City Council Minutes 10-07-2025 Joint WorkshopMINUTES
WORKSHOP — JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
October 7, 2025 — 4:45 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
City Councilmembers: Mayor Lloyd Hilgart, Kip Christianson (arrived at 5:37 p.m.),
Charlotte Gabler,
Tracy Hinz, Lee Martie (arrived at 5:20 p.m.)
Councilmembers Absent: None
Commissioners: Chair Andrew Tapper, Rick Kothenbeutel, Teri Lehner
Commissioners Absent: Melissa Robeck and Rob Stark
Staff Present: Rachel Leonard, Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Matt Leonard,
Bob Ferguson, Jim Thares, Jennifer Schreiber
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
Mayor Hilgart and Chair Tapper called the joint workshop of the Monticello
Planning Commission and City Council to order at 4:45 p.m.
B. Review and discussion on draft amendment to City Code, Title XV, Land Usage,
Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance to define and regulate data center and
technology campus land uses within the City
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director, noted that this is the
second joint workshop of the City Council and Planning Commission held to
discuss the regulatory framework (ordinance) for data center development
which will define how data centers can be developed, including size, density,
noise, setbacks, infrastructure systems, and other standards. She stated that
guidance in these specific areas is critical to development of ordinances that
result in the type of data center development desired by the City. She
commented that no decision would be made at the workshop, but the group
should have discussion and provide feedback to guide staff in refining the
ordinance. She gave a recap of the previous joint meeting where Council and
Commission members were asked to give detailed input on ordinance elements,
including noise standards and land use efficiency.
Steve Grittman, City Planner, led discussion on the ordinance elements. As part
of the discussion, Mr. Grittman also mentioned the public concerns of water and
power consumption, infrastructure demands and funding, transportation and
traffic impacts, fiscal implications and noise.
The following areas were discussed:
• Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Land Usage and Tax Base: Mr. Grittman
noted that a minimum FAR of 0.25 was proposed to ensure projects
generate adequate tax base and justify infrastructure investment. Council
Members and Commissioners discussed whether the number is too high.
Mayor Hilgart commented that the City would want enough square
footage to maximize tax base for the area. Commissioner Tapper
questioned the definition for density ratio and noted that the bigger the
area gets, the buffers become less of an issue or less of a percentage.
The group discussed whether wetlands, setbacks, and unbuildable areas
should be excluded from FAR calculations. Mayor Hilgart asked about
removing wetlands from the calculation. In addition, he noted that
setbacks should be established to help mitigate impact. Mr. Grittman
recommended that data centers be handled through a PUD, to set
realistic, goal -oriented standards. The members debated balancing
development density with adequate buffering. Ms. Schumann questioned
what the group would want excluded from the gross density number.
Council Member Gabler suggested wetlands, easements, and
stormwater. Commissioner Tapper added to include any unbuildable
portion. Ms. Schumann noted that the goal is to encourage developed,
productive land use and avoid large undeveloped tracts. There was no
consensus on the proper value for FAR.
• Setbacks, Building Height, and Noise: Mr. Grittman stated that the
current draft ordinance includes a 100-foot setback from property lines
and 200-foot setback from residential or open space zones. There was
some discussion of increasing residential setbacks to mitigate noise and
visual impact. There was consideration about whether parking should be
allowed within setbacks and how to ensure adequate screening. The
group mostly agreed that a 200-foot setback from residential property
was too close. Commissioner Lehner and Council Member Gabler
emphasized noise reduction and screening needs near residential areas.
It was generally supported to increase the residential setback to 300-350
feet to allow better buffering, landscaping, and noise reduction. There
was general agreement that commercial/industrial adjacent properties
could remain at smaller setbacks of 100-200 feet.
2
The group discussed how larger setbacks reduce buildable area, up to 12-
16% of total acreage in some parcel examples. There was support for
balancing development with adequate residential protection.
There was a consensus that setback distance and noise limits are two
separate requirements and that a project must meet both distance and
measurable noise standards.
Mr. Grittman commented on the proposed maximum height of 65 feet
which would allow for multi -story data centers and rooftop mechanical
equipment. There was discussion on using setback -to -height ratios where
taller buildings must be farther from property lines. Others noted that
significant setbacks and screening naturally reduce visual impact, making
height less critical. Commissioners Tapper and Lehner and Council
Member Gabler stated they were comfortable with 65 feet. Most
concurred with the addition of strong setbacks and screening. Mayor
Hilgart noted that he preferred a maximum height of 50 feet.
Mr. Grittman noted that the ordinance could include flexibility - 35 feet
closer in with screening or 65 ft further back if no screening.
There was continued discussion about acceptable decibel levels and
whether setbacks adequately reduce sound impacts. Council Member
Gabler suggested increasing separation distances for additional noise
buffering. Mayor Hilgart doesn't think moving further back should justify
being louder. It was noted that tripling distance reduces sound by roughly
10 decibels.
• Lighting: Mr. Grittman commented that the current industrial code
requires zero foot-candle at residential property lines and fully shielded
fixtures. It was noted that "dark sky" design standards were mentioned,
with Mr. Grittman explaining that these standards reduce upward light
and glare. Members generally supported limiting light impacts, especially
near residential properties. Commissioner Lehner emphasized
measurable standards to ensure no light impacts on nearby properties.
• Screening and Buffering: Mr. Grittman noted that the current ordinance
requires screening of outdoor equipment, parking, and fencing. It was
noted that screening included walls, fences, berms, or combinations.
Discussion of the group clarified that chain -link or barbed-wire security
fencing must be screened or replaced with decorative alternatives.
Commissioner Tapper questioned the appearance and appropriateness of
3
wall screening. Commissioners Tapper and Lehner suggested prohibiting
walls as screening next to residential areas. Ms. Schumann noted that the
ordinance could require landscape buffering closer to the building, within
the setback zone. Mr. Grittman confirmed that both screening and
buffering would be required.
City Council and Commission Members emphasized landscape buffering
should be required between buildings and residential areas — a 65-foot
wall alone is not sufficient. There was consensus that natural screening is
preferred near residential uses, while walls are acceptable next to
industrial properties.
Council Member Christianson asked whether setbacks and buffering can
be used together and how it applies to parking areas. The response
provided was that setbacks apply primarily to buildings and structures
and that parking may encroach if adequately screened.
Staff confirmed that data centers must comply with all base City codes, including
building, fire, stormwater, wetland standards, and those not specifically identified in the
PUD. Standards will be enforced through development/site agreements.
Council Member Christianson, spoke on previous discussion and suggested considering
wetlands as offsets to the FAR and scaling setbacks with building height.
Ms. Schumann commented on the next steps which include revising the ordinance
based on public feedback, workshop discussion and City Council and Planning
Commission guidance on setbacks, height, lighting, and screening. It was noted that
another workshop is likely followed by a public hearing, to review the revised draft
ordinance.
2. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:57 p.m.
Recorder: Jennifer SchreiberA"/ V U M, hall"
Attest:
City Administra o
v%�W'%/l 4W,;:�O