Are you hallelujah? All right, we'll call the meeting to order. On behalf of the planning commission, I'd like to welcome our residents and viewers to this regular meeting of December 9th, 2025. On tonight's agenda, we have one discussion item. Uh before we get into that item,
uh we have the minutes from our November 12th regular meeting. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? If not, is there a motion? >> Motion. >> We have a motion to accept the minutes. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Motion and second. All in favor say I.
I. I minutes are approved. With that, then we'll move into our discussion item. This as pertaining to the Malchesy Peelock property discussion. Tony, you're going to take that? >> I am. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commission members. Uh yes. Uh Douglas and Janelle
Malchesky. Uh they live at 1958 Flagstaff Avenue. They have some interest in selling off some of the family uh property uh that they have over in that general area uh for development purposes. Um the land is generally located at the
southwest intersection of 195th Street and Flagstaff Avenue. Um in your packet there are uh four different maps. Three of those maps uh deal with the city's comprehensive plan. The first one is the future land use uh
map. Second one's anticipated Musa staging map and the third is the anticipated development staging. uh the future land use map which um I have up on the screen um there which I unfortunately it's kind of hard to read.
It's a little small so I apologize but again it this map is in your packet. Um the property in question is outlined in red. Um it is located just north of where the high school is. So, if you're look for orientation purposes, there's a
blue area just on the uh western border of Farmington. This property is literally just north of that. Uh the future land use map shows the northern half of this area guided as medium density residential. Uh this uh
allows for a density range of 6 to 12 dwelling units an acre. And then the southern half is guided low medium density residential which allows for three and a half to six dwelling units an acre.
Um as far as Musa itself, that's the next map here. And again, the property is uh highlighted in or outlined in red. Uh the MUSA staging map shows this area being available for sewer in order to
connect into sewer. uh in 2040 uh comprehensive plan amendment would be required in order to uh bring these properties into that MUSA. Uh and then similar the uh anticipated
development staging map uh shows this area uh being developed between the time frame of 2030 and 2040 uh similar to the Musa. In order for those to develop, there would need to be some sort of comprehensive plan
amendment to uh basically change that to a 2020 to 2030 time frame. Um as far as zoning is concerned, um the area similar to the the land use
actually um the northern half is zoned R3 which is our medium density residential. Uh and then that southern half is our two low medium density. So they match up with what the current what the land use is the guidance and the zoning match up. Uh currently
uh there is an attached concept plan that I did include here. Uh this includes all of the seven different parcels that are owned between the Malesy and Pilock family. uh and also uh shows a portion of the Donley piece that
is directly to the west. Um as far as let's see here, we'll go back. Oh, sorry. There we go. Um with the concept plan, there's a number of uh smaller lot sizes. Well,
there's a a range of lot sizes within the concept plan. Uh it's pretty similar to what we see with a lot of developments these days. Um from just a product standpoint, um we're seeing a lot of uh smaller lots. We're not seeing your typical
10,000 square foot lots anymore. Uh those are a rarity these days. Um but with this larger development, you're seeing a range of develop or range of lot sizes. Um and with that, um some of
them do not meet the minimums within our current zoning code. Therefore, they would likely have to be done as a planned unit development, which again, we've done those um largely with almost all of our subdivisions um in recent years. So, it's it's not
something that's uncommon. Um but it does allow for that flexibility um to meet market demand. So, um, the real reason, um, that we're bringing this forward is to at least have a discussion with the planning commission. As I had mentioned in the
staff report and, uh, in this presentation, there would need to be some comprehensive plan amendments. Um, if this were to move forward, um, as you all know, we will be starting our 2050 comprehensive plan amend amendment,
which is a 10-year cycle that the Met Council requires of all metropolitan communities to complete. Um, we will start that this coming year. We actually have a pretty good start on it being that we kind of started a midcycle
amendment uh, two years ago. So we have kind of a running start on it. Um the hope is to hopefully have that done within a year, year and a half time frame. So um but really we need to at least discuss as we do have uh some
property owners who would like to at least in the near term possibly do something. So that's what I got. >> Thank you. Tony with us tonight. Uh Doug and Janelle, do you have anything to add to Tony's report? >> Okay. And if you do in the future, it's
a discussion. So, just let me know and we'll give you a chance. I'd like to make a couple comments um initially and then I'll wait till come for my discussion. But I'd like this the commission to consider as Tony said that we're going to be reviewing and updating
the 2050 comp plan. So, I we'll come back to that or I'll come back to that and how that will deal with amendments and things like that and the timing. And then the second one is I'd like you to consider the use and traffic of this road, not so
much today, but what it's going to be in the future. And again, I'll come back to why I'm bringing both those issues up in my part of the discussion, but I'll start with Commissioner Tesy. >> Uh, yeah. No, I mean, overall, I think
this looks good. I understand the desire to sell the property. There's a lot of development happening to the west of this in Lakeville and I get it like it's expanding significantly and fast. So to look at this and update this needs to
happen in my mind in my opinion. So yeah, I don't have any questions or real concerns at this time other than traffic flow coming. Um what is that? It's 195th, but then South is that 200
>> 200 would be just south going to the tiny roads >> that connects then out to Cedar Avenue that has become so busy. Um, and we're going to have to think through that I think a little bit if there's a need for control at some point. Um, >> and I do believe the county is looking
to do a corridor study, okay, on Flagstaff and that would also include bringing another east west uh road over to >> Cedar. >> Cedar. Okay. um to the north um >> connected.
>> So that roundabout west >> correct >> from 195th. >> Correct. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> We've seen some initial plans for that road going. >> Yep. >> We've seen some of those. >> But I do believe that's a either a next
year study, I believe. So, it's >> um I will confirm that with our city engineer and let you know, but I'm pretty sure that is something that is a near-term project or at least a corridor study anyways. >> Got it. Okay. Yeah. Other than that, I
don't have any other questions. >> Commissioner Winshle. >> No, I think my main concern was answered was the traffic uh flow through there. Um, and so just so I have a general idea, the the property in question would
basically back up to the Lakeville, that development that's going in there now, Cedar and 200, >> they don't own the Donley. >> Donley's own that corner there. >> Well, no. Um, all right. So if you look at that the
the map that's on there y >> the red area is the that's highlighted is the piece that the males pilocks own. >> Yep. >> The Donny's own the piece in between them and our border. >> Okay. Yep. Yep. So basically there would
be a some sort of land wide open land in between >> potentially. >> Potentially >> unless unless the Donnies decide to >> Yes. >> do something. >> Understood. And then as far as the residential houses that are there now
off of Flagstaff, is that something that's going to maintain or is that just in general? Like if you were to sell it >> understood? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yep. >> The concept plan that's shown there,
there's a a white void at the very norththeast >> corner >> corner. That's where the three homes are. >> Um Yeah, exactly. >> Certainly. Yeah. >> No, I think it's certainly something to
look at. I think it looks good. Yeah. >> Mr. There's no >> that land east, you know, of there. Is that land up for I mean are are um builders looking to build there also
>> just across Flagstaff. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Uh have not had a whole lot of interest um that I'm aware on that. Um, I believe the house that is on that be the southeast corner, I think that just sold
within the last year or so. >> Um, but no, I don't know that. Um, at least not to my knowledge. Nobody's shown any interest in that piece as of right now. >> The question I would have is bringing
your utilities over there. um is is where's the trunk lines that meet up with that? I mean, >> right now there's a Metropolitan interceptor uh that was built as uh with the high school that is uh actually in
200 Street on the south end of the site uh and goes over to the Lakeville border. Um there's also sanitary sewer up by Meadow View Elementary School. >> Um that could potentially be brought over as well, but there is utilities on
the south end of the site. >> So that's part of the school district. >> It's not like the city is going to have to extend. >> Actually, from a utility standpoint, the site would be actually relatively easy to serve. >> Yeah. all things considered. >> That's why I was asking is that
additional property that's not being developed like it would make sense to do that first, but if the trunk line and all the utilities are close enough, it won't matter a whole lot what comes first. Right. >> Right. >> Okay. Um yeah, I think that's the
majority of my questions um pertaining to how to get the infrastructure there. Thank you, >> Commissioner Berg. Yeah, I had a lot of the similar questions as the other commissioners. If if we start the comprehensive plan
amendment for this particular piece of land, does that preempt anything else that may be going on in the comprehensive planning? >> Um, it would
it would eventually just get rolled into the 2050 plan. Um, one thing we do have to look at being that with the 2050 plan, it's a a communitywide >> update. Um, we have to make sure that
we're not shorting other areas of growth. um by adding this into that's why you do the development staging and the Musa staging because uh we have to the Met Council provides us certain
guidelines certain handrails if you will um that tells us basically you know what our population what our households will be in 10-year increments. um and they do that with every community and it's to make sure that we're able to
serve them with utilities adequately. Um so it's just one of those things where if we do do a amendment on this one in particular, um doesn't mean that it would necessarily create a problem. It's just something we would have to look at
when they go through the amendment process to make sure that we're not shorting elsewhere where we're looking at possibly other development as well. >> Okay. The reason I asked that, Tony, is for
what you outlined, right? If if we're thinking ahead, making sure that we are addressing making sure we as a city are thinking, are we going to be able to serve all the areas that we need to serve? Great. >> We just saw recently a I would argue a
pretty significant tax increase from our city. >> Adding additional residential is concerning for me personally. So, I just want to make sure we're thinking through all of those things as we're uh as we're making some of these decisions.
>> Um the other thing, and I think several others have alluded to it as well, is the traffic concern. There's a very active farm there, as everyone knows, right? there are neighbors and the Donnies are always >> part of the equation. There is that gravel road just to the north of this
that connects with Cedar as well, >> right? >> Um so I have to imagine they're looking at at that as a potential connection as well. Maybe, maybe not. We don't know. >> That would all be part of that corridor. >> Okay. Okay. Yeah. >> So, that's my biggest concern as well is
that Flagstaff has got and 200 Street has gotten in >> incredibly busy uh just in the past couple years. So, with all of the development going off Cedar, I I think we just need to be very careful and and consider that as well.
>> Um but those are those are my concerns. >> Yes, sir. You know, one concern I've had in that same quarter is like we have a school there and we're going to add some additional housing. Is there any plan to put a sidewalk that that connects to the to the school there just cuz there's so
many cars going so fast and kids on bikes and walkers and >> right >> there's tractors. I mean adding additional households is additional people like that'd be easy walk for a kid to walk to school, right? >> Um is there thought and talk on that um
at anywhere? Well, with each development, we look at the sidewalks and trails as part of any development. Um, we do require sidewalks at least on one side of every street. Um, I do know that, um,
we've, uh, included trails on a number of developments, uh, along major corridors. Take for instance, uh, Vermillion River, uh, Vermillion Commons. Um, we included trail along Denmark Avenue. I could potentially see
something like that happening with this development. Um getting trail at least portions of trail in place. I don't know that we would it would probably be done as a development phase type of situation. Um unless the county comes in and does a
a major project and then includes trails as part of a major project. Um that could be a possibility, but generally speaking, you see those happen as development occurs. >> Nothing along Flagstaff though. There would there's no plan at all to have a
>> No, I think we would look at that as part of uh as part of the development. Okay. >> Um >> Yeah, cuz I mean I drive down that road. I always think of kids, >> you know, let alone adults walkers, you know, >> right? when we had the plans for the two developments on the southern side of
step on the west side, there are sidewalks along there. >> Okay. >> So, I would assume that would continue. >> Yeah. >> And there's I was just going to add to that. I think there's a crossover over Flagstaff right there at that roundabout, too. So, there's built in to connect
>> over to that other side. I was going to say I'm pretty sure of that. >> Anything else, Andy? >> No, just a lot to consider. >> Okay. I I'll go back to my two comments because I I want to set this out there for the commissioners to at least to think about. First one is >> and as Tony mentioned, we're going to be
doing the comp plan just next year, you guys. Why would we consider amendments? That wouldn't be a prudent use of staff time, commission's time, council time, just roll it into the to the 2050 comp plan. Why, Tony? Do you see any reason why we wouldn't? >> I think that makes sense. That way we
can get a holistic view on things. >> I mean, it's it's I mean, we're we're right there now. I mean, if this were done, plus you know, this is this is one of those where it's moving up in time. It's not right there. So, to me, it's it's not a rush of this commission of this city to do it right now. The second
one, and I talked about the road. And Tony, can you bring up the the zoning one you had with the, you know, the different uses? This might be it right here again. >> That's the zoning right here. Yeah. >> Yep. And I asked you to consider what the road's going to be because back in
the 80s and I was part of this, you guys, you know, we had residential development come in and wow, it was great for Farmington. We're getting these rooftops. We're getting growth. Um, and we did it all up and down Pilot Knob. And we talked about this in our workshops with the city council. And I
think the future of this road, it's g it's this road, not today. And today you got tractors going on it. But in a different commission, a different council's time in the future, there's going to be a lot more traffic. And when I looked at the zoning map, and I see
commercial on the intersection, but I don't see commercial on this whole side, other than way down, you got some mixed use on the highway. But I'm wondering if this commission and this and if the city council is interested because we talked about busy roads that we should have like other
communities are doing. They put some kind of commercial on the front. Maybe the residential if the buffer goes behind it. >> Yeah. >> So why why wouldn't we start considering it and flag staff? Yeah. Pilot knob's done. We we we just got to look at it and say we got to learn better next time. But I think this is next time you
guys. I really do. >> Mr. chair. I'll to dovetail on that. Um when we started the uh midcycle amendment, we had a draft future land use plan um that we at least shared with
both the planning commission and council. Um and in that and that plan was never approved or anything like that. Um so I want to make that >> right >> clear. Um, but we were looking at the uh about 12 acres in the northeast corner of this site as a mixeduse commercial
residential. So that was in that at least draft plan. >> Okay. And I I think that's a great comment, Tony. I think when we start looking at the 2050 comp plan, I think we should resurrect it and bring it back at least get people's thoughts on it because I mean if not, we're going to
have a duplicate of pilot knob. We are I'm concerned with that. So, those would be my two comments, and that's why I didn't want to come out with them right away, but I wanted you to to at least think about it. Um, I mean, it's a fine development, but it's it's it's very
similar to what we've seen as Tony mentioned, and it's, you know, it'll have to be a planned unit development because of the size of lots. Um, but I think we want something new. I think we want something better. Not better, just something to help the residents of this
community what they need. There's a lot of houses. Maybe we need some other types of services. So, that'd be my comments. Tony, tonight you're not really looking for approval or go with the amendment or anything. >> No, this was meant to be just a
discussion item. Uh get the the overall flavor from or get your opinions on it at this point. Um being that uh like I had mentioned being that we are going to be doing the 2050 plan. um wanted to have that as
part of that discussion. So, >> and I think that's a great time to have it. I mean that we we're going to have it anyway regardless of whether this is there and what are we going to do for right at least for land use and other issues, >> right? >> So, um after you hear our comments, do
you have any comments, Doug or Janelle? >> So, what do you mean by that? >> It's going to be part of it anyway. We're going to work the 2050 comp plans the entire community, the entire city and >> doesn't necessarily mean when this will
be ready for development. >> This will be part of the review of the the the of the comprehensive plan of how the city's going to grow in the future and the different aspects that are required for the city to grow in the future. It's not just the land, but it's it's the infrastructure and everything else.
>> I'm still into the future looking for me to be able to devel the 2050 just means that the um >> the range um it's always going to be about 20
years out the name of it. Um but within that uh we look at the uh in this case it'll be the 2020 through 2050 50 time frame.
>> And we'll have each there'll be portions of the city that will be um essentially guided for development within each of those pockets in order to meet certain population projections that the Met Council provides us.
Um, so being that it it says 2050, that doesn't mean that no development is going to happen until 2050. It so it it's just the time frame of the plan >> and the process would be the same. It
the amendment is just kind of a special exception to the comp plan handled >> independent of everything else. >> Yeah. But the comp plans the entirety that it should be included anyway because we're going to start that in
2026 which is less than 30 days away. So >> the timeline wouldn't change a whole lot, right? I mean because we'd have to we'd have to >> you could do an amendment within a couple months. Um but the overall comp plan is going to
take a little bit longer because you're looking at the entire community. But with that said, I think with something like this and this being that this this specific area, um I think it's prudent to look at it as
part of the overall plan. >> So I would agree. >> All right. Um Tony, do you have anything else for tonight? >> Uh the only other thing I have is I did provide each of you a hard copy of the
2026 uh city calendar uh of meetings. Um all of our dates except for uh our September meeting will fall on the second Tuesday of each month. September we will be meeting on Wednesday uh the
9th due to the holiday. So, we got pushed to Wednesday versus uh Tuesday. So, that's the only thing that's uh different. So, that's all I got. Thank you. Anything else from the commission? If not, I just wish you all a safe and
enjoyable holiday season. And with that, I look for a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll make a motion. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Motion second. All in favor say I. I. >> We officially adjourn. Thank you. Thank you. Heat. Heat.