable building practices
• Enhancement of Mainstreet’s built form and pedestrian experience
3. Parking and Transportation
While below standard, the amount of parking provided is intended to cater to a
demographic that is interested in car-free or car-light lifestyles. The site has good
access to public transportation options, as well as the amenity-rich downtown Hopkins.
The applicant indicates that they will pursue an arrangement with a car-sharing service
to be located on site. Additionally, the City will continually monitor on-street parking, and
would look to modify restrictions to increase the availability in the vicinity if needed.
4. Design and Compatibility
The proposed massing, materials, and height are compatible with nearby structures.
Architectural articulation and material transitions break down the building scale, while
the proposed courtyard and ground-level transparency promotes pedestrian activity.
Additionally, the modified setbacks enable the proposed building to continue the
streetscape established on Mainstreet, while also providing separation from the
buildings to the east and north.
5. Development Policy Consistency
• Inclusionary Housing Policy - The City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy would apply
to the project. The policy units to be constructed and offered at an affordable rent
as moderate-income units at levels based on one of two options. Either 10% of
the units at 60% of the Area Median Income; or 5% of units at 50% AMI. The
development is expected to comply with this requirement by providing 4 units
affordable at 60% of Area Median Income.
• Sustainable Building Policy - The City’s Sustainable Building Policy would also
apply. Staff expects that the Phius (Passive House Institute of the U.S.) Core
building standard will comply with the rating system requirement. Additional
calculations as noted in the recommended conditions of approval are required as
per the Policy's universal requirements.
Neighborhood Meeting
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on September 24, 2025, which was
attended by approximately a dozen people and City Staff. The purpose of the meeting
was to present updates to the proposal to nearby property owners and residents.
Attendees were able to ask questions about the project.
Planning & Zoning Commission Review
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the request and held a public hearing
on October 28, 2025. Notice of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s public hearing
was published in the City's Official paper and mailed to all properties within 500 feet.
Four written comments were received and are included as an attachment. Two
members of the public spoke during the public hearing. One speaker reiterated
concerns outlined in a written comment (from Hopkins Park Plaza, L.L.C.) and the other
speaker expressed concerns about on-street parking from residents and asked the City
to restrict residential parking.
6
The Commission discussed the site’s historical soil contamination, parking, and the
relationship of the building and site features with adjoining properties. Following
discussion, the Commission approved a motion on a 4-2 vote to recommend approval of
the Planned Unit Development. The Commission’s recommendation included additional
conditions of approval addressing proposed environmental mitigation, fencing, and pet
exercise areas. The proposed resolution approving the PUD incorporates these
recommended conditions.
Proposed Findings
Staff finds that the proposed Planned Unit Development meets the intent and criteria of
the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, based on the following:
1. The development provides high-quality infill housing consistent with the RX-D
district and is compatible with surrounding land uses and development patterns.
2. The proposed design enhances Mainstreet’s urban character and pedestrian
environment.
3. Flexibility granted through the PUD is balanced by superior design, sustainability,
and site amenities that would not be achievable under standard zoning
provisions.
4. The project supports the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals for downtown infill
development, housing diversity, transit-oriented growth and re-use of brownfield
properties.
Proposed Conditions
Below is a list of the recommended conditions of approval for the development which
are included in proposed Resolution 2025-067:
1. Approved Plans: The project shall be developed in substantial conformance with
the plans dated September 25, 2025, prepared Advance Surveying &
Engineering, and by Collage Architects and except as modified herein, on file
with the City.
2. Engineering and Public Works Requirements: The Applicant shall comply with all
conditions and comments of the City Engineer and Public Works Director,
including but not limited to stormwater management, grading, and utilities.
3. Building and Fire Codes: All structures and site improvements shall comply with
applicable City, State, and Federal building and fire safety codes.
4. MPCA Compliance: No building permits shall be issued until the required
additional vapor-sampling event and any necessary mitigation actions under
State Statute are identified.
5. Signage: Separate sign permits shall be required for any exterior signage.
6. Fencing: Separate fence permits shall be required for fencing installed on the
subject property
7. Dog Run: The pet exercise area shall be operated and maintained in sanitary
condition and buffered as depicted in the plans to prevent odor or noise impacts
on adjacent properties.
8. PUD Agreement: A PUD Development Agreement shall be executed prior to
building permit issuance.
9. Minor Revisions: Staff may approve minor plan modifications consistent with the
intent of this approval.
10. Watershed District Approval: Approval of the development by the Nine Mile
Creek Watershed District and conformance with all related conditions.
7
11. Sustainable Building Policy Requirements: Applicant must comply with the
requirements of the sustainable building policy including, but not limited to,
submitting calculations indicating predicted greenhouse gas emissions produced
from the development, and predicted percentage of energy on-site sourced by
renewable energy.
12. Payment of all applicable development fees including, but not limited to Sewer
Access Charges, and City Attorney fees.
NEXT STEPS
If approved for a first reading, the required second reading of the Ordinance will be
scheduled for the December 1, 2025 regular City Council meeting. Publication of the
ordinance in the City’s official paper is required to make the change effective. Staff and
the City Attorney would prepare a Planned Unit Development Agreement outlining the
terms and conditions for the project. The applicant would then work towards submitting
building plans for approval
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE 2025-1229
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE PROPERTY AT 501 MAINSTREET AND 15 – 6TH
AVENUE NORTH FROM RX-D, RESIDENTIAL-OFFICE MIX DOWNTOWN CENTER
TO RX-D, RESIDENTIAL-OFFICE MIX DOWNTOWN CENTER WITH A PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
1. That the following described premises is hereby rezoned from RX-D, Residential-
Office Mix Downtown Center to RX-D, Residential-Office Mix Downtown Center
with a Planned Unit Development.
2. The property to be rezoned is legally described as All of Lot 5, and the South 110
feet of Lot 6, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 242, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and Lot
6, Block 4, West Minneapolis Second Division, and the South 50 feet of the North
162.2 feet of Lot 3, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 242, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
First Reading: November 18, 2025
Second Reading: December 1, 2025
Date of Publication: December 11, 2025
Date Ordinance Takes Effect: December 11, 2025
________________________
ATTEST: Patrick Hanlon, Mayor
__________________________
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-067
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FIRST READING OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) REZONING ORDINACE AND A PUD SITE PLAN FOR
501 MAINSTREET AND 15 - 6TH AVENUE NORTH
WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins (“City”) has received an application from 501 Mainstreet LLC
(“Applicant”) requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezoning and Site Plan
for property legally described as follows:
Legal Description:
All of Lot 5, and the South 110 feet of Lot 6, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 242,
Hennepin County, Minnesota
and
Lot 6, Block 4, WEST MINNEAPOLIS SECOND DIVISION, and the South 50 feet of the
North 162.2 feet of Lot 3, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO 242, Hennepin County,
Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located at 501 Mainstreet and 15 6th Avenue North, and is
currently zoned RX-D, Mixed Use Downtown District; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to redevelop the described property. The proposal includes
construction of a four-story, 41-unit apartment building with related parking, landscaping, and
site improvements; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the PUD is to allow for flexibility from requirements for parking,
setbacks, site coverage, building design, and landscaping in exchange for a higher-quality
overall development consistent with City objectives; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the proposed PUD was published in the official
newspaper and mailed to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the subject property in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the Hopkins City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Hopkins Planning & Zoning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on
October 28, 2025 to consider the request, at which time all persons present were given the
opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the application materials, Planning &
Zoning Report 2025-10 dated October 28, 2025, and all supporting documentation, and adopted
a resolution recommending that the Planned Unit Development request be approved; and
WHEREAS, staff recommended approval of the above stated application based on the findings
outlined in City Council Report 2025-164 dated November 18, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Hopkins City Council finds that:
1. The development provides high-quality infill housing consistent with the RX-D district
and is compatible with surrounding land uses and development patterns.
2. The proposed design enhances Mainstreet’s urban character and pedestrian
environment.
3. Flexibility granted through the PUD is balanced by superior design, sustainability, and
site amenities that would not be achievable under standard zoning provisions.
4. The project supports the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals for downtown infill
development, housing diversity, re-use of brownfield sites, and transit-oriented growth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hopkins hereby
approves a first reading of Ordinance 2025-1229 a PUD Rezoning and PUD Site Plan, for
501 Mainstreet and 15 6th Avenue North, subject to the following conditions:
1. Approved Plans: The project shall be developed in substantial conformance with the
plans dated September 25, 2025, prepared Advance Surveying & Engineering, and by
Collage Architects and except as modified herein, on file with the City.
2. Engineering and Public Works Requirements: The Applicant shall comply with all
conditions and comments of the City Engineer and Public Works Director, including but
not limited to stormwater management, grading, and utilities.
3. Building and Fire Codes: All structures and site improvements shall comply with
applicable City, State, and Federal building and fire safety codes.
4. MPCA Compliance: No building permits shall be issued until the required additional
vapor-sampling event and any necessary mitigation actions under State Statute are
identified.
5. Signage: Separate sign permits shall be required for any exterior signage.
6. Fencing: Separate fence permits shall be required for fencing installed on the subject
property
7. Dog Run: The pet exercise area shall be operated and maintained in sanitary condition
and buffered as depicted in the plans to prevent odor or noise impacts on adjacent
properties.
8. PUD Agreement: A PUD Development Agreement shall be executed prior to building
permit issuance.
9. Minor Revisions: Staff may approve minor plan modifications consistent with the intent of
this approval.
10. Watershed District Approval: Approval of the development by the Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District and conformance with all related conditions.
11. Sustainable Building Policy Requirements: Applicant must comply with the requirements
of the sustainable building policy including, but not limited to, submitting calculations
indicating predicted greenhouse gas emissions produced from the development, and
predicted percentage of energy on-site sourced by renewable energy.
12. Payment of all applicable development fees including, but not limited to Sewer Access
Charges, and City Attorney fees.
Adopted this 18th day of November, 2025.
________________________
ATTEST: Patrick Hanlon, Mayor
__________________________
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
October 13, 2025
Ryan Krzos, City Planner
City of Hopkins
1010 1st Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343
RE: 501 Mainstreet & 15 6th Avenue
Project Narrative
Footprint Development is seeking a Planned Unit Development to develop a four-story, 41-
unit, carbon-smart, climate-resilient multifamily apartment building and 3 parking spaces
at 501 Main Street, as well as 26 surface parking spaces at 15 6th Avenue N.
The project will add 41 quality market-rate apartment units. The development will be built
to Phius sustainability standards and thus will be more affordable to operate and occupy
into the future. The units are designed as small well-appointed units with minimal
amenities in order to maintain a reasonable rent structure. The amenities will include a
bike room to promote transit choices, a small lobby, and an indoor play are for children.
Access to exterior space is also provided as an amenity with common outdoor deck areas,
a semi-private courtyard on Main Street, a private courtyard at the rear of the lot, and a dog
run. Providing meaningful access to outdoor areas is a core item to promote healthy
lifestyles and living.
The project is designed with a center courtyard facing Main Street. This provides an
outdoor amenity space, and the ability to provide units with two-sided access to light and
air enhancing the overall livability of the units. The massing of the three parts also suggests
the historical spacing of the older portions of Main Street construction. The south and east
sides have extensive areas of brick with siding as accents. The north and west sides are
predominantly siding. Windows are ultra- high efficiency windows to meet Phius
standards. The project is wood-frame construction with a special emphasis on reducing
overall embodied carbon within the construction of the building.
Alignment with City Goals & Reciprocal Benefits for PUD Zoning Relief
The proposed development will put these hard-to-develop parcels to their highest and best
use for the City of Hopkins:
• Growing the City’s annual taxable capacity by ~$10MM,
• Providing an infiux of neighborhood resident-customers to support businesses in
Downtown Hopkins, and
• Increasing housing variety and creating a welcoming public realm that facilitates
social interactions and increases community resilience
• Enhancing the experience for transit riders and pedestrians by extending the
continuity of Mainstreet’s urban fabric
• Providing 4 new units of affordable housing at 60% of AMI for at least 25 years
Support Multi-Modal Transportation
The abundance of amenities and quality transit make the location ideally suited for a car-
light lifestyle. To that end, the building will be equipped with Bike Hub amenity spaces that
include 1.1 bike spots per apartment, bike repair & wash stations, and bike trailers for
shared use. There will also be 2 EV charging stalls. We will also engage with HourCar to be a
companion multifamily site to the planned HourCar location at Dow Towers.
Parking is reduced from typical city standards. Given the location of this site for transit
options, inclusion of bike amenities and car-share, this is an ideal location for multi-modal
transit. The transit options will reduce the reliance on vehicles and give residents an
opportunity to save the cost of owning a vehicle. Relief from the parking standards is
requested based on the nature of the development and the support of transit options. A
remote parking area is provided. The site on N. 6th is small and narrow. We have proposed
a layout that maximizes parking. Although some buffer is required on the north side, this
buffer would eliminate 6 stalls. The property to the north is currently a parking lot and
should not be adversely affected by the lack of a buffer. Two tree-islands would be
required. Relief is requested as we are trying to alleviate some neighborhood concern
around parking and removal of the tree-islands allows additional parking. Given the size of
the overall lot, the islands would also be extremely problematic to provide snow removal.
Sustainability
The proposed concept will exceed the City of Hopkins’ Sustainable Building Policy and
be the flrst project to be built under the new Policy. The project will be designed, built and
certifled to the Phius Core building standard. Phius (Passive House Institute of the U.S.) is
the pinnacle of high-performance building standards for energy efficiency, indoor air
quality, occupant comfort and acoustical performance. Phius certifled buildings also
achieve DOE Zero Energy Ready status and Energy Star certiflcation.
When completed, the new apartment homes will be 3rd-party tested and verifled as the
most energy efficient, healthy housing in Minnesota.
Sustainability: In order to meet the Phius standard, the project needs to meet a certain
threshold of window glazing and performance and thus we are requesting Relief on the
north and west sides. To meet the cost implications of the PHIUS standard we also need to
meet a minimum threshold of area and units and thus we are requesting relief on the south
and east setbacks. The south setback on Main Street is consistent with the historic
development pattern. The site layout is also consistent with the neighboring property
which has zero setback.
The size, shape, and grading of the site make the sites undevelopable under the existing
RX-D zoning requirements. As such, Footprint Development is seeking the zoning relief
summarized in the table below
Regulation Rationale
FRONT STREET SETBACK 7.5 ft. min, 15 ft. max. 3 ft.
proposed on south side.
Project feasibility.
NON-FRONT STREET
SETBACK
5 ft. min., 25 ft. max 0.5 ft.
proposed on east side.
Site condition and Project feasibility: note that the
property is not a true rectangle and the East
property line is at an angle to the building. Thus the
setback is .5’ at a minimum on the SE corner but
increases to 5’ 2’ on the NE corner.
IMPERVIOUS SITE
COVERAGE
70% max. 74.5% proposed on
501 Mainstreet Site; and 89.3%
proposed on 6th Avenue site.
Project feasibility – partially driven by the desire
increase surface parking
TRANSPARENCY: NON-
FRONT FACADES
18% min, measured per story;
Average of 11% on North, 12%
on West
Project feasibility and Sustainability goals –
optimizing glazing ratios is a central to passive
house design. Phius certification is not feasible
without reductions to the North Facade glazing
requirements
GROUND STORY
ELEVATION
The ground story must be
between 18 in. and 30 in. above
grade. 12 in. proposed.
The City’s elevation requirement and urban design
goals for the site are in tension with ADA
accessibility requirements. The proposed 12 in.
elevation on Mainstreet eliminates the need for
substantial and costly ramping that would impair
urban form & sustainability project goals.
OFF-STREET PARKING –
MOTOR VEHICULAR
MINIMUMS & MAXIMUMS
49 stalls are required. 30 stalls
proposed.
Project feasibility
LOCATION OF OFF-
STREET PARKING
Required residential off-street
parking must be located on the
same lot as the building or use
they serve. Proposal includes
off-site parking
Project feasibility: The sites are small and
scattered, and problematic to develop without
flexibility to adjust the location of the parking.
PARKING LOT TREES &
LOW SALT DESIGN
CHECKLIST
4 canopy trees are required on the
6th Avenue site. 2 are proposed.
There is a tension between the shared goals of
adding canopy trees, maximizing the number of
parking stalls, and adhering to Low Salt Design best
practices as articulated by the City.
The proposed design maximizes the number of
parking stalls. It also minimizes difficult-to-plow
curb contouring which will result in less snow/ice
buildup and reduce salt use during winter months.
Complying with the tree requirements would
eliminate 2 parking stalls.
PARKING LOT NORTH
BUFFER
Required buffer to the north
zoning district of 5’
Maximize parking opportunities. The north property
is currently a parking lot.
9/11/2025
9/25/2025
501 MAINSTREET AND 15 6TH AVE N.
5th AvenueMainstreet
C1Phone (952) 474-7964Web: www.advsur.comAdvanceSurveying & Engineering, Co.CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESSSHEET TITLE(CITY PLAN REVIEW)PROPOSED DEMO PLANSHEET NO.SHEET 1 OF 4251467 JRDRAWING NUMBERSHEET SIZE22 X 34501 MAINSTREET LLC501 MAINSTREET NORTHHOPKINS, MN18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 401Deephaven, Minnesota 55391DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE20'10'01 INCH = 10 FEETJULY 31, 2025DATE SURVEYED:SURVEYED BY:THOMAS M. BLOOM, PLS. #42379ADVANCE SURVEYING. & ENG., CO.LEGAL DESCRIPTION:All of Lot 5, and the South 110 feet of Lot 6, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISIONNO. 242, Hennepin County, Minnesota.1234#LICENSE NO.DATESEPTEMBER 25, 2025# 52716Joshua S. Rinke1235453324DATE DRAFTED:SEPTEMBER 25, 202566
5th AvenueMainstreetPROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDINGC2Phone (952) 474-7964Web: www.advsur.comAdvanceSurveying & Engineering, Co.CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESSSHEET TITLE(CITY PLAN REVIEW) PROPOSED SITE PLANSHEET NO.SHEET 2 OF 4251467 JRDRAWING NUMBERSHEET SIZE22 X 34501 MAINSTREET LLC501 MAINSTREET NORTHHOPKINS, MN18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 401Deephaven, Minnesota 55391DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE20'10'01 INCH = 10 FEETJULY 31, 2025DATE SURVEYED:SURVEYED BY:THOMAS M. BLOOM, PLS. #42379ADVANCE SURVEYING. & ENG., CO.#LICENSE NO.DATESEPTEMBER 25, 2025# 52716Joshua S. Rinke245678913101112131314151516711121722217173345689181814141414141011141919101114141216162020PROPOSED HARDCOVER (ON SITE)BUILDING (WITH OVERHANG) 8,618 Sq. Ft.BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 2,140 Sq. Ft.CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER 428 Sq. Ft.TRASH ENCLOSURE 168 Sq. Ft.TRANSFORMER PAD 36 Sq. Ft.CONCRETE WALKS 1,434 Sq. Ft.PAVER WALKS 51 Sq. Ft.TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER 12,875 Sq. Ft.AREA OF LOT 17,271 Sq. Ft.PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 74.5%14DATE DRAFTED:SEPTEMBER 25, 2025
5th AvenueMainstreetPROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDINGC3Phone (952) 474-7964Web: www.advsur.comAdvanceSurveying & Engineering, Co.CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESSSHEET TITLE(CITY PLAN REVIEW)PROPOSED GRADING PLANSHEET NO.SHEET 3 OF 4251467 JRDRAWING NUMBERSHEET SIZE22 X 34501 MAINSTREET LLC501 MAINSTREET NORTHHOPKINS, MN18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 401Deephaven, Minnesota 55391DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE20'10'01 INCH = 10 FEETJULY 31, 2025DATE SURVEYED:SURVEYED BY:THOMAS M. BLOOM, PLS. #42379ADVANCE SURVEYING. & ENG., CO.LEGAL DESCRIPTION:All of Lot 5, and the South 110 feet of Lot 6, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISIONNO. 242, Hennepin County, Minnesota.#LICENSE NO.DATESEPTEMBER 25, 2025# 52716Joshua S. RinkeDATE DRAFTED:SEPTEMBER 25, 2025
5th AvenueMainstreetPROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDINGC4Phone (952) 474-7964Web: www.advsur.comAdvanceSurveying & Engineering, Co.CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESSSHEET TITLE(CITY PLAN REVIEW)PROPOSED UTILITY PLANSHEET NO.SHEET 4 OF 4251467 JRDRAWING NUMBERSHEET SIZE22 X 34501 MAINSTREET LLC501 MAINSTREET NORTHHOPKINS, MN18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 401Deephaven, Minnesota 55391DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE20'10'01 INCH = 10 FEETDATE DRAFTED:SEPTEMBER 25, 2025JULY 31, 2025DATE SURVEYED:SURVEYED BY:THOMAS M. BLOOM, PLS. #42379ADVANCE SURVEYING. & ENG., CO.LEGAL DESCRIPTION:All of Lot 5, and the South 110 feet of Lot 6, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISIONNO. 242, Hennepin County, Minnesota.#LICENSE NO.DATESEPTEMBER 25, 2025# 52716Joshua S. Rinke
6th Avenue
C1Phone (952) 474-7964Web: www.advsur.comAdvanceSurveying & Engineering, Co.CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESSSHEET TITLESHEET NO.SHEET 1 OF 4251467 JRDRAWING NUMBERSHEET SIZE22 X 34501 MAINSTREET LLC15 6TH AVENUE NORTHHOPKINS, MN18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 401Deephaven, Minnesota 55391LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lot 6, Block 4, WEST MINNEAPOLIS SECOND DIVISION, and the South50 feet of the North 162.2 feet of Lot 3, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO242, Hennepin County, Minnesota.DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE20'10'01 INCH = 10 FEETJULY 31, 2025DATE SURVEYED:SURVEYED BY:THOMAS M. BLOOM, PLS. #42379ADVANCE SURVEYING. & ENG., CO.#LICENSE NO.DATESEPTEMBER 25, 2025# 52716Joshua S. Rinke123441122331DATE DRAFTED:SEPTEMBER 25, 2025(CITY PLAN REVIEW)PROPOSED DEMO PLAN
6th Avenue
C2Phone (952) 474-7964Web: www.advsur.comAdvanceSurveying & Engineering, Co.CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESSSHEET TITLESHEET NO.SHEET 2 OF 4251467 JRDRAWING NUMBERSHEET SIZE22 X 34501 MAINSTREET LLC15 6TH AVENUE NORTHHOPKINS, MN18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 401Deephaven, Minnesota 55391LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lot 6, Block 4, WEST MINNEAPOLIS SECOND DIVISION, and the South50 feet of the North 162.2 feet of Lot 3, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO242, Hennepin County, Minnesota.DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE20'10'01 INCH = 10 FEETJULY 31, 2025DATE SURVEYED:SURVEYED BY:THOMAS M. BLOOM, PLS. #42379ADVANCE SURVEYING. & ENG., CO.#LICENSE NO.DATESEPTEMBER 25, 2025# 52716Joshua S. Rinke124567891113222222233445667789PROPOSED HARDCOVERBITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 7,251 Sq. Ft.CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER 812 Sq. Ft.RETAINING WALLS 91 Sq. Ft.TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER 8,154 Sq. Ft.AREA OF LOT 9,337 Sq. Ft.PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 87.3%DATE DRAFTED:SEPTEMBER 25, 2025(CITY PLAN REVIEW) PROPOSED SITE PLAN6.06.0872.06888881925 PARKING STALLS7,4138,31689
6th Avenue
C3Phone (952) 474-7964Web: www.advsur.comAdvanceSurveying & Engineering, Co.CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESSSHEET TITLESHEET NO.SHEET 3 OF 4251467 JRDRAWING NUMBERSHEET SIZE22 X 34501 MAINSTREET LLC15 6TH AVENUE NORTHHOPKINS, MN18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 401Deephaven, Minnesota 55391LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lot 6, Block 4, WEST MINNEAPOLIS SECOND DIVISION, and the South50 feet of the North 162.2 feet of Lot 3, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO242, Hennepin County, Minnesota.DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE20'10'01 INCH = 10 FEETJULY 31, 2025DATE SURVEYED:SURVEYED BY:THOMAS M. BLOOM, PLS. #42379ADVANCE SURVEYING. & ENG., CO.#LICENSE NO.DATESEPTEMBER 25, 2025# 52716Joshua S. RinkeDATE DRAFTED:SEPTEMBER 25, 2025(CITY PLAN REVIEW)PROPOSED GRADING PLAN
6th Avenue
C4Phone (952) 474-7964Web: www.advsur.comAdvanceSurveying & Engineering, Co.CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESSSHEET TITLESHEET NO.SHEET 4 OF 4251467 JRDRAWING NUMBERSHEET SIZE22 X 34501 MAINSTREET LLC15 6TH AVENUE NORTHHOPKINS, MN18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 401Deephaven, Minnesota 55391LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lot 6, Block 4, WEST MINNEAPOLIS SECOND DIVISION, and the South50 feet of the North 162.2 feet of Lot 3, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO242, Hennepin County, Minnesota.DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE20'10'01 INCH = 10 FEETJULY 31, 2025DATE SURVEYED:SURVEYED BY:THOMAS M. BLOOM, PLS. #42379ADVANCE SURVEYING. & ENG., CO.#LICENSE NO.DATESEPTEMBER 25, 2025# 52716Joshua S. RinkeDATE DRAFTED:SEPTEMBER 25, 2025(CITY PLAN REVIEW)PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN
Collage | a r c h i t e c t s SEP.2025FOOTPRINT | Hopkins, MN
2
CLIENT’S
LOGO
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW | SITE PLAN
MAIN STREET 5TH AVENUE NSITE TWO
SITE ONE
ADJACENT BUILDING
ADJACENT BUILDING25
Collage | a r c h i t e c t s SEP.2025FOOTPRINT | Hopkins, MN
3
CLIENT’S
LOGO
SITE ONE | CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW | LANDSCAPE PLAN
MAIN STREET 5TH AVENUE NSTATISTICS
41 Units
8 STUDIOS
25 ONE BR. UNITS
8 TWO BR. UNITS
4 STORIES
3 PARKING STALLS
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
= 8,017 GSF = 46.4%
ADJACENT BUILDING
ADJACENT BUILDING
Collage | a r c h i t e c t s SEP.2025FOOTPRINT | Hopkins, MN
5
CLIENT’S
LOGO
83:':':':':':':'5:$//6$5((:+(5(7$,1('
(5/,1(2)(
')($785(6*6:,7+
6(176$
)$&(:,7+
$'(5
7,167$//(',16+$//%(6758&7('72
)8//',1*2)),&,$/%(
81'5<%$7+
(179(57,&$//<
217(67,1*66+$//%(7$//$//,1.$*(
0%5$1(6
2)35(&$67
$1'/$81'5<6$6127('21
7,1*:$//66
0(17//(':+(7+(5
,1*6:+(10867%(),5($///2&$7,216
30(175$,/6
$&&(6625,(6(5:,6(
$7(5,$/27+(5:,6(
%(/(9(/,/',1*
0%/,(6
$66(0%/,(6
0$7(5,$/
'2256$1'2256
$
$
$
$
)/225'5$,1
32:(523(5$725 6 75$16)250(5
"
XQLW
"
$
$
$
$
$
*6)
$
:$7(5
2)),&(
)3 :$7(5
0(7(5
C
/2%%<
%,.(5220
5(9,6,216
6+((77,7/(
352-(&712
'5$:1%<
&+.
'%<
ZZZFROODJHDUFKLWHFWVFRP
'$7(
'$7(
3(7(5.((/<5(*,675$7,2112
&ROODJH_DUFKLWHFWV$UFKLWHFWV3HWH.HHO\WK$YHQXH1(0LQQHDSROLV01
6WUXFWXUDO(QJLQHHU)LUP(253KRQH6WUHHW&LW\6WDWH=LS
&LYLOO(QJLQHHU)LUP(253KRQH6WUHHW&LW\6WDWH=LS
,+(5(%<&(57,)<7+$77+,63/$163(&,),&$7,21255(3257:$635(3$5('%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7683(59,6,21$1'7+$7,$0$'8/</,&(16('$5&+,7(&781'(57+(/$:62)7+(67$7(2)0,11(627$
$
/(9(/)/225
3/$1
)RRWSULQW+RSNLQV
,VVXH'DWH
0DLQ6WUHHW
$XWKRU
&KHFNHU
3UHOLPLQDU\
,VVXH'DWH
+RSNLQV
1R'DWH 'HVFULSWLRQ
$
/(9(/)/2253/$1
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW | FIRST FLOOR PLAN
STATISTICS
41 Units
8 STUDIOS
25 ONE BR. UNITS
8 TWO BR. UNITS
4 STORIES
3 PARKING STALLS
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
= 8,017 GSF = 46.4%
41 INTERIOR BIKE RACKS
2 EXTERIOR BIKE LOOPS
TRASH
19 WALL MOUNT BIKE RACK (DOUBLE) =38 BIKES
%,.(5220
Collage | a r c h i t e c t s SEP.2025FOOTPRINT | Hopkins, MN
6
CLIENT’S
LOGO
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW | SECOND FLOOR PLAN (3rd/4th, SIM)
STATISTICS
41 Units
8 STUDIOS
25 ONE BR. UNITS
8 TWO BR. UNITS
4 STORIES
3 PARKING STALLS
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
= 8,017 GSF = 46.4%
:':':':':''1
'1 :':':':':':'$
$
$
$
&255,'25
$
$
$
$
$
$678',2*6)%%5 *6)%%5 *6)
%5*6)
%%5*6)%%5*6)
%%5*6)
&%5*6)
%%5*6)
%%5*6)
%%5*6)
$
5(9,6,216
6+((77,7/(
352-(&712
'5$:1%<
&+.
'%<
ZZZFROODJHDUFKLWHFWVFRP
'$7(
'$7(
3(7(5.((/<5(*,675$7,2112
&ROODJH_DUFKLWHFWV$UFKLWHFWV3HWH.HHO\WK$YHQXH1(0LQQHDSROLV01
6WUXFWXUDO(QJLQHHU)LUP(253KRQH6WUHHW&LW\6WDWH=LS
&LYLOO(QJLQHHU)LUP(253KRQH6WUHHW&LW\6WDWH=LS
,+(5(%<&(57,)<7+$77+,63/$163(&,),&$7,21255(3257:$635(3$5('%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7683(59,6,21$1'7+$7,$0$'8/</,&(16('$5&+,7(&781'(57+(/$:62)7+(67$7(2)0,11(627$
$
/(9(/)/225
3/$1
)RRWSULQW+RSNLQV
,VVXH'DWH
0DLQ6WUHHW
$XWKRU
&KHFNHU
3UHOLPLQDU\
,VVXH'DWH
+RSNLQV
6(($)25*(1(5$/%8,/,'1*3/$1127(6
1R'DWH 'HVFULSWLRQ
$
/(9(/)/2253/$1
15'15'
Collage | a r c h i t e c t s SEP.2025FOOTPRINT | Hopkins, MN
7
CLIENT’S
LOGO
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW | ROOF PLAN
STATISTICS
41 Units
8 STUDIOS
25 ONE BR. UNITS
8 TWO BR. UNITS
4 STORIES
3 PARKING STALLS
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
= 8,017 GSF = 46.4%
080$7$//
/23(72'5$,16$7
2)'5$,16
1$7($//522)7:,7+0(3
6
$
$
$
$
6&833(5$1''2:163287
$
$
$
5(9,6,216
6+((77,7/(
352-(&712
'5$:1%<
&+.
'%<
ZZZFROODJHDUFKLWHFWVFRP
'$7(
'$7(
3(7(5.((/<5(*,675$7,2112
&ROODJH_DUFKLWHFWV$UFKLWHFWV3HWH.HHO\WK$YHQXH1(0LQQHDSROLV01
6WUXFWXUDO(QJLQHHU)LUP(253KRQH6WUHHW&LW\6WDWH=LS
&LYLOO(QJLQHHU)LUP(253KRQH6WUHHW&LW\6WDWH=LS
,+(5(%<&(57,)<7+$77+,63/$163(&,),&$7,21255(3257:$635(3$5('%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7683(59,6,21$1'7+$7,$0$'8/</,&(16('$5&+,7(&781'(57+(/$:62)7+(67$7(2)0,11(627$
$
522)3/$1
)RRWSULQW+RSNLQV
,VVXH'DWH
0DLQ6WUHHW
$XWKRU
&KHFNHU
3UHOLPLQDU\
,VVXH'DWH
+RSNLQV
$
522)3/$1
1R'DWH 'HVFULSWLRQ
Collage | a r c h i t e c t s SEP.2025FOOTPRINT | Hopkins, MN
8
CLIENT’S
LOGO
SITE TWO
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW | PERSPECTIVE VIEW
Collage | a r c h i t e c t s SEP.2025FOOTPRINT | Hopkins, MN
9
CLIENT’S
LOGO
SITE TWO
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW | PERSPECTIVE VIEW
Collage | a r c h i t e c t s SEP.2025FOOTPRINT | Hopkins, MN
10
CLIENT’S
LOGO
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW | PERSPECTIVE VIEW
Collage | a r c h i t e c t s SEP.2025FOOTPRINT | Hopkins, MN
11
CLIENT’S
LOGO
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW | PERSPECTIVE VIEW
Collage | a r c h i t e c t s SEP.2025FOOTPRINT | Hopkins, MN
12
CLIENT’S
LOGO
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW | PERSPECTIVE VIEW
Collage | a r c h i t e c t s SEP.2025FOOTPRINT | Hopkins, MN
13
CLIENT’S
LOGO
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW | PERSPECTIVE VIEW
Collage | a r c h i t e c t s SEP.2025FOOTPRINT | Hopkins, MN
14
CLIENT’S
LOGO
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW | PERSPECTIVE VIEW
Collage | a r c h i t e c t s SEP.2025FOOTPRINT | Hopkins, MN
15
CLIENT’S
LOGO
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW | PERSPECTIVE VIEW
Collage | a r c h i t e c t s SEP.2025FOOTPRINT | Hopkins, MN
16
CLIENT’S
LOGO
0703
0202
04
05
10
0101
06
08
MATERIALS LIST
01- 4” LAP SIDING
02- PANEL SIDING
03- 4” LAP SIDING
04- BRICK (COLOR 1)
05- BRICK (COLOR 2)
06- BRICK (COLOR 3)
07- PREFINISHED METAL
08- HIGH EFFICIENCY COM-
POSITE WINDOW
09- PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
DECK AND RAILINGS
10- STONE SILL
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW | MATERIALS BOARD
Collage | a r c h i t e c t s SEP.2025FOOTPRINT | Hopkins, MN
17
CLIENT’S
LOGO
EAST ELEVATION | WALL AREA = 3,147 SF, GLASS AREA= 565 SF (18%) WALL AREA LESS GLASS = 2,586 SF, BRICK AREA = 1,324 SF = 51%
SOUTH ELEVATION | WALL AREA = 5,530 SF, GLASS AREA= 1,215 SF (22%) WALL AREA LESS GLASS = 4,315 SF, BRICK AREA = 2,852 SF = 66%45’-0”45’-0”02
07
01
05
6’ TALL WOOD FENCE
02
SOLAR PANELS
10
04
05
08
02
01
MATERIALS LIST
01- 4” LAP SIDING
02- PANEL SIDING
03- 4” LAP SIDING
04- BRICK (COLOR 1)
05- BRICK (COLOR 2)
06- BRICK (COLOR 3)
07- PREFINISHED METAL
08- HIGH EFFICIENCY COM-
POSITE WINDOW
09- PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
DECK AND RAILINGS
10- STONE SILL
09
03
07
08
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW | ELEVATIONS
06LEVEL 1100' - 0"T.O. SLABLEVEL 2110' - 7 7/8"T.O. SUBFLOORLEVEL 3121' - 3 3/4"T.O. SUBFLOORLEVEL 4131' - 11 5/8"T.O. SUBFLOORROOF BRG141' - 0 3/4"T.O.PARAPET144' - 11 1/2"T T T 3' - 10 3/4"9' - 1 1/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"
Collage | a r c h i t e c t s SEP.2025FOOTPRINT | Hopkins, MN
18
CLIENT’S
LOGO
WEST ELEVATION | WALL AREA = 3,130 SF, GLASS AREA= 376 SF (12%) WALL AREA LESS GLASS = 2,754 SF, BRICK AREA = 522 SF = 19%
NORTH ELEVATION | WALL AREA = 5,513 SF, GLASS AREA= 662 SF (12%) WALL AREA LESS GLASS = 4,851 SF, BRICK AREA = 0 SF45’-0”45’-0”01
02
05
04
01
02
SOLAR PANELS
SOLAR PANELS SOLAR PANELS
MATERIALS LIST
01- 4” LAP SIDING
02- PANEL SIDING
03- 4” LAP SIDING
04- BRICK (COLOR 1)
05- BRICK (COLOR 2)
06- BRICK (COLOR 3)
07- PREFINISHED METAL
08- HIGH EFFICIENCY COM-
POSITE WINDOW
09- PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
DECK AND RAILINGS
10- STONE SILL
08
04
07
02
07
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW | ELEVATIONSLEVEL 1100' - 0"T.O. SLABLEVEL 2110' - 7 7/8"T.O. SUBFLOORLEVEL 3121' - 3 3/4"T.O. SUBFLOORLEVEL 4131' - 11 5/8"T.O. SUBFLOORROOF BRG141' - 0 3/4"T.O.PARAPET144' - 11 1/2"T T T 3' - 10 3/4"9' - 1 1/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"LEVEL 1100' - 0"T.O. SLABLEVEL 2110' - 7 7/8"T.O. SUBFLOORLEVEL 3121' - 3 3/4"T.O. SUBFLOORLEVEL 4131' - 11 5/8"T.O. SUBFLOORROOF BRG141' - 0 3/4"T.O.PARAPET144' - 11 1/2"T T T 3' - 10 3/4"9' - 1 1/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"
Collage | a r c h i t e c t s SEP.2025FOOTPRINT | Hopkins, MN
19
CLIENT’S
LOGO
WEST PATIO ELEVATION
EAST PATIO ELEVATION 45’-0”45’-0”01
05
04
SOLAR PANELS
SOLAR PANELS
MATERIALS LIST
01- 4” LAP SIDING
02- PANEL SIDING
03- 4” LAP SIDING
04- BRICK (COLOR 1)
05- BRICK (COLOR 2)
06- BRICK (COLOR 3)
07- PREFINISHED METAL
08- HIGH EFFICIENCY COM-
POSITE WINDOW
09- PREFINISHED ALUMINUM
DECK AND RAILINGS
10- STONE SILL
07
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW | ELEVATIONS
01
05
04
07LEVEL 1100' - 0"T.O. SLABLEVEL 2110' - 7 7/8"T.O. SUBFLOORLEVEL 3121' - 3 3/4"T.O. SUBFLOORLEVEL 4131' - 11 5/8"T.O. SUBFLOORROOF BRG141' - 0 3/4"T.O.PARAPET144' - 11 1/2"T T T 3' - 10 3/4"9' - 1 1/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8"10' - 7 7/8" WALL AREA = 5,513 SF, GLASS AREA= 662 SF (12%) WALL AREA LESS GLASS = 4,851 SF, BRICK AREA = 0 SF1,365 179 118613 896 (75%)
WALL AREA = 5,513 SF, GLASS AREA= 662 SF (12%) WALL AREA LESS GLASS = 4,851 SF, BRICK AREA = 0 SF1,365 179 118613 896 (75%)
Collage | a r c h i t e c t s SEP.2025FOOTPRINT | Hopkins, MN
20
CLIENT’S
LOGO
MAR 21 4:00PMMAR 21 12:00PMMAR 21 9:00AM
SEP 21 4:00PMSEP 21 12:00PMSEP 21 9:00AM
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW | SUN STUDIES
Collage | a r c h i t e c t s SEP.2025FOOTPRINT | Hopkins, MN
21
CLIENT’S
LOGO
DEC 21 3:00PMDEC 21 12:00PMDEC 21 10:00AM
JUN 21 4:00PMJUN 21 12:00PMJUN 21 9:00AM
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW | SUN STUDIES
SETBACK LINEMINNEHAHA AVENUE36TH STREETEXISTING LINDEN SHADE TREESPUBLIC ALLEYEXST. SHADE TREE; APPROX. LOCATONEXISTING GARAGEEXISTING DWELLINGEXISTING DWELLINGEXISTING DWELLINGNEW SHADE TREEGLEDITSIA "SKYLINE" (HONEYLOCUST)EXISTING GARAGECMU RETAINING WALL, SEE CIVILEXISTING HACKBERRY SHADE TREEEXISTING HACKBERRY SHADE TREERAIN GARDENS6' - 0"ROW5' - 10 7/8"143' - 4"NEW SHADE TREEGLEDITSIA "SKYLINE" (HONEYLOCUST)PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINER 10' - 0"1332211PROTECTED ROOT ZONE TYP.R 20' - 0"PROTECTED ROOT ZONE TYP.R 20' - 0"EXCAVATION LIMIT AT ROOT ZONECORTEN WALL (BY OWNER)23' - 6 3/8"3311111 11SITE SURFACE LEGENDNATIVE RAIN GARDEN, POLLINATOR SEED MIX,~3,160 SFGROUND COVER, OR TURF GRASSCONCRETE STOOPS, WALK, AND PATIOS~2500 SFREVISIONS:SHEET TITLEPROJECT NO:DRAWN BY:CHK'D BY:www.collagearchitects.comDATE:DATE: PETER KEELYREGISTRATION NO: 23570Collage | architectsArchitectsPete Keely651.472.0050708 15th Avenue NEMinneapolis, MN 55413Civil EngineeringAdvance Surveying & EngineeringEOR952.474.796417917 Highway 7Minnetonka, MN 55345I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Mechanical DesignEmanuelson-Podas, Inc.EOR952.930.00507705 Bush Lake RoadEdina, MN 55439Structural EngineeringMeyer Borgman JohnsonEOR612.338.0713510 South Marquette Ave, Suite 900Minneapolis, MN 55402Owner2561 Minnehaha, LLCCody Fischer612.567.3990CODY@FOOTPRINTDEV.COM11/21/2024 5:31:39 PML1LANDSCAPE PLAN3565 MINNEHAHA11.22.202411701.013565 Minnehaha AveMinneapolis, MNAuthorCheckerFOR PERMIT11.22.20243/32" = 1'-0"1LUA LANDSCAPE PLAN27.60°LANDSCAPING & SCREENINGLOT AREABUILDING FOOTPRINTREMAINING LOT AREAMIN. LANDSCAPE AREAACTUAL LANDSCAPE AREA11,876 GSF6,110 GSF5,629 GSF20% | 1,126 GSF49% | 2,783 GSFCANOPY TREES REQUIRED CANOPY TREES PROVIDED1,126 GSF/500 SF = 2.253CANOPY TREE SPECIES LISTQTYGLEDITSIA 'SUNBURST' OR 'SKYLINE' 3(HONEYLOCUST)SHRUBS REQUIREDSHRUBS PROVIDED1,126 GSF/100 SF =11.2612SHRUB SPECIES LISTQTY1 CORNUS 'NEON BURST' (DOGWOOD)32 TAXUS 'TAUNTON' (YEW)23 CEANOTHUS AMERICANUS 2 (NEW JERSEY TEA)No. Date DescriptionFACE OF BUILDING, WALL, OR STRUCTURE
MIN. 3" LAYER OF ROCK MULCH AS SPECIFIED. PROVIDE SAMPLE TO
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
FINISHED GRADE
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
WATER PERMEABLE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC AS SPECIFIED
18" - VERIFY W/ PLAN
AGGREGATE MAINTANENCE STRIP
N T S
STAKED LANDSCAPE EDGER AS SPECIFIED, SEE MANUFACTURER'S
INSTRUCTIONS AND SPECS. FOR INSTALLATION AND PLACEMENT
SLOPE - MIN. 2%, MAX. 5:1
VERIFY W/ GRADING PLAN
1
PERENNIAL BED PLANTING
N T S
PLANT TOP OF ROOTBALL 1-2" ABOVE ABOVE
SURROUNDING GRADE
ROOTS AT OUTER EDGE OF ROOTBALL LOOSENED TO
ENSURE PROPER BACKFILL-TO-ROOT CONTACT
SLOPE SIDES OF HOLE OR VERTICAL SIDES AT EDGE OF
PLANTING BED
EXISTING GRADE
ROCK OR ORGANIC MULCH, SEE GENERAL LANDSCAPE
NOTES AND PLAN NOTES FOR MULCH TYPE. KEEP
MULCH MIN. 2" FROM PLANT STEM
BACKFILL AS PER SPECIFICATION
DO NOT EXCAVATE BELOW ROOTBALL.
SIZE VARIES
SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN
MODIFY EXCAVATION BASED ON LOCATION OF PLANT
MATERIAL AND DESIGN OF BEDS OR OVERALL PLANT
PLACEMENT
4
DECIDUOUS & CONIFEROUS SHRUB PLANTING
N T S
PRUNE AS FIELD DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT TO IMPROVE APPEARANCE (RETAIN
NORMAL SHAPE FOR SPECIES)
PLANT TOP OF ROOTBALL 1-2" ABOVE ABOVE
SURROUNDING GRADE
ROOTS AT OUTER EDGE OF ROOTBALL LOOSENED TO
ENSURE PROPER BACKFILL-TO-ROOT CONTACT
SLOPE SIDES OF HOLE OR VERTICAL SIDES AT EDGE OF
PLANTING BED
EXISTING GRADE
ROCK OR ORGANIC MULCH, SEE GENERAL LANDSCAPE
NOTES AND PLAN NOTES FOR MULCH TYPE. KEEP
MULCH MIN. 2" FROM PLANT TRUNK
BACKFILL AS PER SPECIFICATION
DO NOT EXCAVATE BELOW ROOTBALL.
THREE TIMES WIDTH
OF ROOTBALL
RULE OF THUMB - MODIFY EXCAVATION BASED ON
LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL AND DESIGN OF BEDS
OR OVERALL PLANT PLACEMENT
3
THREE TIMES WIDTH
OF ROOTBALL
DECIDUOUS & CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING
N T S
PRUNE AS FIELD DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT TO IMPROVE APPEARANCE (RETAIN
NORMAL TREE SHAPE)
THREE 2"X4"X8' WOODEN STAKES, STAINED BROWN
WITH TWO STRANDS OF WIRE TWISTED TOGETHER.
STAKES SHALL BE PLACED AT 120° TO ONE ANOTHER.
WIRE SHALL BE THREADED THROUGH NYLON
STRAPPING WITH GROMMETS. ALTERNATE STABILIZING
METHODS MAY BE PROPOSED BY CONTRACTOR.
TRUNK FLARE JUNCTION: PLANT TREE 1"-2" ABOVE
EXISTING GRADE
MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER OR TO EDGE OF
PLANTING BED, IF APPLICABLE. ROCK OR ORGANIC
MULCH, SEE GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES AND PLAN
NOTES FOR MULCH TYPE. KEEP MULCH MIN. 2" FROM
PLANT TRUNK
EXISTING GRADE
CUT AND REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP 1/3 OF ROOT
BALL. IF NON-BIODEGRADABLE, REMOVE COMPLETELY
SLOPE SIDES OF HOLE OR VERTICAL SIDES AT EDGE OF
PLANTING BED
BACKFILL AS SPECIFIED
COMPACT BOTTOM OF PIT, TYP.
RULE OF THUMB - MODIFY EXCAVATION BASED ON
LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL AND DESIGN OF BEDS
OR OVERALL PLANT PLACEMENT
2
1
2
3 4
FACE OF BUILDING, WALL, OR STRUCTURE
MIN. 3" LAYER OF ROCK MULCH AS SPECIFIED. PROVIDE SAMPLE TO
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
FINISHED GRADE
COMPACTED SUBGRADE
WATER PERMEABLE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC AS SPECIFIED
18" - VERIFY W/ PLAN
AGGREGATE MAINTANENCE STRIP
N T S
STAKED LANDSCAPE EDGER AS SPECIFIED, SEE MANUFACTURER'S
INSTRUCTIONS AND SPECS. FOR INSTALLATION AND PLACEMENT
SLOPE - MIN. 2%, MAX. 5:1
VERIFY W/ GRADING PLAN
1
PERENNIAL BED PLANTING
N T S
PLANT TOP OF ROOTBALL 1-2" ABOVE ABOVE
SURROUNDING GRADE
ROOTS AT OUTER EDGE OF ROOTBALL LOOSENED TO
ENSURE PROPER BACKFILL-TO-ROOT CONTACT
SLOPE SIDES OF HOLE OR VERTICAL SIDES AT EDGE OF
PLANTING BED
EXISTING GRADE
ROCK OR ORGANIC MULCH, SEE GENERAL LANDSCAPE
NOTES AND PLAN NOTES FOR MULCH TYPE. KEEP
MULCH MIN. 2" FROM PLANT STEM
BACKFILL AS PER SPECIFICATION
DO NOT EXCAVATE BELOW ROOTBALL.
SIZE VARIES
SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN
MODIFY EXCAVATION BASED ON LOCATION OF PLANT
MATERIAL AND DESIGN OF BEDS OR OVERALL PLANT
PLACEMENT
4
DECIDUOUS & CONIFEROUS SHRUB PLANTING
N T S
PRUNE AS FIELD DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT TO IMPROVE APPEARANCE (RETAIN
NORMAL SHAPE FOR SPECIES)
PLANT TOP OF ROOTBALL 1-2" ABOVE ABOVE
SURROUNDING GRADE
ROOTS AT OUTER EDGE OF ROOTBALL LOOSENED TO
ENSURE PROPER BACKFILL-TO-ROOT CONTACT
SLOPE SIDES OF HOLE OR VERTICAL SIDES AT EDGE OF
PLANTING BED
EXISTING GRADE
ROCK OR ORGANIC MULCH, SEE GENERAL LANDSCAPE
NOTES AND PLAN NOTES FOR MULCH TYPE. KEEP
MULCH MIN. 2" FROM PLANT TRUNK
BACKFILL AS PER SPECIFICATION
DO NOT EXCAVATE BELOW ROOTBALL.
THREE TIMES WIDTH
OF ROOTBALL
RULE OF THUMB - MODIFY EXCAVATION BASED ON
LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL AND DESIGN OF BEDS
OR OVERALL PLANT PLACEMENT
3
THREE TIMES WIDTH
OF ROOTBALL
DECIDUOUS & CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING
N T S
PRUNE AS FIELD DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT TO IMPROVE APPEARANCE (RETAIN
NORMAL TREE SHAPE)
THREE 2"X4"X8' WOODEN STAKES, STAINED BROWN
WITH TWO STRANDS OF WIRE TWISTED TOGETHER.
STAKES SHALL BE PLACED AT 120° TO ONE ANOTHER.
WIRE SHALL BE THREADED THROUGH NYLON
STRAPPING WITH GROMMETS. ALTERNATE STABILIZING
METHODS MAY BE PROPOSED BY CONTRACTOR.
TRUNK FLARE JUNCTION: PLANT TREE 1"-2" ABOVE
EXISTING GRADE
MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER OR TO EDGE OF
PLANTING BED, IF APPLICABLE. ROCK OR ORGANIC
MULCH, SEE GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES AND PLAN
NOTES FOR MULCH TYPE. KEEP MULCH MIN. 2" FROM
PLANT TRUNK
EXISTING GRADE
CUT AND REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP 1/3 OF ROOT
BALL. IF NON-BIODEGRADABLE, REMOVE COMPLETELY
SLOPE SIDES OF HOLE OR VERTICAL SIDES AT EDGE OF
PLANTING BED
BACKFILL AS SPECIFIED
COMPACT BOTTOM OF PIT, TYP.
RULE OF THUMB - MODIFY EXCAVATION BASED ON
LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL AND DESIGN OF BEDS
OR OVERALL PLANT PLACEMENT
2
1
2
3 4
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ONLY PLANT MATERIAL FREE OF
NEONICOTINOID BASED INSECTICIDES AND/OR TREATMENTS OF ANY KIN
INCLUDING BY NOT LIMITED TO IMIDACLOPRID (CONFIDOR, ADMIRE,
GAUCHO, ADVOCATE), THIAMETHOXAM (ACTARA, PLATINUM, CRUISER),
CLOTHIANIDIN (PONCHO, DANTOSU, DANTOP), ACETAMIPRID (MOSPILAN,
ASSAIL, CHIPCOTRISTAR), THIACLOPRID (CALYPSO), DINOTEFURAN
(STARKLE, SAFARI, VENOM), AND NITENPYRAM (CAPSTAR, GUARDIAN).
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL CERTIFY, THROUGH SUPPLIERS POLICY STATEMEN
OR AFFIDAVIT, THAT NO NEONICOTINOID BASED INSECTICIDES HAVE BEE
USED ON SITE OR DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE GROWING OR STORAGE
PLOTS OF THE SUPPLIED PLANT MATERIAL, INCLUDING THE PLANTING O
AGRICULTURAL (OR OTHER) SEED TREATED WITH NEONICS ..
POLLINATOR SAFE PLANT MATERIAL:
N
.
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ONLY PLANT MATERIAL FREE OF
NEONICOTINOID BASED INSECTICIDES AND/OR TREATMENTS OF ANY KIN
INCLUDING BY NOT LIMITED TO IMIDACLOPRID (CONFIDOR, ADMIRE,
GAUCHO, ADVOCATE), THIAMETHOXAM (ACTARA, PLATINUM, CRUISER),
CLOTHIANIDIN (PONCHO, DANTOSU, DANTOP), ACETAMIPRID (MOSPILAN,
ASSAIL, CHIPCOTRISTAR), THIACLOPRID (CALYPSO), DINOTEFURAN
(STARKLE, SAFARI, VENOM), AND NITENPYRAM (CAPSTAR, GUARDIAN).
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL CERTIFY, THROUGH SUPPLIERS POLICY STATEMEN
OR AFFIDAVIT, THAT NO NEONICOTINOID BASED INSECTICIDES HAVE BEE
USED ON SITE OR DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE GROWING OR STORAGE
PLOTS OF THE SUPPLIED PLANT MATERIAL, INCLUDING THE PLANTING O
AGRICULTURAL (OR OTHER) SEED TREATED WITH NEONICS ..
POLLINATOR SAFE PLANT MATERIAL:
N
.
LANDSCAPE NOTES:
1. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-11
UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT A
DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
2. WHERE SHOWN, SHRUB & PERENNIAL BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH 4" DEPTH (MINIMUM AFTER INSTALLATION AND/OR TOP DRE
OPERATIONS) OF SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH .
3. ALL TREES SHALL BE MULCHED WITH SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER OR TO EDGE OF PLANTING BED, IF
APPLICABLE. ALL MULCH SHALL BE KEPT WITHIN A MINIMUM OF 2" FROM TREE TRUNK.
4. IF SHOWN ON PLAN, RANDOM SIZED LIMESTONE BOULDERS COLOR AND SIZE TO COMPLIMENT NEW LANDSCAPING. OWNER TO AP
BOULDER SAMPLES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
5. PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS AND SHALL BE OF HARDY
FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE AND DISFIGURATION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PLUMPNESS OF PLANT MA
FOR DURATION OF ACCEPTANCE PERIOD.
6. UPON DISCOVERY OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE SCHEDULE AND THE QUANTITY SHOW
THE PLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN.
7. CONDITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTR
LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE WARRANTED FOR ONE (1) FULL GROWING SEASONS FROM SUBSTANT
COMPLETION DATE.
8. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL RECEIVE 4" LAYERTOPSOILAND SOD AS SPECIFIED UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS.
9. COORDINATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES, LIGHTING FIXTURES, DOORS AND WIND
CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINAL LOCATION OF TREES AND SHRUBS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCA
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
10. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL ACCEPTANCE.
11. REPAIR AT NO COST TO OWNER ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.
12. SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.
13. REPAIR AT NO COST TO THE OWNER IRRIGATION SYSTEM DAMAGED FROM LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
14. PROVIDE SITE WIDE IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION. SYSTEM SHALL BE FULLY PROGRAMMABLE AND CAPABLE O
ALTERNATE DATE WATERING. THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE HEAD TO HEAD OR DRIP COVERAGE AND BE CAPABLE OF DELIVERING
INCH OF PRECIPITATION PER WEEK. SYSTEM SHALL EXTEND INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT/BACK
15. CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE APPROVAL OF PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM INLCUDING PRICING FROM OWNER, PRIOR TO INSTA
LANDSCAPE NOTES:
1. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-11
UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT A
DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
2. WHERE SHOWN, SHRUB & PERENNIAL BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH 4" DEPTH (MINIMUM AFTER INSTALLATION AND/OR TOP DRE
OPERATIONS) OF SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH .
3. ALL TREES SHALL BE MULCHED WITH SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER OR TO EDGE OF PLANTING BED, IF
APPLICABLE. ALL MULCH SHALL BE KEPT WITHIN A MINIMUM OF 2" FROM TREE TRUNK.
4. IF SHOWN ON PLAN, RANDOM SIZED LIMESTONE BOULDERS COLOR AND SIZE TO COMPLIMENT NEW LANDSCAPING. OWNER TO AP
BOULDER SAMPLES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
5. PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS AND SHALL BE OF HARDY
FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE AND DISFIGURATION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PLUMPNESS OF PLANT MA
FOR DURATION OF ACCEPTANCE PERIOD.
6. UPON DISCOVERY OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE SCHEDULE AND THE QUANTITY SHOW
THE PLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN.
7. CONDITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTR
LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE WARRANTED FOR ONE (1) FULL GROWING SEASONS FROM SUBSTANT
COMPLETION DATE.
8. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL RECEIVE 4" LAYERTOPSOILAND SOD AS SPECIFIED UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS.
9. COORDINATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES, LIGHTING FIXTURES, DOORS AND WIND
CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINAL LOCATION OF TREES AND SHRUBS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCA
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
10. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL ACCEPTANCE.
11. REPAIR AT NO COST TO OWNER ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.
12. SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.
13. REPAIR AT NO COST TO THE OWNER IRRIGATION SYSTEM DAMAGED FROM LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
14. PROVIDE SITE WIDE IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION. SYSTEM SHALL BE FULLY PROGRAMMABLE AND CAPABLE O
ALTERNATE DATE WATERING. THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE HEAD TO HEAD OR DRIP COVERAGE AND BE CAPABLE OF DELIVERING
INCH OF PRECIPITATION PER WEEK. SYSTEM SHALL EXTEND INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT/BACK
15. CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE APPROVAL OF PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM INLCUDING PRICING FROM OWNER, PRIOR TO INSTA
2,555 SF
3,658 SF
1 LANDSCAPE PLAN LUA
L1Civil EngineeringAdvance Surveying & EngineeringEOR952.474.796417917 Highway 7Minnetonka, MN 55345734-800 TYLER LLC
WOOD MULCH 1"
955 SF
6' WOOD PRIVACY FENCE
6
5 PRIVACY FENCE
SITE PLAN APPLICATION
SEPTEMBER 19, 2025
501 MAINSTREET LLC
501 MAINSTREET
HOPKINS, MN
MATERIALS:
2"x4"x8' WOOD RAILS
1"x6" x6' DOG EAR PICKETS
4"x4" x96" STAINED AND TREATED POSTS
GAPS:
1" APPROXIMATE AT HINGE AND LATCH SIDE OF GATES
2" AT BOTTOM OF FENCE
69"3"4'8'-0" TYP.
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ONLY PLANT MATERIAL FREE OF
NEONICOTINOID BASED INSECTICIDES AND/OR TREATMENTS OF ANY KIN
INCLUDING BY NOT LIMITED TO IMIDACLOPRID (CONFIDOR, ADMIRE,
GAUCHO, ADVOCATE), THIAMETHOXAM (ACTARA, PLATINUM, CRUISER),
CLOTHIANIDIN (PONCHO, DANTOSU, DANTOP), ACETAMIPRID (MOSPILAN,
ASSAIL, CHIPCOTRISTAR), THIACLOPRID (CALYPSO), DINOTEFURAN
(STARKLE, SAFARI, VENOM), AND NITENPYRAM (CAPSTAR, GUARDIAN).
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL CERTIFY, THROUGH SUPPLIERS POLICY STATEMEN
OR AFFIDAVIT, THAT NO NEONICOTINOID BASED INSECTICIDES HAVE BEE
USED ON SITE OR DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE GROWING OR STORAGE
PLOTS OF THE SUPPLIED PLANT MATERIAL, INCLUDING THE PLANTING O
AGRICULTURAL (OR OTHER) SEED TREATED WITH NEONICS ..
POLLINATOR SAFE PLANT MATERIAL:
N
.
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ONLY PLANT MATERIAL FREE OF
NEONICOTINOID BASED INSECTICIDES AND/OR TREATMENTS OF ANY KIN
INCLUDING BY NOT LIMITED TO IMIDACLOPRID (CONFIDOR, ADMIRE,
GAUCHO, ADVOCATE), THIAMETHOXAM (ACTARA, PLATINUM, CRUISER),
CLOTHIANIDIN (PONCHO, DANTOSU, DANTOP), ACETAMIPRID (MOSPILAN,
ASSAIL, CHIPCOTRISTAR), THIACLOPRID (CALYPSO), DINOTEFURAN
(STARKLE, SAFARI, VENOM), AND NITENPYRAM (CAPSTAR, GUARDIAN).
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL CERTIFY, THROUGH SUPPLIERS POLICY STATEMEN
OR AFFIDAVIT, THAT NO NEONICOTINOID BASED INSECTICIDES HAVE BEE
USED ON SITE OR DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE GROWING OR STORAGE
PLOTS OF THE SUPPLIED PLANT MATERIAL, INCLUDING THE PLANTING O
AGRICULTURAL (OR OTHER) SEED TREATED WITH NEONICS ..
POLLINATOR SAFE PLANT MATERIAL:
N
.E LANDSCAPE NOTES:
1. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-11
UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT A
DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
2. WHERE SHOWN, SHRUB & PERENNIAL BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH 4" DEPTH (MINIMUM AFTER INSTALLATION AND/OR TOP DRE
OPERATIONS) OF SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH .
3. ALL TREES SHALL BE MULCHED WITH SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER OR TO EDGE OF PLANTING BED, IF
APPLICABLE. ALL MULCH SHALL BE KEPT WITHIN A MINIMUM OF 2" FROM TREE TRUNK.
4. IF SHOWN ON PLAN, RANDOM SIZED LIMESTONE BOULDERS COLOR AND SIZE TO COMPLIMENT NEW LANDSCAPING. OWNER TO AP
BOULDER SAMPLES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
5. PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS AND SHALL BE OF HARDY
FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE AND DISFIGURATION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PLUMPNESS OF PLANT MA
FOR DURATION OF ACCEPTANCE PERIOD.
6. UPON DISCOVERY OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE SCHEDULE AND THE QUANTITY SHOW
THE PLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN.
7. CONDITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTR
LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE WARRANTED FOR ONE (1) FULL GROWING SEASONS FROM SUBSTANT
COMPLETION DATE.
8. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL RECEIVE 4" LAYERTOPSOILAND SOD AS SPECIFIED UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS.
9. COORDINATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES, LIGHTING FIXTURES, DOORS AND WIND
CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINAL LOCATION OF TREES AND SHRUBS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCA
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
10. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL ACCEPTANCE.
11. REPAIR AT NO COST TO OWNER ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.
12. SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.
13. REPAIR AT NO COST TO THE OWNER IRRIGATION SYSTEM DAMAGED FROM LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
14. PROVIDE SITE WIDE IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION. SYSTEM SHALL BE FULLY PROGRAMMABLE AND CAPABLE O
ALTERNATE DATE WATERING. THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE HEAD TO HEAD OR DRIP COVERAGE AND BE CAPABLE OF DELIVERING
INCH OF PRECIPITATION PER WEEK. SYSTEM SHALL EXTEND INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT/BACK
15. CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE APPROVAL OF PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM INLCUDING PRICING FROM OWNER, PRIOR TO INSTA
LANDSCAPE NOTES:
1. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-11
UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT A
DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
2. WHERE SHOWN, SHRUB & PERENNIAL BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH 4" DEPTH (MINIMUM AFTER INSTALLATION AND/OR TOP DRE
OPERATIONS) OF SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH .
3. ALL TREES SHALL BE MULCHED WITH SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER OR TO EDGE OF PLANTING BED, IF
APPLICABLE. ALL MULCH SHALL BE KEPT WITHIN A MINIMUM OF 2" FROM TREE TRUNK.
4. IF SHOWN ON PLAN, RANDOM SIZED LIMESTONE BOULDERS COLOR AND SIZE TO COMPLIMENT NEW LANDSCAPING. OWNER TO AP
BOULDER SAMPLES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
5. PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS AND SHALL BE OF HARDY
FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE AND DISFIGURATION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PLUMPNESS OF PLANT MA
FOR DURATION OF ACCEPTANCE PERIOD.
6. UPON DISCOVERY OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE SCHEDULE AND THE QUANTITY SHOW
THE PLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN.
7. CONDITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTR
LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE WARRANTED FOR ONE (1) FULL GROWING SEASONS FROM SUBSTANT
COMPLETION DATE.
8. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL RECEIVE 4" LAYERTOPSOILAND SOD AS SPECIFIED UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS.
9. COORDINATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES, LIGHTING FIXTURES, DOORS AND WIND
CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINAL LOCATION OF TREES AND SHRUBS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCA
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
10. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL ACCEPTANCE.
11. REPAIR AT NO COST TO OWNER ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.
12. SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES.
13. REPAIR AT NO COST TO THE OWNER IRRIGATION SYSTEM DAMAGED FROM LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
14. PROVIDE SITE WIDE IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION. SYSTEM SHALL BE FULLY PROGRAMMABLE AND CAPABLE O
ALTERNATE DATE WATERING. THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE HEAD TO HEAD OR DRIP COVERAGE AND BE CAPABLE OF DELIVERING
INCH OF PRECIPITATION PER WEEK. SYSTEM SHALL EXTEND INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT/BACK
15. CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE APPROVAL OF PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM INLCUDING PRICING FROM OWNER, PRIOR TO INSTA 36TH STREETEXISTING LINDEN SHADE TREESPROTECTED ROOT ZONE TYP.3/32" = 1'-0"1LUA LANDSCAPE PLAN27.60°1 LANDSCAPE PLAN LUA
L1
15 6TH AVENUE NORTH36TH STREETEXISTING LINDEN SHADE TREESPROTECTED ROOT ZONE TYP.3/32" = 1'-0"1LUA LANDSCAPE PLAN27.60°1 LANDSCAPE PLAN LUA
L1
501 MAIN STREET
6' PRIVACY FENCE
LOT AREA BUILDING FOOTPRINT BITUMINOUS PARKING REMAINING LOT AREA LANDSCAPE AREA
501 MAIN STEET 17,271 S.F. 8,041 SF 2,502 SF 6,728 SF 4,197 SF
ZONING RXD -RXD NO BUFFER REQUIRED
REQUIRED TREES 9,230 3,000 = 3 TREES, 4 TREES PROVIDED
6' HIGH WOOD FENCE
6' BRICK WALL
EXTERIOR LIGHT -
TYPE A: WALL SCONCE
MOUNT AT 9'-0" MAX TO LIGHT SOURCE
HINKLEY LIGHTING #10194BK-LL
4.75"x 18" 1000 LUMENS 2)6.5W GU10
TYPE B: LED SURFACE MOUNT AT SOFFIT 6W 900 LUMEN
TYPE C: WALL-PAK
MOUNT AT 9'-0" MAX TO LIGHT SOURCE
HUBBEL SG1-20-5K7 BL
8" X 6" x 4" 20W. 1500 LUMENS
A A
A A
B
C C
A
50' RADIUS DISTANCE TO TREE
LITTLE BLUESTEM (CAROUSEL) (4)
CANOPY TREES SIZE SHRUBS
(3) SKLINE HONEY LOCUST 2" (32) EMERALD GREEN ARBORVITAE
(1) HACKBERRY 2 1/2" ( 4 ) TAXUS MEDIA 'H.M.EDDIE' YEW
( 9 ) CORNUS ALBA 'NEON BURST' DOGWOOD
(28) LITTLE BLUESTEM (CAROUSEL)
( 4 ) ARONIA MELANOCARPA 'GLOSSY BLACK' CHOKEBERRY
LOT AREA BUILDING FOOTPRINT BITUMINOUS PARKING REMAINING LOT AREA LANDSCAPE AREA
15 6TH AVENUE NORTH 9,337 S.F 0 8,341 SF 996 SF 503 SF
REQUIRED TREES : ALL PARKING STALLS WITHIN 50' OF A TREE TREES PROVIDED
ZONING RXD -RXD NO BUFFER REQUIRED
CANOPY TREES SIZE SHRUBS
(1) HACKBERRY 2 " ( 4 ) LITTLE BLUESTEM (CAROUSEL)
( 5 ) ARONIA MELANOCARPA 'GLOSSY BLACK' CHOKEBERRY
TYPE ATYPE C
ROCK MULCH 1 1/2"
50' RADIUS
DISTANCE TO TREEMinnetonka Minnetonka Minnetonka SYNTH. WOOD DECKING
50' RADIUS
DISTANCE TO TREE
C
C
A
A
A A
B
6'-0"
MATERIALS:
1x 8 SYNTH. WOOD SLATS
1x 4 WOOD SLATS
4x 4 WOOD POSTS STAINED / TREATED
60"18" STONE WALL BENCH
BIKE RACKED ROOT ZONE TYP.50' RADIUS
DISTANCE TO TREE
TOTAL VALUE OF LANDSCAPING +/- $25,000
3
SNOW
STORAGEPROT
Zachary J. Wright
ATTORNEY
DIRECT: 612.335.1752
OFFICE: 612.335.1500
zachary.wright@stinson.com
50 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600, Minneapolis, MN 55402
October 27, 2025
Via E-Mail and U.S. Mail
Ryan Krzos, City Planner
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343
rkrzos@hopkinsmn.com
Re: Opposition to Proposed Planned Unit Development for a 41-Unit
Residential Development at 501 Mainstreet and Surface Parking Lot at
15, 6th Avenue N. (“Project”)
Dear Mr. Krzos:
This firm represents Hopkins Park Plaza, L.L.C., owner of the apartment building
located at 517 Mainstreet, Hopkins, MN, and the associated parking lot immediately to its
north (“5th on Main”), both of which abut the Project.
In June 2025, 5th on Main sent a letter to the City expressing its general support
for the Project as then conceptualized, but also sharing two concerns relating to the
Project’s proximity to the existing 5th on Main apartment building and likely impact on
the associated parking lot. I write now to express 5th on Main’s opposition to the Project
as currently proposed and request the Planning & Zoning Commission (“Commission”)
recommend denial of the application, or the City table its consideration until the issues
identified in this letter are resolved, including the Project applicant’s failure to show the
Project is consistent with the comprehensive plan and City code, the lack of protection for
neighboring property owners and residents like 5th on Main, and the applicant completing
additional MPCA-required soil vapor investigation and submitting a mitigation plan and
associated covenant terms.
Please include this correspondence and the enclosed materials in the administrative
record.
Ryan Krzos, City Planner
City of Hopkins
October 27, 2025
Page 2
I. The Project applicant bears the burden of showing compliance with the
required PUD criteria.
The Project applicant bears the burden to show that the Project complies with the
required criteria.1 The Project seeks approval as a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”).2
The Planning & Zoning Commission (“Commission”) accordingly “must consider at least
the following factors”:
a. Whether the proposed PUD development plan and zoning
map amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan
and any other adopted plans for the subject area;
...
d. Whether appropriate terms and conditions have been
imposed on the approval to protect the interests of
surrounding property owners and residents, existing and
future residents of the PUD and the general public.3
As a PUD, the Project requires approval of a PUD zoning amendment and a PUD site plan.4
The PUD zoning amendment requires the Commission “consider all relevant factors,
including... [w]hether the proposed zoning map amendment corrects an error or
inconsistency or will help meet the challenge of a changed or changing condition.”5 The
PUD site plan review “must follow the procedures for major site plan review.”6
1 City code sec. 102-1310(h)(2) (“In all cases, the burden is on the applicant to show that an application or proposal
complies with all applicable review or approval criteria.”).
2 October 28, 2025, Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda (“Oct. 28 Agenda”), Project Materials, at 1 (PDF page 14).
3 City code sec. 102-13110(e)(8) (Review and Approval Criteria). Note that, while City code section 102-440(c) provides
“[a]ll PUDs must be reviewed and approved in accordance with the planned development procedures of 102-14110,”
section 102-14110 does not exist—this reference appears to be a vestige of an earlier draft of the updated
development code from 2022, which included what is now section 102-13110 as section 102-14110.
4 Oct. 28 Agenda, Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Project, at 2 (PDF page 12).
5 City code sec. 102-1360(f); see also City code sec. 102-13110(e)(5) (“The zoning map amendment procedures of 102-
1360 apply to PUD zoning map amendments except as expressly modified by the PUD development plan approval
procedures of this section.”).
6 City code sec. 102-13110(f)(1).
Ryan Krzos, City Planner
City of Hopkins
October 27, 2025
Page 3
II. The Commission should reject the Project as currently proposed
because the Project applicant fails to meet its burden to show the
Project complies with all required criteria.
The City’s action on the Project application must be reasonable. Murphy v. City of
Minneapolis, 20 N.W.3d 62, 78 (Minn. App. 2025) (citing Honn v. City of Coon Rapids,
313 N.W.2d 409, 416–17 (Minn. 1981)). To be reasonable, the City’s action must be
supported with legally sufficient reasons that have a factual basis in the record. Id. (citing
RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington, 861 N.W.2d 71, 75 (Minn. 2015)). Because the
applicant fails to show the Project satisfies the required criteria, the Commission cannot
reasonably recommend approval of the Project as currently proposed.
A. The Project applicant fails to show the Project is consistent with the City’s
comprehensive plan and Development Code.
The Project applicant fails to show how the Project’s requested zoning relief and
existing but undefined environmental contamination are consistent with the City’s
comprehensive plan and land development code, Chapter 102 (the “Development Code”).
1. The Project applicant fails to provide an adequate basis for the requested
zoning relief.
The Project site is designated as “Downtown Center” for future land use per the
comprehensive plan and is within the Residential-Office Mix Downtown Center (“RX-D”)
district zone under the Development Code.7 Downtown Center areas are intended for
“development designed to complement and enhance the existing development pattern,”
and accordingly “[m]aintaining downtown Hopkins’ unique identity and sense of place
must be a central consideration when planning for future growth.”8 The RX-D district “is
intended for use in the downtown center in support of Mainstreet, where residential,
office, and limited commercial uses can mix comfortably in a walkable environment.”9 The
Project as proposed is inconsistent with these purposes.
As a preliminary point, the Project materials themselves say nothing about its
consistency with the comprehensive plan.10 Further, the P&Z Report merely states that
the Project “aligns with the[] goals” of the area as “intended for higher -density housing
7 See Hopkins Comprehensive Plan (link) (“Comp. Plan”), Appendix B1: Land Use, at Figure B1.6 (Future Land Use
map); City code sec. 102-130(a); Zoning Map (link; interactive map accessible here: link).
8 Comp. Plan, at 19.
9 City code sec. 102-130(b)(6).
10 See generally Oct. 28 Agenda, Project Materials (PDF pages 14–45).
Ryan Krzos, City Planner
City of Hopkins
October 27, 2025
Page 4
and active street-level uses in walkable, transit-oriented settings” “by developing
underutilized land for housing and improving the downtown landscape.”11 This
explanation entirely fails to account for whether the Project will “complement and enhance
the existing development pattern in the[] area[]” and further the “central consideration”
of “maintaining downtown Hopkins’ unique identity and sense of place.”12 As explained
below, the Project is inconsistent with both goals. Additionally, while a PUD necessarily
involves identifying specific requirements from which strict compliance is excused, neither
the Project application nor the P&Z Report explain how the Project is consistent with the
stated goals of the RX-D district, which similarly intend for development to “mix
comfortably” within the district. In fact, the P&Z Report seems to acknowledge that the
Project is a departure from existing development by identifying the Project as a purported
“[e]nhancement of Mainstreet’s built form” while also simply stating “the proposed
massing, materials, and height are compatible with nearby structures.”13 That is not the
case.
The Project seeks relief from various City code requirements but fails to provide an
adequate “Rationale” for the same, both in the first instance in some cases and in how the
provided rationale relates to the above purposes in others. For example, for the requested
front street setback relief, the “Rationale” is—in total—“Project feasibility.”14 That is a
meaningless phrase without further context and cannot carry the Project applicant’s
burden on this nor any of the Project’s other requested relief.15 Additionally, in the limited
instances where the Project provides a non-conclusory “Rationale,” those explanations still
fail to address how the “deviation from policy”16 will nonetheless “complement and
enhance the existing development pattern” or “mix comfortably” in the existing location.
For example, the Project seeks permission to build required residential off-street parking
on a separate lot from the building it serves, which is contrary to City code section 102-
950, because “Project feasibility; The sites are small and scattered, and problematic to
development without flexibility to adjust the location of parking.”17 But that says nothing
about how the proposed parking lot will impact the neighboring properties and residents,
11 Oct. 28 Agenda, P&Z Report, at 4.
12 Comp. Plan, at 19.
13 Oct. 28 Agenda, P&Z Report, at 5.
14 Oct. 28 Agenda, Project Materials, at PDF page 16.
15 The Project asserts “Project feasibility” as a “Rationale” for relief from the following requirements: front street
setback; non-front street setback; impervious site coverage; transparency: non-front facades; off-street parking –
motor vehicular minimums and maximums; and location of off-street parking. Oct. 28 Agenda, Project Materials,
at PDF page 16.
16 Oct. 28 Agenda, P&Z Report, at 3.
17 Oct. 28 Agenda, Project Materials, at PDF page 16.
Ryan Krzos, City Planner
City of Hopkins
October 27, 2025
Page 5
and instead focuses on why the relief is necessary to construct the project as the applicant
wants, not as perhaps necessary given the site. In other words, the Project is a square peg
in a round hole, and this and other similar “Rationale[s]” fault the h ole rather than the
peg.
2. The Project cannot reasonably be recommended for approval until after the
MPCA-required further investigation of the environmental contamination
at the site is completed.
The comprehensive plan recognizes that, as with many developed areas, “Hopkins
has some issues with environmental contamination,” and identifies the Project site as
“potentially contaminated.”18 It also asserts that, “[w]hile there are already regulations
and practices in place to address them, there are opportunities to prioritize and advance
improvements through additional policy guidance.”19 For example, “environmental issues
such as contamination” are an identified challenge with regards to all three forthcoming
light rail stations in the City.20 Those same transit stations are a primary driver of the
Project, as it “has requested PUD flexibility” in part due to its “proximity to transit” and
the P&Z Report avers it supports the City’s goals for, in part, “transit -oriented growth.”21
But, to reasonably “prioritize and advance improvements” to the site, and to “promot[e]
the public health, safety, and general welfare,” additional environmental investigation and
testing is needed before the Project can reasonably be recommended for approval.22
Through prior City agendas and minutes, 5th on Main understands the Project has
applied for a grant through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (“MPCA”)
Brownfield Gap Financing Program, and there was an investigation into existing
contamination at the site by the City’s consultant, Braun Intertec (“Braun”).23 Publicly
available MPCA documents indicate that, in July 2025, Braun submitted a letter to MPCA
in connection with the Project’s grant application that summarized the environmental
18 Comp. Plan, Appendix D1: Sustainability and Natural Resources, at 7 (Table D1.1, Figure D1.3); see also City code
sec. 102-110(d) (“This code is adopted for the purposes of promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare
and implementing the vision, goals, and policies of the City's comprehensive plan.”).
19 Comp. Plan, Appendix D1: Sustainability and Natural Resources, at 7–9 (Table D1.1, Figure D1.3).
20 Comp. Plan, Appendix B1: Land Use, at 22, 26, 29.
21 Oct. 28 Agenda, P&Z Report, at 3, 6 (proposed findings).
22 City code sec. 102-110(d).
23 April 15, 2025, City Council Meeting Agenda, at PDF page 17; Oct. 7, 2025, City Council Meeting Agenda, at PDF
page 20.
Ryan Krzos, City Planner
City of Hopkins
October 27, 2025
Page 6
history of the site and Braun’s investigation to date.24 The letter observed that “soil vapor
samples with benzene and tetrachloroethene (perchloroethene, PCE) exceedances” were
located on the site.25 Braun accordingly recommended further soil vapor sampling “to
determine the extent of the Vapor Intrusion Area of Concern,” and note d a “vapor
mitigation system may be required for the proposed building.”26 Just last week, on
October 21, 2025, MPCA issued a “No Association Determination” to the Project applicant
that expressly acknowledged and incorporated this necessary additional testing as a
mandatory condition of its determination:
A second seasonal soil vapor sampling event shall be
completed at the Site, in accordance with the MPCA’s Best
Management Practices for Vapor Investigation and Building
Mitigation Decisions. If soil vapor contaminants are detected
at concentrations greater than MPCA action levels, an active
vapor mitigation system shall be installed in the Site building,
in accordance with an MPCA-approved Response Action Plan,
and an environmental covenant will be required to document
the affirmative obligation to operate and maintain the vapor
mitigation system.27
In turn, MPCA’s Best Management Practices for Vapor Investigation and Building
Mitigation Decisions instructs that “[m]ultiple sampling events are necessary due to the
temporal and seasonal variability that can be observed in soil gas and sub-slab sampling
to conclude there is not a potential VI risk.”28 It goes on to provide that the “minimum
sampling necessary to address seasonal temporal sampling for vapor investigation
includes collecting samples at least 30 days apart and under differing seasonal conditions
as follows:” with one sampling event in the “heating season, which MPCA defines as
24 EXHIBIT A, Braun July 10, 2025, Letter to MPCA, Proposed Actions Letter, at 1–6. Also available at:
https://webapp.pca.state.mn.us/wimn/site/204588/documents (MPCA’s What’s In My Neighborhood platform
entry for 501 Mainstreet).
25 Id. at 6.
26 Id.
27 EXHIBIT B, MPCA Oct. 21, 2025, No Association Determination, at 3. Also available at:
https://webapp.pca.state.mn.us/wimn/site/204588/documents (MPCA’s What’s In My Neighborhood platform
entry for 501 Mainstreet).
28 EXHIBIT C, MPCA’s Best Management Practices for Vapor Investigation and Building Mitigation Decisions, at 2.
Also available at: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/c-rem3-06e.pdf.
Ryan Krzos, City Planner
City of Hopkins
October 27, 2025
Page 7
November 1 thru March 31,” and one sampling event in the “non-heating season, which
MPCA defines as April 1 thru October 31.”29
The Project applicant says nothing about this requirement for additional
environmental testing (nor does the P&Z Report). The Project applicant thus fails to
demonstrate how recommending approval of the project is consistent with the
comprehensive plan or Development Code, nor how the possibility of a vapor mitigation
system and associated environmental covenant would impact the project. The Planning
Commission therefore should not recommend approval now, and indeed cannot
reasonably do so until the additional environmental testing is completed and the results
are available for review and consideration, because doing as much would be inconsistent
with the comprehensive plan and Development Code and fail to protect the interests of
surrounding property owners and residents, as otherwise explained below.
B. The Project should not be recommended for approval without the imposition of
appropriate terms and conditions to protect the interests of surrounding
property owners and residents, which it currently lacks.
The Project applicant fails to carry its burden to demonstrate the Project is
consistent with the comprehensive plan and Development Code because, as explained in
detail above, the Project fails to provide an adequate rationale for its requested zoning
relief, even in the limited instances it provides such a rationale at all. In a similar fashion,
the Project also fails to carry its burden to demonstrate the interests of surrounding
property owners and residents are sufficiently protected. The Project materials say
nothing on the topic and, again as explained above, the P&Z Report merely makes
conclusory statements about compliance.30 Additional terms and conditions are needed
here relating to certain aspects of the Project.
The Project is too close to 5th on Main’s building abutting the Project to the west.
As proposed, the Project building will be 10 feet from 5th on Main’s building.31 This will
result in apartment windows from both buildings facing each other and block sunlight and
air circulation from entering units in both buildings to some extent, though primarily in
the 5th on Main building given the Project’s proposed taller height. It is important to allow
adequate exterior views and avoid blocking the sun and air circulation for residents of both
buildings. As the Project itself recognizes, “[p]roviding meaningful access to outdoor areas
29 Id. at 2–3.
30 Oct. 28 Agenda, P&Z Report, at 4–5.
31 Oct. 28 Agenda, Project Materials, at PDF page 19.
Ryan Krzos, City Planner
City of Hopkins
October 27, 2025
Page 8
is a core item to promote healthy lifestyles and living.”32 Based on the site plan, this
increased setback appears achievable by modestly reducing the planned courtyard and
shifting the western building farther to the east. 5th on Main accordingly requests the
Commission condition approval of the Project on the Project increasing its distance from
5th on Main’s building from 10 feet to 20 feet.
Relatedly, the Project proposes to run a six-foot-high fence along the western
boundary of the site, which is also the edge of 5th on Main’s building and its patio area.33
Under city code, all fences require a fence permit, and the permit application must be filed
with the zoning administrator, of which there is no record here.34 Further, fences must be
“reasonably suitable for the purpose for which the fence is intended,” and are “not allowed
to become ... or constitute a nuisance, public or private.”35 The proposed fence is a
nuisance because it runs along the edge of 5th on Main’s building (including its first-floor
windows) and patio. 5th on Main accordingly requests the Commission condition
approval of the Project on the Project removing its fence, which—in conjunction with the
requested 20-foot distance between buildings—will allow residents of both buildings the
benefit of sunlight, air circulation and the outdoors.
The Project proposes to construct a “dog run” near the northwestern corner of the
site and again right next to and on the edge of 5th on Main’s building and patio area. This
is improper and unreasonable for the same reasons as the proposed fence. Further, a “dog
run” is not allowed under City code. Such a use is “not listed in the use table and ... cannot
be reasonably interpreted ... to fall within any defined use category or subcategory,” and is
thus “prohibited.”36 Moreover, a “dog run” will presumably involve dog waste, and City
code similarly prohibits any use or operation “conducted in a manner that emits noxious
matter across the subject property line,” which the dog run is likely to do given its
proximity to 5th on Main and its patio.37 5th on Main accordingly requests the
Commission condition approval of the Project on the Project removing the dog run.
32 Oct. 28 Agenda, Project Materials, at PDF page 14.
33 EXHIBIT D (photos of the eastern side of the 5th on Main building from Google Maps and Project rendering showing
proposed proximity, fencing, and dog run).
34 City code sec. 102-660(a); cf. City code sec. 102-1360(b) (providing zoning map amendment applications “may be
filed by an eligible applicant ... or be initiated by the City Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, or the zoning
administrator”).
35 City code sec. 102-660(c).
36 City code sec. 102-510(b)(6). Neither is the “dog run” a “Community Garden,” in which the “[k]eeping of animals is
prohibited except” chickens “as allowed in Section 6-30.” City code sec. 102-580(c).
37 City code sec. 102-590(e); see City code sec. 102-16160.
Ryan Krzos, City Planner
City of Hopkins
October 27, 2025
Page 9
Finally, the Project also appears to include a sidewalk pathway to the northernmost
boundary of the northwest portion of the parcel that abuts 5th on Main’s parking lot for its
apartment building, thereby connecting the Project to the same. Because the Project
proposes offsite parking and significantly fewer parking spots than required for a
development of its size under City code (approx. 30 parking stalls instead of the required
49), and because 5th on Main’s existing parking lot is between the Project and the
proposed, smaller parking lot, there is a substantial likelihood that Project residents will
use or cross through 5th on Main’s private parking lot instead of their own, especially in
the winter.38 Safe, convenient access and a sufficient number of parking stalls are critical—
not only for the new residents, but also to preserve availability for neighboring properties
and businesses. 5th on Main accordingly requests the Commission condition approval of
the Project on the Project removing that sidewalk pathway and including a barrier along
the property boundary between the Project and 5th on Main’s parking lot, to deter Project
residents from improperly parking in 5th on Main’s lot or using that lot as a shortcut.
C. A PUD zoning amendment here does not correct an error or inconsistency, nor
does it help to meet the challenge of a changed or changing condition.
Finally, approval of a PUD zoning amendment for the project is contrary to the
Development Code because there is no error, inconsistency, or changed or changing
condition here.39 Yet again, neither the Project applicant nor the P&Z Report address this
required consideration, and there is thus no reasonable basis to conclude the Project
satisfies this criterion. The fact that the site has been undeveloped for some time does not
reasonably evidence an error, inconsistency, or changed or changing circumstance here.
To the contrary, that fact indicates the opposite—that the site and its condition are well-
known and unchanging. This conclusion is supported by the Project’s requested “zoning
relief”—which the P&Z Report characterizes as its “PUC Flexibilit[ies]”—because they all
relate to the known and longtime condition of the site and surrounding developments, not
some new or changed circumstance.
5th on Main appreciates your attention to and consideration of these important
issues.40 Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
38 Oct. 28 Agenda, Project Materials, at PDF page 16; see also id., P&Z Report, at 2 (considering a “total of 28 stalls”).
39 See City code sec. 102-1360(f)(2).
40 5th on Main reserves the right to challenge whether the City complied with the applicable notice requirements here.
City code requires that PUD site plan review follow the procedures for major site plan review, which ultimately
require, in part, notice be “sent to all owners and occupants of property within 500 feet of the subject property.”
City code secs. 102-13120(e)(1)b.2, 102-130(f)(2)a. The P&Z Report merely states notice “was published in the City’s
Official paper and mailed to all properties within 350 feet.” Oct. 28 Agenda, P&Z Report, at 5. Since the Oct. 28
Ryan Krzos, City Planner
City of Hopkins
October 27, 2025
Page 10
Sincerely,
STINSON LLP
Zachary J. Wright
Enclosure
Agenda does not contain an affidavit of mailing, a copy of notice, nor an address list, 5th on Main is at this moment
unable to verify whether notice requirements have been satisfied.
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
t-rem-vic2-09 · LB 1528 · 6/28/24
October 21, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Cody Fischer
Footprint Development LLC
202 Cedar Ave, Suite 1
Owatonna, MN 55060-2306
RE: No Association Determination
Mainstreet Apartments, 501 Mainstreet, Hopkins
MPCA Site ID: BF0003079
Billing ID: 204588
PIN: 2411722420009 and 2411722420017
Dear Cody Fischer:
This letter is in response to the request from Kathryn Cleveland of Braun Intertec for a determination
under Minn. Stat. section 115B.178 that certain actions proposed to be taken by Footprint Development
LLC at the Mainstreet Apartments site, located at the address referenced above (the Site), will not
constitute conduct associating Footprint Development LLC with the release or threatened release of
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants at the Site for the purpose of Minn.
Stat. section 115B.03, subd. 3(a)(4).
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff in the Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC)
Program has reviewed the documents submitted for the Site. The Site consists of two noncontiguous
parcels for a total of 0.61 acres. The north parcel located at 15 6th Avenue N (2411722420017) was
vacant prior to 1937, when it was developed with a residential structure on the western portion. The
residence was demolished by 2008, and the parcel has remained vacant since. The south parcel located
at 501 Mainstreet (2411722420009) was developed with a residential structure in 1912, which was
removed in the late 1940s. The parcel was then developed with a gasoline filling station and auto repair
shop in 1951, which operated until approximately 2014 when the building was demolished. From about
2017 to 2019, the parcel was used for uncontrolled exterior storage; the type and nature of the stored
materials are not known. The parcel has remained a vacant lot since 2019. Footprint Development LLC
intends to redevelop the south parcel of the Site with an apartment building and associated surface
parking on the north parcel.
Multiple environmental investigations have been completed at the Site starting in 2005 (MPCA site IDs
VP23060 and LS0019153). Previous investigations identified petroleum impacts to shallow soil on the
south parcel. Historical fill intermixed with debris (glass, concrete, brick, metal pipe, asphalt, ceramic
tile, and metal) was encountered to depths up to six feet below ground surface (bgs) near the north
parcel and in the area of the former auto repair shop and dispenser islands on the south parcel. A total
of 11 soil borings were advanced at the Site in June 2025. Ten soil samples were collected and analyzed
for different combinations of analytes. In total, seven soil samples were analyzed for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), two soil samples were analyzed for
Cody Fischer
Page 2
October 21, 2025
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals, five soil samples were analyzed for lead, and
seven soil samples were analyzed for diesel range organics (DRO) and gasoline range organics (GRO).
Only petroleum related VOCs were detected in the soil samples. Lead and PAHs, expressed as the
benzo(a)pyrene equivalent, were identified at a concentration above typical background concentrations
but lower than residential SRV. The elevated lead and PAHs were in the area of historical underground
storage tanks (USTs) and the former repair shop.
Groundwater was encountered at the Site at depths of approximately 15 feet to 20 feet below ground
surface (bgs). Two groundwater samples were collected at the Site from temporary monitoring wells in
June 2025 and analyzed for VOCs, DRO, and GRO. Dichlorodifluoromethane was detected in one
groundwater sample at a concentration much less than the Health Risk Limit (HRL) established by the
Minnesota Department of Health for drinking water purposes.
Nine soil vapor samples, five of which were within the proposed building footprint, were collected at the
Site in June 2025 and September 2025 (non-heating season). Tetrachloroethene was detected in one soil
vapor sample located north of the proposed building footprint at a concentration slightly greater than
the MPCA vapor mitigation action level of thirty-three times (33X) its residential intrusion screening
value (ISV). Trichloroethene (TCE) was detected in soil vapor at concentration slightly greater than
residential ISV. 1,3-butadiene was detected in soil vapor at a concentration greater than the MPCA
action level of 33X its residential ISV. 1,3-butadiene is commonly found in soil vapor in urban
environments due to its association with petroleum products, vehicle exhaust, and asphalt. It is unlikely
that the 1,3-butadiene stems from a release of hazardous substances at the Site. A second soil vapor
sampling event, conducted during the heating season, is necessary prior to making a building mitigation
decision for the proposed building.
For the purpose of this letter, the identified release consists of lead and PAHs in soil,
dichlorodifluoromethane in groundwater, and PCE and TCE in soil vapor (Identified Release). This letter
does not address petroleum-related contaminants. Petroleum contamination detected at the Site is
under the oversight of the MPCA’s Petroleum Brownfield Program.
Based upon a review of the information provided to the MPCA VIC Program, and subject to the
conditions set forth in this letter, a determination is hereby made pursuant to Minn. Stat.
section 115B.178, subd. 1 that the proposed actions (Proposed Actions) listed below will not associate
Footprint Development LLC with the Identified Release for the purpose of Minn. Stat. section 115B.03,
subd. 3(a)(4). This determination applies only to the following Proposed Actions:
Purchase of the Site
Redevelopment of the Site with a multi-story residential apartment building and surface parking
areas, greenspace areas, and related infrastructure, in accordance with an MPCA-approved
Response Action Plan/Construction Contingency Plan (RAP/CCP)
Leasing the Site to residential tenants
Operation and maintenance of the Site building, grounds, and related infrastructure
This determination is made in accordance with Minn. Stat. section 115B.178, subd. 1, and is subject to
the following conditions:
Cody Fischer
Page 3
October 21, 2025
1.The Proposed Actions shall be carried out as described herein.
2.Footprint Development LLC shall cooperate with the MPCA, its employees, contractors, and
others acting at the MPCA’s direction, in the event that the MPCA takes, or directs others to
take, response actions at the Site to address the Identified Release or any other as yet
unidentified release or threatened release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant,
including, but not limited to, granting access to the Site so that response actions can be taken.
3.Footprint Development LLC shall avoid actions that contribute to the Identified Release or that
interfere with response actions required under any MPCA-approved response action plan to
address the Identified Release.
4.In the event that any suspected hazardous substances are encountered during Site activities
(i.e., demolition, grading, redevelopment, etc.), Footprint Development LLC shall notify the
MPCA project staff immediately in order to determine appropriate handling, sampling, analysis,
and disposal of such wastes.
5.A second seasonal soil vapor sampling event shall be completed at the Site, in accordance with
the MPCA’s Best Management Practices for Vapor Investigation and Building Mitigation
Decisions. If soil vapor contaminants are detected at concentrations greater than MPCA action
levels, an active vapor mitigation system shall be installed in the Site building, in accordance
with an MPCA-approved Response Action Plan, and an environmental covenant will be required
to document the affirmative obligation to operate and maintain the vapor mitigation system.
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 115B.178, subd.1, when Footprint Development LLC takes the Proposed
Actions in accordance with the determination in this letter, subject to the conditions stated herein, the
Proposed Actions will not associate Footprint Development LLC with the Identified Release for the
purpose of Minn. Stat. section 115B.03, subd. 3(a)(4).
The determination made in this letter applies to Footprint Development LLC’s successors and assigns if
the successors and assigns: 1) are not otherwise responsible for the Identified Release at the Site; 2) do
not engage in activities with respect to the Identified Release which are substantially different from the
activities which Footprint Development LLC proposes to take, as described herein; and 3) comply with
the conditions set forth in this letter.
Please be advised that the determination made in this letter is subject to the disclaimers found in
Attachment A and is contingent on compliance with the terms and conditions set forth herein, including
completion of the second seasonal soil vapor sampling event and any required follow-up actions, based
on the pending data.
If you have any questions about the contents of this letter, please contact Youmi (Elisa) Wrobel, Project
Manager, at 651-757-2597 or by email at Youmi.Wrobel@state.mn.us.
Cody Fischer
Page 4
October 21, 2025
Sincerely,
Amy K. Hadiaris
This document has been electronically signed.
Amy K. Hadiaris, P.G.
Supervisor
Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup Unit
Remediation Division
AKH/YW:df
Enclosure/Attachment
cc: Kathryn Cleveland, Braun Intertec (electronic) (w/attachment)
Mike Mornson, City of Hopkins (electronic) (w/attachment)
Mary Finch, Hennepin County Environment and Energy (electronic) (w/attachment)
Attachment A
Page 1 of 1
Disclaimers
Mainstreet Apartments
MPCA Site ID: BF0003079
1.Reservation of authorities
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Commissioner reserves the authority to take any
appropriate actions with respect to any release, threatened release, or other conditions at the Site.
The MPCA Commissioner also reserves the authority to take such actions if the voluntary party does
not proceed in the manner described in this letter or if actions taken or omitted by the voluntary
party with respect to the Site contribute to any release or threatened release or create an imminent
and substantial danger to public health and welfare.
2.No MPCA assumption of liability
The MPCA, its Commissioner, and staff do not assume any liability for any release, threatened
release, or other conditions at the Site or for any actions taken or omitted by the voluntary party
with regard to the release, threatened release, or other conditions at the Site, whether the actions
taken or omitted are in accordance with this letter or otherwise.
3.Letter based on current information
All statements, conclusions, and representations in this letter are based upon information known to
the MPCA Commissioner and staff at the time this letter was issued. The MPCA Commissioner and
staff reserve the authority to modify or rescind any such statement, conclusion, or representation
and to take any appropriate action under the Commissioner’s authority if the MPCA Commissioner
or staff acquires information after issuance of this letter that provides a basis for such modification
or action.
4.Disclaimer regarding use or development of the property
The MPCA, its Commissioner, and staff do not warrant that the Site is suitable or appropriate for any
particular use.
5.Disclaimer regarding investigative or response action at the property
Nothing in this letter is intended to authorize any response action under Minn. Stat.
section 115B.17, subd. 12.
6.This approval does not supplant any applicable state or local stormwater permits, ordinances, or
other regulatory documents.
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
This Message Is From an External Sender
From:Danny McDonald
To:Ryan Krzos
Subject:525 Mainstreet Development
Date:Friday, October 24, 2025 2:52:30 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Hi Ryan,
I was planning on attending the public hearing next Tuesday, but have unfortunately had a
family matter come up. I wanted to shoot you a message to express my support for the
development that is being proposed by Footprint Development at 525 Mainstreet. I have
been the president of the Hopkins Business and Civic Association for going on three years
now. In that time, I have seen at least 5 residential complexes go up and have attended
and spoken their ribbon cuttings. Every developer that has spoken at those cuttings talks
about how committed they are to being an engaged member of the city of Hopkins. While
all of these building have certainly added to our city, Cody Fischer (to my knowledge) was
the first one to reach out to the business community ahead of the proposed development
to get feedback and get to know his future neighbors. This kind of engagement speaks
volumes to the character of Cody and his organization.
I also appreciate that this development is in line with a lot of Hopkins values. He
explained that they will focus on energy efficiency, having ample space for bike
commuters, room for kids to play, and more affordable units that walk the line between a
high-end apartment and a low income one without sacrificing the quality of the home.
I believe this will be a wonderful addition to Mainstreet.
Thank you,
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
From:James Gullekson
To:Ryan Krzos
Subject:Public hearing empty lot at 15 6th ave n
Date:Friday, October 24, 2025 11:13:17 AM
My name is Jim Gullekson and I have been a tenant at 33 6th Ave N. Our parking lot
is up against the empty lot at 15 6th Ave N.
Turning the empty lot into a parking lot is a bad idea. You people don't realize how
many people use the empty lot as a park. With all the apartments in this area, there
are kids that play there after school. People bring their dogs over there to play, and
there are lots of dogs in this neighborhood. And they are cleaning up after the dogs if
the poop over there.
There are families that bring small grills there to cook outside and have family
cookouts.
People have brought a table and chairs for people to use when they are over there.
They were all donated by people in the neighborhood.
I wish you would reconsider turning this into a parking lot. The city of Hopkins looses
greenspace all the time and this would just be another one.
One more thing I have noticed and that is the increase of traffic along 6th ever since
they built the building on Main street and 6th ave s. This used to be a nice quiet
neighborhood an now there are constantly cars and trucks speeding down 6th Ave N.
So sad, Thanks so much for allowing me to put my 2 cents in
Jim Gullekson
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
From:Stephens Susies
To:Ryan Krzos
Subject:Zoning meeting 5th and Main Street
Date:Tuesday, October 28, 2025 2:41:16 PM
Hi Ryan,
Our biggest concern, as well as many residents in the area is parking needs.
Currently the developer is estimating 90+ total units and only 24 parking spaces. The
only street parking available on all 4 sides of that block is on 6th Ave N. There needs
to be some limitation of the amount of time people can park ie “1-2hour parking from
8a-6p” as is common in the area. Additionally he should need to contract for every car
that one of his residents owns. To add an additional 50 to 150 cars and only have one
block of parking to accommodate is not reasonable or kind to the current property
owners.
Steph Scott
6 6th Ave N
Hopkins MN 55343