Lakeville City Council — Transcript
Thursday, May 8, 2025
Lakeville 35 Logistics Park North Edition - Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit
Crown Lakeville Apartments - Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit
Consent Agenda Approval
Community Announcements
Votes (2)
Item 7A: Lakeville 35 Logistics Park North Edition - Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit
Dissent: None. Council member Michelle raised aesthetic concerns about building colors but acknowledged the design rationale and did not vote against approval.
Moved by Unknown [Timestamp] · Seconded by Unknown [Timestamp]
Ed Farr (Edward Farr Architects) and representatives from Likewise Partners presented the project. Staff report by M.G. Ro detailed the 189,000 sq ft speculative office/warehouse building on the northern triangle, with access relocated to the northwest corner per County Road 70 visibility requirements. Council discussion focused on: (1) wetland preservation—a 144 sq ft depression determined to be of minimal quality and incorporated into drainage basin; (2) access implications for adjacent parcels, with potential for cross-easement agreements; (3) full access capability at the relocated northwest corner with median opening for left-turn movements; (4) building color palette (white, gray, blue) justified by market tenant preferences and visual hierarchy; (5) weekend parking availability for Lakeville South Fields access. The applicant agreed to all 10 staff report conditions. Planning Commission held public hearing on October 3rd with no public comments and unanimously recommended approval.
Item 7B: Crown Lakeville Apartments - Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit
Dissent: None. All Council members voted in favor of the preliminary plat and all three conditional use permits.
Moved by Unknown [Timestamp] · Seconded by Unknown [Timestamp]
Tom Lell (Crown/LMN LLC) presented a 182-unit multifamily residential project (128 two-bedroom, 54 one-bedroom) on an 8+ acre site north of 210th Street. The challenging topography with significant grade changes (40+ ft elevation differences) necessitated underground parking (130 spaces in East Building, 114 in West Building) plus 160 surface spaces, totaling 377 spaces (exceeding the 364 required). Staff report by Tina detailed two buildings on a single lot with a conservation easement (rather than outlot) protecting a wetland. Council inquiries addressed: (1) parking allocation—each unit receives one underground space; (2) on-site management structure—24-hour availability with on-site staff; (3) school enrollment impact—two-bedroom units typically attract home office seekers and divorced parents rather than families with children; (4) security features for underground parking with dark-tinted fenestration windows; (5) conservation easement management—similar protections to outlot approach with signage and buffer requirements. Planning Commission held public hearing on October 3rd; two residents from the north requested full black fence across the north end (agreed to) and raised questions about a tree on the property line (applicant agreed to work with neighbors). Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval.
Notable Quotes (11)
We're here for preliminary plat this evening dividing that large parcel bisected by County Road 70 into two triangles. We're looking at the North half about 190,000 ft speculative office warehouse development this point in time probably breaking ground first thing in the spring.
The Wetland is located in the Northeast of the site it's a very small depression 144 square ft. It's where our storm water facilities and also a drainage Swale to accommodate run on from the property to the north need to be located and so 144 ft impact is within the Minimus allowed.
I think that was kind of my initial Instinct was that if access to 70 was something that was strong and desired that a joint agreement with this current parcel might be something to explore certainly for full access in the future.
We don't know the users but we expect typical kind of manufacturing office warehouse users. If we don't have weekend parking needs from the customers or tenant customers in the building we'd be open to a discussion about that if it helps the city and the school district.
The light tone of course the White and the Grays light Grays make the large mass seem smaller darker colors would make something feel larger more substantial. So that's why we kind of keep it light on its feet and use darker colors as accent colors to warm it up.
It is a challenging site it's a h into the side of the hill we are using underground parking to make it work. Consequently what when staff makes a report you'll see that one of the things we're talking about tonight is we have have an unusual amount of exposed parking because it steps into the hill so we're asking for help dealing with that.
We don't always support it when you have an easement around a wetland in more of a single family area because there's more likely to have encroachment people don't understand the conservation area in a multif family area that's going to be you know less likely to happen.
I I apologize you just might cuz you know your demographics of the 128 TW bedroom apartments how many do you think of your clientele will actually have children attending the Lakeville School District?
The two-bedrooms Do Not yield the high number of uh children in fact what we're finding now is the market in a two-bedroom is people want home offices and usually a two-bedroom two is also a divorced parent uh probably needing a room for um visitate their weekend or whatever type of visitation rights.
Are those windows that you can see for the parking garage the part that you know is the underground parking are those small windows that I'm seeing or they're not so you look at cars they're designed to break up that wall?
How is a conservation easement managed differently than what we would typically put here and this case it'll be very similar because the easement will be to the city and so we have you know the same as if a wetland were in an out lot to be able to protect it inspect it have access to it?
Ordinances & Resolutions (6)
Preliminary plat dividing property into two triangles; northern triangle (Lot 1, Block 1) designated for 189,000 sq ft office/warehouse development with southern outlot reserved for future development
CUP for office combined with manufacturing and warehouse use in Office Park District zoning
Single-lot plat for 182-unit multifamily residential development with two buildings; includes conservation easement for on-site wetland
Three CUP requests: (1) construction of buildings exceeding 48 feet in height, (2) exception to building materials requirements due to underground parking exposure, (3) multiple principal buildings on single lot
Governs permitted uses, setbacks, parking requirements, landscaping (30-40% of site area), building height (39 ft), and material standards for both projects
Zoning classification for Crown Lakeville Apartments site; permits multifamily residential use