Planning Commission - 01/10/2022APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2022 7:00 PM—CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Ann Higgins, Andrew Pieper, Ed Farr,
Michael DeSanctis, Rachel Markos, Carole Mette,
William Gooding, Robert Taylor
CITY STAFF: Julie Klima, Community Development Director; Matt
Bourne, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; Rod
Rue, City Engineer; Kristin Harley, Recording
Secretary
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Acting Chair Farr called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL
Absent was Chair Pieper.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: DeSanctis moved, seconded by Kirk to approve the agenda. MOTION
CARRIED 8-0.
IV. MINUTES
MOTION: Taylor moved, seconded by Mette to approve the minutes of December 13,
2021 amended to change the language in Item VA from “Taylor asked what the frontage
waiver gained the applicant” to “Taylor asked what the frontage waiver would gain the
applicant.” MOTION CARRIED 8-0.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. BLUE STEM NORTH
Request for:
• Guide Plan Change from TOD to Parks and Open Space on 11.17 acres
• Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 15.28 acres
• Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 15.28 acres
• Zoning Change from OFC to TOD-R on 5.79 acres and from OFC to
P/OS on 11.17 acres
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 10, 2022
Page 2
• Site Plan Review on 15.28 acres
• Preliminary Plat of 2 lots and 2 outlots on 16.96 acres
Josh Brandsted, of Greco Properties LLC, introduced himself and his team. He
displayed a PowerPoint and detailed the application. The site was located adjacent
to Highway 212 in an area zoned industrial, near the Golden Triangle Light Rail
Line Station. The existing site was vacant and comprised of mostly wetlands.
Roughly one-third of the site would be developed. What sat there now was the
foundation of a previously approved 128,000-square foot office building but
construction was stopped in 2008 and the land has remained vacant since. Light
utilities and soil corrections had been started on the site. A high water table and
soil composition were challenges to development on this site.
Brandsted displayed the site plan and explained this would be an environmentally
sustainable two-phase development connected to both natural resources and the
light rail. Phase I would develop the north portion, and Phase II the southern
portion along Flying Cloud Drive. Phase I would be a 237-unit development,
including studios, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units, 311 underground parking
stalls and 12 surface stalls, a connection to the light rail, a public trail around the
wetland, and turn land restriping. Phase II would be a 188-unit development also
including studios, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units, , 256 underground parking
stalls and five surface parking, a connection to the trail and a sidewalk along
Flying Cloud Drive. TIF would be sought, and affordability would be provided
consistent with TIF and City Code requirements. A public art installation would
also be budgeted. He displayed the amenities package and the sustainability
features and methods.
Mike Krych from BKG Group Architects explained the design choices. He stated
this was a unique site containing wetlands but also surrounded by highways and
adjacent to an industrial site. This transit-oriented development was an
opportunity to embrace the wetlands and orient the development to face them.
There was an urban street wall facing the streets but courtyards facing the
wetlands and a view of them even as one pulls into the site. Public art such as
sculptures or murals would be incorporated in the courtyards. He explained the
color choices, which pulled from nature and used more glass and lighter colors
facing the wetlands. Pervious paving would be used on the paths. He displayed a
material board gave an overview of the metals and the color pallet, which
emphasized neutrality but drew from local natural colors.
Mette asked if the amenities would be shared between the two development
phases, and Brandsted replied each building would have its own amenities. Mette
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 10, 2022
Page 3
asked for an explanation of the grade and the water table in relation to the
parking. David Bade from Westwood replied there were multiple access points
throughout the parking and a new at-grade entrance would be created at Flying
Cloud Drive. The north parking entrance would be at a higher grade. Independent
entrances would come in separately. Mette asked what percentage of parking
would be at or above grade and Bade replied it was approximately 50 percent.
Mette asked Krych if the ocher color was meant to have a flat metallic effect to
avoid a “fake copper” effect. Krych replied it would have a matte finish to give
off an earth tone and was not intended to look like copper or any reflective metal.
DeSanctis asked for and received confirmation that 60 percent of the property was
wetland. He asked if an environmental study had been commissioned and
Brandsted replied the development was still in the EAW process. DeSanctis asked
what the unique challenges were at this site in terms of borings and foundation
footings. Brandsted replied the prior development did a good job with its soil
corrections. The other third of the site which had not been improved would have
to use a piling system.
Markos asked for the timing of Phase I and Phase II. Brandsted replied that was
still being worked through that. Once Phase I was 80 percent completed of Phase
I would begin, but also perhaps sooner than that. The current timeline was to have
a July groundbreaking and then 18-19 months for Phase I, then at approximately
the 9-month mark for Phase II. Taylor asked for a ballpark figure of per-unit
square footage, and Brandsted replied the studios ranged from 485 to 560 square
feet, the one-bedroom units at 575 to 900 square feet, the two-bedroom units from
900 to 1,250 square feet, and the three-bedroom units from 1,385 to 1,500 square
feet.
Farr asked if there would be visitor parking underground. Brandsted replied the
on-grade parking would be visitor parking as well as for vendors and daytime
visitors, however it was possible to section off the first level of the garage for
visitors. Farr noted there was plenty of queueing space, and he urged sufficient
queueing space at Phase II as well. Brandsted agreed and stated the entrance
would route drivers by the Phase I entrance first.
Gooding noted there was low EV support. Brandsted replied this was a starting
point and the actual use rate did not justify installation although this could easily
be expanded. Farr asked for and received confirmation the landscape plan with
trees in containers on top of the underground parking were large enough to hold a
root ball.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 10, 2022
Page 4
Klima presented the staff report. This site had previously been approved for the
Liberty Plaza development, so the existing zoning was office. The 2040
Comprehensive Plan reguided this entire site to TOD, and staff requested the
outlot areas be reguided as Park and Open Space. Commercial was required on
the ground floor of this development as a part of the TOD zoning district, and the
applicant was requesting a waiver to have the first floor be residential and a
waiver on what would normally be the first-floor commercial transparency. The
applicant also sought setback waivers and a waiver on the Class One materials
requirement. The site met parking as well as offering various sustainability
features. There were several surfaces that offered the potential for public art, at a
cost not to exceed an amount set in the development agreement and agreed upon
by a committee of City staff, the developer, and members of the community. Staff
recommended approval.
Mette asked if the area around the development were also guided TOD by the
Comprehensive Plan. Klima replied the City took a minimalist approach, so this
and the TAGS properties were guided TOD, but other properties could request the
TOD guiding as part of the development process. Mette asked for and received
confirmation the burnished block was not a Class One material. She commended
the blocking design. Farr asked if the site was in a more traditional urban
environment if the front yard setback along Flying Cloud Drive would require the
public sidewalk to be reconfigured to be closer to the building. Klima replied in
that scenario the building would be located closer to the street and the sidewalk.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by Gooding to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 8-0.
Kirk commended the project for its TOD concept design and its flexibility,
expressing the City’s vision of transit-oriented development. He stated the
waivers were reasonable and it put density in the right place while also offering
affordable housing. Higgins noted the size and variety of housing opportunities in
this project, and she asked a long-term question: where were nearby schools
located and how would students living in this development be served? How would
school buses or other services access students at this site? Farr noted the
apartment complex due south of this development had bus services to schools.
DeSanctis complimented the thoughtfulness and the concept of the project, and its
pallet of sustainable features. He found this a very forward-looking project, shoe-
horned in but brilliant use of space. Taylor stated he was excited about this project
for its affordability and urged there be traffic-calming and safety mechanism
features in and around the garage such as mirrors, sounds/alarms and/or speed
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 10, 2022
Page 5
bumps. Markos agreed this was a thoughtful project and did not require the
amount of compromises the commission members often saw this checked all the
boxes. Mette agreed with the comments and commended the development with its
appropriate waivers and art installation solved that corner from being a “heavy
block” with a creative solution. Gooding stated he was supportive of this project
but noted it was an isolated spot, however well designed. Farr also commended
the project and agreed with the waiver requests.
MOTION: Kirk moved, seconded by DeSanctis to recommend approval of the
Guide Plan Change from TOD to Parks and Open Space on 11.17 acres; Planned
Unit Development Concept Review on 15.28 acres; Planned Unit Development
District Review with waivers on 15.28 acres; Zoning Change from OFC to TOD-
R on 5.79 acres and from OFC to P/OS on 11.17 acres; Site Plan Review on 15.28
acres; and a Preliminary Plat of 2 lots and 2 outlots on 16.96 acres based on plans
stamp dated January 4, 2022 and the staff report dated January 6, 2022. Motion
carried 8-0.
PLANNERS’ REPORT
MEMBERS’ REPORTS
VI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: DeSanctis moved, seconded by Gooding to adjourn. Motion carried
8-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:57 p.m.