The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda - 11/03/2025AGENDA REGULAR MEETING – PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2025– 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Chair Andrew Tapper, Vice-Chair Melissa Robeck, Rick Kothenbeutel, Teri Lehner, Rob Stark Council Liaison: Councilmember Kip Christianson Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Bob Ferguson, Tyler Bevier 1. General Business A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items D. Approval of Agenda E. Approval of Meeting Minutes • Special Meeting – August 19, 2025 • Regular Meeting - September 2, 2025 • Joint City Council & Planning Commission Workshop - September 24, 2025 To be approved by the City Council • Joint City Council & Planning Commission Workshop - October 7, 2025 Approved by the City Council on October 27, 2025 • Regular Meeting - October 7, 2025 F. Citizen Comment 2. Public Hearings None 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of an update on the Monticello Industrial Alternative Urban Areawide Review PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Monticello Community Center 5:00 p.m. Discussion on Amendments to 2040 Vision + Plan and Zoning Ordinance for single-family housing goals 7:00 p.m. JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION - Data Center Land Use & Ordinance Discussion Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda – 11/03/2025 2 B. Consideration to take from the table the proposed amendments to Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance to define and regulate data center and technology campus land uses within the City and to call for a public hearing on the ordinance on December 2, 2025 4. Other Business A. Community Development Director’s Report 5. Adjournment MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 19, 2025 – 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Chair Andrew Tapper, Vice-Chair Melissa Robeck, Teri Lehner, Rob Stark Rob Stark arrived at the meeting at 6:18 p.m. Staff Present: Rachel Leonard, Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Bob Ferguson, Tyler Bevier, Anne Mueller 1. Call to Order Chairperson Tapper called the special meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:03 p.m. and noted the presence of Commissioners and Councilmember Christianson. 2. Public Hearing - Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Sections 153.045 Industrial Base Zoning Districts, 153.046 Overlay Zoning Districts, 153.090 Use Table, 153.091 Use-Specific Standards, 153.092 Accessory Use Standards and any other related sections of text necessary to define and regulate data center and technology campus land uses within the City Mr. Tapper welcomed the public present for the item and clarified that the purpose of the meeting is to review a proposed ordinance for data centers, including specific requirements. The meeting will not review specific applications or proposals. He explained that the ordinance is a framework for a new land use. City Planner Steve Grittman addressed the Commission, indicating that the purpose of the meeting is to review the proposed zoning ordinance and is not specific to a project or property, but he noted that the City has been approached to review data center concepts. Mr. Grittman explained that the Planning Commission and City Council have been working through issues that data centers may present, including the nature of the use and the impacts of the use. When regulating land uses, the City is regulating the impacts and state law gives the City this authority. Mr. Grittman stated that the highest level of land use review for cities is at the comprehensive plan level. Mr. Grittman spoke to the amendments to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan made earlier this year, which addressed and identified the differences between data centers and light industrial uses. The 2040 Vision + Plan now calls out data centers as a separate land use within the light industrial designation. Mr. Grittman explained that data center development was acknowledged as an opportunity to achieve Monticello’s tax base growth, diversification, and stabilization goals. He Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes – 08/19/2025 2 noted that the 2040 Plan cites this as a primary economic development goal. The other relevant goal is employment opportunities adding to the local economic environment. The 2040 Plan uses those as consideration factors for how a zoning ordinance will support implementation of those goals. Mr. Grittman stated that given the interest in data center development, the city’s initial land use discussions and ultimately the 2040 plan amendment focused on both the opportunities as well as the challenges of this type of development, including the use of large tracts of land typically designated for light industrial purposes, as well as the increased demand for electricity and access to water and sewer utilities. Mr. Grittman explained that the City has the greatest level of discretion at the Comprehensive Plan level. The City is setting local land use policy. Similarly, the City has significant discretion when creating ordinances. Both are legislative actions that apply generally to the community. The primary constraint with a zoning ordinance is that it supports the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. As decision-making moves to specific properties, the City’s discretion narrows, for example when considering a plat or CUP. At that point, the evaluation is how it meets the ordinance or manages an impact. Mr. Grittman stated that is why getting the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance correct at the beginning is important, as they are the rules to regulate land use. He walked through a graphic illustrating City decision discretion relative to various application and permit reviews. Mr. Grittman stated that following the 2040 Plan amendments, the development of Data Center ordinance language is required to support the Comprehensive Plan statements. He stated that the proposed ordinance amendment recognizes the opportunities that data center development offers, while acknowledging the specific issues that require inquiry and management and the ability and limits of the City to regulate. Mr. Grittman provided an overview of the proposed Data Center Planned Unit Development (DCPUD) process. Mr. Grittman explained that a typical PUD process allows for flexibility from base code standards in the interest of more additional amenities for development. In contrast, the proposed DCPUD ordinance provides a base set of required standards, and what is variable is within the buildable area of a data center site. The ordinance includes a series of requirements and a process to address the impacts expected from this type of use. Mr. Grittman described how the PUD process would establish a framework for application and plan submittals tailored to the specific use and its impacts. This process would incorporate the applicant’s internal site design components as a foundation for City review and decision-making. It would also define site development performance standards, address mitigation measures, and help the City understand potential impacts on public infrastructure. Mr. Grittman highlighted the goals of the DCPUD from both the City and the landowner/developer perspectives. Developers seek to obtain development rights that Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes – 08/19/2025 3 enable them to move forward with permitting, infrastructure planning, and securing investment capital. For the City, the goal is to ensure certainty when investing in public infrastructure and to protect and preserve existing assets. To support these goals and following the 2040 Plan amendment, the development of a data center ordinance language is required to support comprehensive statements. Mr. Grittman spoke to structure of the drafted ordinance, which includes five general categories: performance standards, application requirements, review process, site improvement plan agreement (SIPA), and timing, performance, amendment. Mr. Grittman spoke on the draft performance standards of the DCPUD. These include development density established as a minimum floor area ratio of 0.25; setbacks at 100 feet minimum from property line for all buildings, and 200-foot minimum setback from residentially guided or zoned property or open space areas. He explained that the ordinance requires building materials similar to other light industrial buildings, noise compliance per Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) standards, lighting compliance with current code maximums with attention to residential properties and required materials and design elements for buffering, landscaping, and screening. He noted the landscaping and screening should be installed with the first phase. Mr. Grittman next addressed the draft ordinance requirements for the DCPUD application submittal requirements, which focus on the project impacts including those to City utilities. The ordinance also requires platting, site phasing and development, stormwater management, traffic data, power use and fiscal information. Mr. Grittman then spoke to the DCPUD application process, which requires a development and final stage review process. He explained that the development stage application will require a significant level of application detail and require a public hearing. It will also include the rezoning application. The hearing is at Planning Commission with a decision at the City Council level. As with other applications, there will likely be assigned conditions of approval. The final stage is expected to be a review of how the application has met the conditions. Final stage is a Council review and decision and will include approval of the Site Improvement Plan Agreement (SIPA). The SIPA will incorporate the fiscal expectations of the applicant and the timing for phasing and infrastructure of the development, financial securities, and developer obligations. It will also address the process in the event of future changes. Mr. Grittman stated that staff is looking for questions and comments of the Commission, and information from the public during the hearing to further inform the draft ordinance. The recommendation is to postpone any formal action and continue the hearing to the September 2, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Tapper inquired if City review continues throughout the site planning process, such reviewing to fire code compliance. Mr. Grittman stated building and fire codes are applicable regardless of the type of structure and will be evaluated at a site plan and building permit review that will be required. Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes – 08/19/2025 4 Ms. Lehner asked how the City plans to monitor and mitigate potential impacts within the site in the event of a proposed increase in intensity of the use on a site, for example increased demand on utility systems. Mr. Grittman responded that the ordinance requires municipal utilities and will require an application for their capacity. The ordinance outlines a requirement for the applicant to provide information on all known utility demands. If there is a change, then the intention is for the SIPA to include terms for increased demand review. Ms. Lehner asked if there should be documentation on how much change should be allowed before other review is required or if information is available to gauge the need for an amendment. Mr. Tapper expanded, stating the factoring might be based on maximum limits. Mr. Grittman stated that the ordinance is intended to require that the planning application for the DCPUD include information on how utility services will be provided to other growth areas, in both infrastructure design and capacity. Mr. Tapper inquired how the City will verify application information for this type of use. He asked that the information also be required to be verified by an independent source. Mr. Grittman said City engineers and consultants used by the City will verify the calculations as part of review and that City staff are routinely monitoring compliance to the approvals. Mr. Tapper noted that there would be a significant amount of information to review and the board members will have a significant review responsibility. He inquired whether in addition to a minimum FAR there should also be a maximum FAR. Mr. Grittman responded that the minimum was set based on tax base objectives. If the applicant can meet the other impact standards, staff was less concerned about setting a maximum FAR. Mr. Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Scott Harper, 4234 86th St NE, thanked staff and Commission for including his written feedback in the agenda item and spoke to need for mitigation of sound and light impacts. Mr. Harper noted that he had requested economic impact information and expressed concern that developers will benefit, not the City. Mr. Harper also indicated concern regarding property values, stating concern regarding significant reduction in value. Mr. Harper also suggested a measure to use recirculated water to reduce water consumption, waste, chemicals and potential for fog hazard. Mr. Harper asked about the proximity to the City and inquired why the use would be allowed in or close to City limits. Mr. Harper also stated concern for ensuring the requirements are adhered to. He stated that he is in favor of setbacks and sound prevention measures but is not certain they will adequately address sound concerns. Rylee Averill, Lake Street South, Big Lake, addressed the Commission and stated that she had been reviewing the Monticello Industrial Alternative Urban Areawide Review Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes – 08/19/2025 5 (AUAR) and noted her concern regarding the loss of primate farmland. She also suggested that the Monticello Industrial proposer is not a local entity. Mr. Tapper reminded the public that the hearing is not for a specific data center proposal but rather the potential ordinance. Ms. Averill stated her comments are related and spoke to concerns regarding water consumption impacting the areas surrounding watersheds and will leave residents in surrounding areas vulnerable. Ms. Averill stated concern regarding the added stress on the area for data center infrastructure. Kevin Cichon, 6289 Edmonson Avenue NE, stated that he has concerns regarding water use, property values, noise, and pollution from generators. Scott Crawford, 8674 Dalton Avenue NE, asked if the consultant reviewing the standards was paid for by the City of Monticello or the developer and inquired about the process for annexation in the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA) relative to the 2040 Plan. Mr. Grittman stated that annexations occur when petitions are received by the City from township residents under the terms of the agreement with Monticello Township for the Monticello Orderly Annexation area. Kolton Kratky, 9127 Fieldcrest Circle, asked that the City consider internet routing, as the “last mile” of the internet infrastructure needed for a data center could potentially cause data congestion. Mr. Kratky also recommended that the proposed ordinance consider multiple or single-tenant capacity, noting data centers have varying operations on all scales which may influence traffic generation. Mr. Kratky noted the complex equipment housed in the data center and indicated that if government information will be stored at the data center it will need intensive security. Mr. Tapper concurred that internet service lines should be addressed for data centers. Mr. Tapper stated that if the City sets the standards for usage, regardless of the nature of the business operations, the question will be whether the City should try to regulate the type of data storage. Theodore Roberts, 306 6th Street West, spoke to the Commission, asking how the City will benefit from data centers and referenced power plant issues dating back to 2022. Mr. Roberts stated the City has enough water issues. Mr. Tapper stated a potential applicant would provide a list of utilities demand needs. Danielle Lee, 9368 Golden Pond Lane N, sought confirmation that the City would be regularly monitored for water, light and noise. Mr. Grittman responded that the City regularly monitors water and sewer usage. Regarding complaints received for violation of zoning codes or enforced ordinances, the City usually responds on a complaint basis and uses the enforcement process depending on the nature of the use. He stated that noise and light are not currently monitored on a regular basis for all uses. Ms. Lee stated her concern is that there would be no monitoring if there wasn’t a complaint and encouraged a regular system of monitoring. Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes – 08/19/2025 6 Lisa Keenan, 8270 State Highway 25 NE, addressed the Commission, noting that she is an adjacent neighbor to a proposed data center site and stating her opposition to any data center. She referenced an article on heavy and light industrial uses and suggested that data centers should be classified as heavy industrial. Ms. Keenan expressed concerns about potential noise, noise frequency, and other negative impacts on neighboring properties. Ms. Keenan also raised concerns about possible decreases in sewer and water pressure, increased utility costs, and concern that the City might require residents to reduce their water consumption to accommodate the increased demand from the data center. Finally, Ms. Keenan questioned whether this is the appropriate time for such a project, citing broader national concerns related to data centers. Chris Scribner, 3456 88th Street NE, commented on the power required by data centers and concerns about who pays for it and the ability to supply to meet data center demand. Mr. Scribner stated backup power and generators will cause exhaust and pollution and suggested a cap on megawatts be implemented. Shannon Bye, 5235 85th Street NE, stated it took time for Council to address cannabis distribution; the City should do its due diligence in the same manner regarding data centers. She stated her concern for diverting resources from residential homes and other taxpayers. Ms. Bye spoke to climate change and the potential heat generated from cooling systems. She noted the number of jobs available at data centers are minimum for the area comparably to other urban development. Ms. Bye also stated concern that the City will need to subsidize for water or sewer capacity increases, resulting in impact to the taxpayers. Ms. Bye concurred that land is a limited resource and commented on the lack of amenities such as parks and walking paths, as these facilities are shut off from community. Ms. Bye listed other disadvantages including cost to taxpayers, service interruptions due to increased internet usage, depleting non- renewable resources, potential security risks, concerns about the appearance of the building, noise, and the tax incentives that might be used to attract developers. Nancy Kopff, 1490 75th Street NE, asked when the process to draft the data center zoning ordinance began. Ms. Schumann stated that the process began earlier in the summer of 2025; the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan amendments for the data center land use were adopted by City Council in spring of 2025. Mr. Tapper added that developers have approached the City with concept proposals, leading to the need to discuss an ordinance to address the use. Nancy Kopff stated that she has worked in planning and zoning and suggested that the development of an ordinance should not be the result of a potential development. Ms. Kopff spoke to planning for the long-term and the need for smart development practices. Ms. Kopff stated that the size of a potential data center comes with many unknowns. She recommended the Planning Commission use a careful process, allowing people to understand and to gather more information. Ms. Kopff stated, once Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes – 08/19/2025 7 developed, enforcement by City and County becomes difficult and expensive. She stated the need to not only to grow the tax base, but also to take care of the existing tax base. Councilmember Christianson thanked Ms. Kopff for her comments and explained the process taken by the Planning Commission and City, which is deliberative. Mr. Christianson stated that he has also completed research and travel to review data center impacts from a critical point of view. Mr. Christianson addressed the process in drafting the ordinance, which is unique to this type of use and includes accountability for development on the front end and is intended to set requirements that continue into the future. Ms. Kopff stated that citizens do not want data centers and fear it. Ms. Kopff spoke to the ordinance as presented will allow data centers to come. Mr. Christianson noted that an ordinance’s purpose is to establish regulations and enforcement. He stated that the development of the ordinance is a process. Mr. Tapper stated this is a first step, and noted that development may not materialize. He explained that the City has spent a significant amount of time on the ordinance development process. City Administrator Rachel Leonard addressed the Commission, stating that the work on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and the ordinance is based on the City’s responsibility for regulating land use. Ms. Leonard stated that the City’s discussion has occurred over a series of meetings and is intended to provide the City with the tools and detail to review development. The City has determined that it needs to have regulations to review this type of development. The comprehensive plan evaluated how the use fits in the community and the next step is the zoning ordinance. This meeting and citizen comments inform the discussion on the type of ordinance that is put in place. While an ordinance does relate to what may be happening in the community, the City needs to have the ability to evaluate the use for its place in the Monticello community. She stated that it will be up to policymakers to make decisions, taking into consideration citizen comments and concerns. Scott Crawford spoke to his experience at data centers and recommended including review of transportation needs and commute patterns during construction and noted proximity of one of the proposals to residential uses and potential traffic impacts. Mr. Tapper noted that the draft ordinance does require a traffic study and noted the need to consider construction-related impacts in the study. Tyler Sirovy, 5858 Deer Street, asked how the City was prompted to consider zoning policy and who the potential applicants for projects are. Mr. Sirovy stated his concern regarding the eventual breach of required standards and the City’s enforcement ability. He recommended robust enforcement standards and stated concerns about impacts in comparison to benefit, stating more information is needed before the City proceeds to allow a data center. Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes – 08/19/2025 8 Mr. Christianson stated that via the ordinance, the City has authority to include enforcement measures. Ms. Schumann addressed the Commission on Mr. Sirovy’s questions, explaining that two conceptual workshops were held by City Council and Planning Commission on data center proposals and are available to review via the City website. In response to specific developers, Ms. Schumann stated that the data center proposals have come forward from Monticello Tech LLC and Scannell Development. Ms. Schumann addressed the Commission, stating that the hearing is specific to the zoning ordinance. She noted that some comments of the public have referenced the Alternative Urban Areawide Review process. That process is in the Scoping phase and the full AUAR, which includes more detailed evaluation of issues and data collected, is not yet available. The AUAR Scoping Document is available to review on the website and all public comments relating to it are accepted until September 4. She noted that the AUAR review is separate from the public hearing for zoning ordinance discussed this evening. She re-stated that the hearing was intended as an opportunity for comment and research to further inform the process prior to a follow-up hearing on the zoning ordinance in September. Lisa Keenan addressed the Commission regarding traffic during construction and the need for construction noise standards in the ordinance. She restated concern regarding water use and well impact. City wells are going to run dry. Ms. Schumann spoke to the MPCA handbook and City Code which work together for noise regulations. Councilmember Christianson stated the drafted ordinance is a first step of a multi-step regulatory processes required for development. Addressing water, Mr. Christianson spoke to hydrology studies conducted by the City on municipal wells and evaluation of impacts to the wells and the surrounding township. Scott Harper addressed the Commission again, indicating concern for the long-term impact to the aquifer and on noise potential from both truck traffic and generators. Mr. Harper also indicated the City lacked adequate information on the issue and for necessary enforcement. Jaycie Kratky, 9127 Fieldcrest Circle, shared her hesitancies with the Commission and questioned why the ordinance is being completed prior to completion of the noted study. Mr. Tapper responded that the ordinance is a framework for City control. The required AUAR Scoping document has to do with the impacts of a proposal and is a requirement in the process. Mr. Tapper noted that the purpose of the ordinance review is not whether or not the City will allow data center, but how it will allow the development. Mr. Christianson reiterated the need for a framework that requires studies such as those noted. Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes – 08/19/2025 9 Ms. Schumann addressed the question, stating that the ordinance is being developed with the intent that it will apply broadly to any proposed data center in whatever scale or size it is proposed and is being written to address and regulate both the impacts that are specific to an individual site or proposal and those that are common to data centers generally. Ms. Schumann stated that the AUAR process in contract is a specific review process related to a specific site and development concept proposals for the site. It evaluates that area of land and the potential environmental impact issues related to those development proposals. Kevin Cichon addressed the Commission, inquiring whether the ordinance could be taken to a citizen vote. Theodore Roberts addressed the Commission and indicated that based on social media posts no one wants a data center in Monticello and expressed concern for moving too quickly with decisions. Holly Newman, 840 Powell Street N, Big Lake, cited concerns on the long-term effects and the data center facilities potentially being left abandoned when technology is outdated. Mr. Tapper concurred that technology advancement and obsolescence are a concern and should be addressed in the ordinance. Ms. Newman addressed the increased water demand and asked who pays for the water treatment plant capacity. Mr. Tapper indicated that the ordinance should address both the evaluation of the demand and the fiscal accountability. Bryan Luong, 6620 Oak Leaf Court, spoke to Commission and addressed the cooling system needed for the information technology equipment inside the walls of data centers. Ms. Schumann stated a summary of comments will be posted on the agenda center of the City website. She stated that over 30 comments in opposition to the ordinance and data centers generally were received. She summarized the comments related to energy consumption, water usage and the environmental strain, minimal long-term job creation and industrial impacts, loss of land for development, and traffic concerns. One comment was received recommending proposed ordinance revisions. Ms. Schumann reviewed those proposed revisions briefly, which included setback and buffering comments, along with a request to clarify the FAR. She explained that the comments were provided to the Commission, made available for the public and will be posted to the City website. Mr. Tapper inquired about ordinance references to bitcoin or data mining operations. Mr. Grittman stated that based on research, data or crypto mining facilities are undercapitalized projects without returns to the City and clarified the intent is that data centers do not include crypto mining as an allowable principal use. Nick Frattalone, Monticello Tech LLC, addressed the Commission. Mr. Frattalone requested that the ordinance further clarify the FAR calculation requirements. He also Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes – 08/19/2025 10 recommended that the proposed 3-year timeline for phase completion be increased to 5 years. Mr. Frattalone spoke to the potential for increased setbacks rather than buffering in non-residential areas. Nancy Kopff addressed the Commission, adding concerns regarding legal risk and costs, stating that the City will be in a difficult position to deny without litigation. Those costs will be on the taxpayers. She also noted the potential for future amendments. Mr. Tapper asked Ms. Kopff what her proposal might be. Ms. Kopff said the City does not have to allow every land use and that in adopting the ordinance it is creating an avenue for the use. The City could also prohibit the use. Kevin Cichon inquired again why the ordinance cannot be placed on a voting ballot. Mr. Grittman spoke to the Commission, stating that per State Statute the City does not have authority to authorize and hold a vote on an ordinance adoption issue. Mr. Grittman stated that the City will utilize the comments heard this evening to revise the drafted ordinance. Theodore Roberts stated his concern that the City should do what is best for the community and not developers. Kolton Kratky inquired of the planned timeframe to study and write the ordinance. Mr. Tapper stated that an initial ordinance structure has been drafted; the public hearing will allow the incorporation of additional information. Mr. Tapper indicated that continuing the matter to the next Planning Commission meeting also does not mean the ordinance will be adopted at that time. He noted the ordinance once adopted, can also be amended. Mr. Tapper said that a lot of time, careful thought, and vast research went into preparing a draft. Kolton Kratky inquired as to the process for the final enaction of the ordinance. Ms. Schumann responded that the Planning Commission will review the ordinance as an advisory body and make a recommendation, which then move to the City Council for a final decision. Danielle Lee spoke to the Commission on the recent number of project approvals and requested that members remember that they represent the people. Scott Harper addressed the Commission on the potential impacts of years of construction and inquired when information will be available on liability and legal responsibility. Chris Scribner inquired if an application is ready to go once the rezoning takes place. Mr. Tapper clarified that this consideration is not a rezoning action. Ms. Schumann stated no applications for a data center site development have been accepted. If the data center ordinance is adopted the process described by the ordinance would be followed, as applicable. Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes – 08/19/2025 11 Holly Newman inquired about the tax exemptions and how it impacts the City’s goals for tax base. Mr. Christianson responded that there is a state sales tax exemption for equipment within a data center. There is not currently a property exemption applicable to local jurisdictions. There was a brief discussion on the likely property tax for a data center site. Melissa Robeck stated her appreciation for the comments, which will assist the Commission in further review. MR. TAPPER MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND POSTPONE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MONTICELLO CITY CODE, TITLE XV, LAND USAGE, CHAPTER 153: ZONING ORDINANCE TO DEFINE AND REGULATE DATA CENTER AND TECHNOLOGY CAMPUS LAND USES WITHIN THE CITY TO THE SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. The public record will remain open until September 2nd, 2025 for comments to be received at the continued hearing at the Planning Commission meeting. 3. Adjournment ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:53 P.M. Recorded by: Anne Mueller__ Date Approved: November 3, 2025 Attest: ___________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director ATTEST: _________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director MINUTES REGULAR MEETING – PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 2, 2025 – 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Chair Andrew Tapper, Vice-Chair Melissa Robeck, Rick Kothenbeutel, Teri Lehner, Rob Stark Council Liaison Present: Councilmember Kip Christianson Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Bob Ferguson, Tyler Bevier 1. General Business A. Call to Order Chair Tapper called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. B. Roll Call Mr. Tapper called the roll. C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items None D. Approval of Agenda MELISSA ROBECK MOVED TO APPROVE THE REARRANGEMENT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS FOR THE SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WITH ITEM 2B MOVED TO HEARING BEFORE ITEM 2A. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. E. Approval of Meeting Minutes TERI LEHNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE JULY 1, 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. F. Citizen Comment None 2. Public Hearings A. Consideration of a Request for Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a Retail Use as a Principal Use in the B-4, Regional Business District and Conditional Use Permit for Cross Access. Applicant: Josh Iaquinto City Planner Grittman provided background on the subject site, which is zoned Regional Business (B-4) and the proposal to construct a new 4,400 square foot retail facility on the site. The proposed retail site development includes parking, sidewalk, and utilizes the existing driveway access point to 7th Street shared with Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – 09/02/2025 2 the property to the west. The site is covered under a conditional use permit (CUP) for planned unit development (PUD) for the Union Crossings commercial development, consistent with the previously approved PUD. Mr. Grittman displayed an aerial and spoke to the access point on 7th Street shared with the westerly restaurant site and also illustrated the parking and service access shared with the site toward the east. He stated that the recommendation of staff is to approve the consideration to amend the PUD as it meets all clarifying conditions set forth in Exhibit Z of the report. Mr. Tapper asked if it is common practice to allow a building, such as the proposed, to be placed along the freeway without a rear access for fire or other emergencies. Building Official Bob Ferguson confirmed the proposal does meet all fire access requirements, per building code and based on structure size and proposed accessibility route. Ms. Lehner spoke to her desire to see a marked pedestrian crossing for access from the future restaurant location, anticipating cross-traffic in the parking lots. Mr. Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Mr. Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. RICK KOTHENBEUTEL MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-33 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A RETAIL USE AS A PRINCIPAL USE IN THE B-4, REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CROSS ACCESS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. B. CONTINUED FROM 8/19/25 - Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Sections 153.045 Industrial Base Zoning Districts, 153.046 Overlay Zoning Districts, 153.090 Use Table, 153.091 Use-Specific Standards, 153.092 Accessory Use Standards and any other related sections of text necessary to define and regulate data center and technology campus land uses within the City Applicant: City of Monticello Mr. Grittman addressed the Commission, stating that the public hearing is a continuation of the hearing opened on August 19th, 2025 to consider an amendment to the ordinance for a planned unit development zoning ordinance for development of data centers. Planner Grittman stated that one of the City’s core responsibilities and powers under state statute is to plan for and regulate land use. One reason for this planning is to ensure that over the long term the public facilities developed for Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – 09/02/2025 3 private land development are managed and sustainable. Land use regulations include the types of land uses allowed, where they are allowed, how they will look and how land uses meet community development goals as identified in the comprehensive plan. The next step following the comprehensive plan goal setting is the consideration of ordinances that implement those goals. Mr. Grittman explained that ordinances are an implementation measure for City goals, with the zoning ordinance being one of the most common tools to implement land use goals. The zoning ordinance proposed provides a framework for potential data center development. Mr. Grittman stated that there are no applications for data centers at this time because there is no class for data center in the zoning ordinance. The City does allow the data center land use in Light Industrial designations, but the purpose of the ordinance is to establish the rules for data center development. It is not to consider any particular application or site. Mr. Grittman explained the continuation of the public hearing held on August 19th with the continued record open for public comment at this meeting. Mr. Grittman indicated the ordinance is intended to address this unique type of development. The current ordinance addresses manufacturing and warehousing industrial areas, but not specifically data centers. He noted recent demand for data center development in Minnesota and nation-wide. Mr. Grittman said the City’s study of this use began in fall of 2024 after receiving inquiries regarding data center development. The City Council and Commission held workshops to review the land use and the challenges related to data center uses. Mr. Grittman reviewed the amendments to the comprehensive plan, stating that they better clarify data center technology uses - setting them apart from other types of technology uses, limiting the use to light industrial park areas, and considering the impacts of the use. Mr. Grittman addressed how the ordinance evaluates potential impacts to public services and external neighborhoods, stating that the internal site would be under less scrutiny, focusing instead on the potential external impacts. Mr. Grittman explained that the City uses other regulatory tools like the zoning and subdivision ordinance to support achievement of the comprehensive plan goals as noted. The ordinance will include standards and process or review requirements. Mr. Grittman noted that by considering the adoption of the ordinance, the City is avoiding conflict with the 2040 Plan, providing clear regulations, and addressing the specific attributes of data centers. He stated that the ordinance will apply to any data center proposed in the City, and each would be required to be rezoned to the data center PUD, no matter the scale. While the ordinance would set minimum performance standards, the ordinance requires submission of a set of plans and studies to verify compliance with the comprehensive plan. Finally, Mr. Grittman noted that the ordinance provides a specific process, including a public hearing process. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – 09/02/2025 4 Mr. Grittman stated that at this time, staff recommends taking the additional comment, then closing the public hearing and scheduling a joint workshop with City Council and Planning Commission present. The workshop would be for a discussion of the ordinance and the public comments for ordinance development. Mr. Grittman also noted that there may be other outside agency reviews that may be applicable. Mr. Grittman made himself available for any questions of the Commission. Ms. Lehner appreciated clarification on several items addressed by Mr. Grittman. Mr. Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Scott Harper, 4334 85th Street NE, asked if the document he sent via email for Commission was received and proceeded to ask questions as posed in the document, suggesting Commission answer yes or no. Mr. Harper said the August 19th meeting was not listed on a City calendar and asked if comment time might be extended to accommodate for that circumstance. Mr. Tapper responded that the meeting is a continuation of that August 19th hearing. Councilmember Christianson confirmed the meeting was properly noticed and spoke to the Commission’s intent for transparency by continuing the hearing to allow for more conversation. Mr. Harper requested another month for review. Angela Schumann thanked citizens for their comments to-date, noting all comments received to-date are available to review with the agenda items posted online and printed. She stated that the purpose of the hearing is to listen to the additional comments and assemble them for review at the proposed joint workshop. She noted it will be a public workshop and all are welcome to attend. Ms. Schumann said that regarding the questions and comments this evening, the Commission and staff members may not be able answer all questions with a simple yes or no, but they will do their best to answer. Ms. Schumann also noted the notice for the special meeting was published in the newspaper for each meeting, including the continuation of tonight’s regular-scheduled meeting, and information is posted to the bulletin board and on the website via various page sources. She noted that the calendar referred to by Mr. Harper was not the official calendar also published to the City website. Mr. Harper asked if Commission was aware of Lennar soliciting other developers to mail letters in opposition. Mr. Harper asked if the City is prepared to lose jobs and tax base if housing slows. Mr. Tapper indicated that Mr. Harper’s questions would be taken as comments. Mr. Harper asked whether a data center facility would be built next to a school by ordinance. Mr. Harper asked whether a data center facility would be placed near a high density housing development and asked about compatibility per the 2040 Plan. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – 09/02/2025 5 Mr. Harper inquired whether the City had consulted with legal since the August 19th meeting and remarked on suspecting future liabilities and loss of property value for citizens. Ms. Lehner stated that the reason for the hearing and the future joint workshop is to specifically take comments as related to some of the questions being posed. She noted that the Commission is listening for purposes of addressing the comments. City Administrator Rachel Leonard addressed the Commission, requesting the ability to continue moving through questions and comments from the public, then noting that the Commission would pause the creation of the ordinance to be able to take everything that has been heard and determine how to fit it into the ordinance going forward, including what areas needing additional research. Mr. Harper said residents are concerned with the loss of property work and value. Ms. Leonard stated that she cares for the community and is also a resident. She spoke to her role to facilitate the development of policy based on the input or Commission, Council, and residents provide and in the interests of the community. Ms. Leonard noted again the opportunity and importance of providing comments on this item. She explained the ordinance language is how the use would be regulated. Mr. Harper asked why the City would create a framework before studies are conducted. Ms. Leonard responded that it is the framework that will detail what applicants will provide to the City, including studies and minimum standards. The ordinance would specify studies required, which may include water, sewer, and infrastructure. Mr. Harper suggested that once the framework is defined, multibillion dollar corporations will sue the City and the City will have lost its rights. Ms. Leonard spoke to the powers granted by the State in terms of the City’s right to draft an ordinance based on the adopted comprehensive plan tools and legal guidance. She addressed the planning effort and land use plan for areas outside of the City and the process for consideration for annexation. Ms. Leonard also spoke to the need to develop the right process for future development, including consistency of review. Mr. Harper noted that on August 19th, it was noted that this issue cannot be put to a vote due to statutes for the type of city. Mr. Harper suggested a straw-poll to ask citizens what they want. Ms. Leonard stated the reason for the hearing is to collect feedback is accepted for putting together the structure of the ordinance. Ms. Leonard confirmed that all comments are all available on the City website. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – 09/02/2025 6 Mr. Harper referenced aerial pictures of Iowa data centers from the agenda packet. He stated that high-density or single-family houses are not near those sites. Ms. Leonard spoke to noise being one of the various elements included in the ordinance and incorporating appropriate setbacks and addressing other aspects of the building impact. Mr. Harper spoke to the noise pollution in Elk River emitted from six bladed-fan cooling towers; he also referred to the possibility of airborne illness. Ms. Leonard stated that the photos are for purposes of reference as there are no other data centers for nearby comparison. The images provide context as the City considers what is most applicable to Monticello. It may be that following comments, the ordinance is fully revised by the careful consideration of policymakers. Mr. Harper spoke to recent demand for geothermal activities for development and suggested placing a mandate on hydrocooling systems to minimize taxpayer burdens for extension and maintenance of infrastructure. Ms. Leonard responded that by walking through the ordinance and comments, it will help determine what is regulated. She noted that the ordinance would be drafted with measures for developers to bear the infrastructure costs so as to not be absorbed by taxpayers. Mr. Harper suggested many sites have already broken state rules for noise. Mr. Christianson responded that the City may be more restrictive in the ordinance. He spoke to consideration of varying scales and technologies for data centers and that the ordinance would need to apply to data centers at all scales, not only hyperscale. Mr. Christianson said the meeting is not intended as a question and answer session, but a public hearing. The questions posed do bring forward points for consideration and encouraged that everyone be heard. Mr. Christianson stated that he hopes that it is recognized that policymakers and staff are working with due diligence to draft the ordinance, by receiving and responding to citizen comments. He reiterated that the option is not available to vote on the ordinance, but a survey could be possible. Mr. Harper suggested the City is rushing to develop the ordinance without experience. Ms. Leonard said staff has been researching data centers for nearly a year with due diligence. Ms. Leonard stated that staff respond to direction from publicly- elected officials. In response to the comment that the process was moving quickly, she stated that the process has been slowed to take enough time to process, synthesize and draft the ordinance. Mr. Harper stated that he is not denigrating staff, but spoke to his desire for more time, suggesting an additional 30 days for comments. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – 09/02/2025 7 Ms. Leonard explained that the intent is for policymakers to be able to review all of the public comments received. With any revisions, the ordinance would need to come back to the Commission following additional noticing and public hearing. She stated that would be an additional opportunity for public comment. Mr. Harper noted the potential for water levels to be drawn down and inquired of any possibility of tritium via gravity flow, referencing the Xcel Energy site. Ms. Leonard responded that Xcel Energy is required to complete monitoring and reporting as related to the tritium leak. She stated that water resource concerns are one of many components to hear from public. Ms. Leonard also noted that other state permits and studies that may be required for data center uses. Ben Anderson, 4208 Eaton Circle NE, addressed the Commission. He inquired about existing water capacity and asked how many gallons of water are used daily. Ms. Schumann said staff will try to answer as many questions as possible but reiterated that the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to gather questions and comments to summarize for Planning Commission and City Council the shared concerns for consideration. Information on meetings is also available on the City website and if unable to locate it, please call City Hall for information assistance. Ms. Leonard responded to the question on the capacity of the water treatment facility. She explained that the planned wastewater expansion would bring the capacity to 8MGD, which is sized for Monticello with today’s statistics and future growth. It does not include additional draw from a potential data center. Mr. Anderson asked if the data center wells may be tied into City infrastructure. Ms. Leonard indicated that as part of the ordinance, there is a requirement to collect information at application to determine upgrades required and additional funding would be received from the applicant/developer for this purpose. Mr. Anderson asked if a proposed data center might be required to have their own treatment plant with unknown capacity. Ms. Leonard responded that the City has completed a comprehensive utility study that shows how the City system would be built out to the township boundary over time. That study is based on growth modeling and would need additional study for a larger project. The goal of the land use ordinance will be to place a proposed structure for evaluation for data centers to decide if it fits or if the developer needs to look for other options. Mr. Anderson suggested setting a range for capacity usage on data centers. Mr. Anderson cited statistics on data center water usage by megawatt and suggested that the percentages for usage should be written into ordinance to avoid drawdown. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – 09/02/2025 8 Mr. Anderson asked what data centers will bring to the community in terms of securing easements for electric power and other utilities. He inquired whether utilities would be extended along residential streets, which could impact neighborhoods. He also noted the importance of avoiding stagnated project development if a data center project does not move forward. Kara Radtke addressed the Commission and recommended establishing trust with the citizens. She noted the recent development of multiple apartments and stated that it seems that the City is becoming a suitcase community. She encouraged building homes. Ms. Radtke spoke to a school district levy on ballot and asked why this matter cannot be voted on if causing community disruption. Ms. Radtke stated concern regarding the data center planned unit development as an avenue for developers to take advantage and the need to communicate. A resident addressed the Commission, stating only her first name as Brittney. She indicated that she is supportive of the community and its assets. She discussed concern regarding the proposed data center south of 85th Street, and her familiarity with her neighborhood. She suggested that data centers do not contribute to the community in contrast to other land uses. She inquired as to whether the zoning is changing and requested the City not adopt the zoning ordinance to allow data centers. She indicated that if the City has set goals, it has an agenda for what it wants to accomplish as related to data centers. Nora Greteman, West River Street, stated her opposition to the ordinance for data centers in Monticello or Wright County. She cited the earlier stated issues, including noise, large corporations, habitat loss, and water consumption. She noted the purpose of a data center is to collect data and re-stated her request that the City not consider the ordinance. Kolton Kratky, Fieldcrest Circle, commented on the current draft ordinance. He noted the revocation clause and recommended that as the zoning can be for any scale of data center, the City consider penalties or fine triggers. He also suggested a specific point for revocation, such as several violations. He further recommended a consistent setback for all districts, such as 300’, which is not specific to a type of use. This would address future changes in use from one type to another. Brady Akin, 22390 Beaumont Avenue in Farmington, spoke of his own experience. He explained that a data center development in Farmington is on pause due to lawsuits against the city. Mr. Akin stated setbacks and water usage were not discussed at Farmington and thanked other speakers for their comments. Mr. Akin stated that he is for responsible development and explained that he is part of the Coalition for Responsible Data Center Development, a group of Farmington neighbors who connected to talk about data center development standards. He encouraged organizing with neighbors and education. He indicated he was banned from a Monticello facebook page. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – 09/02/2025 9 Christina Johnson-Koshiol, 2485 Briar Oakes Road, addressed the Commission, stating that she is in favor of protecting natural spaces. She noted her involvement with the Bertram Chain of Lakes Park and that the City has been proactive in protecting natural assets, expressing concern if a data center were to be developed nearby. Ms. Johnson-Koshiol noted the potential water, light, environmental, and noise impacts and the need to protect Bertram and the adjacent residential neighborhood. She stated concerned that the costs outweigh the tax benefits. She encouraged continued comment and to slow down the process to gain community trust over corporate influence, and suggested tightening measures to avoid negative impacts. Mie Morimoto, 750 Harrison Drive, Big Lake, addressed the Commission, stating that she is a student and spoke of the need for studies that address sustainable long-term planning. The investment in Bertram Park was noted, and she expressed similar concerns with data center impact on the environment and families. Jeff Roiger addressed the Commission on the need to take time with this process. He raised concerns on water and energy costs potentially increasing, citing the recent Metro Transit light rail timeframe and budget. Mr. Roiger also noted the community meetings when Xcel Energy experienced a plant leak and expressed concern with lost trust on these types of issues. Kevin Cichon, Monticello resident, addressed the Commission, suggesting that data centers are terrorist targets. Mr. Cichon also expressed his concern regarding the size of the proposed facilities and long-term planning for power given the age of the current power plants. Mr. Cichon stated that he is also concerned about the City’s annexation of township property into City and inquired if it requires a public vote. Mr. Christianson responded to the question about annexation, stating that annexation occurs by application of the property owner only and under the terms of the current Orderly Annexation Agreement with Monticello Township. He explained that there is no vote, rather annexation occurs under the terms of the agreement, which is available on the city website. Leandra Iverson, 3363 87th Street NE, said the location of a future data center at County Road 106 and TH 25 would be devastating to the area. She concurred with the prior comments and stated concerns about who will pay for the infrastructure and fears for higher taxes. Ms. Iverson expressed concern that the value of homes will decrease and no one will want to live by a data center. Ms. Iverson commented on the possibility of frequent power outages, noting the township already experiences outages without timely notification. Alexander Coady, 2760 Oakview Court, stated similar concerns to those prior and stated his opposition to the ordinance. He suggested a mandate for City Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – 09/02/2025 10 residents to be employed at data centers. He also recommended regulations for the aesthetics and appearance of a data center. Scott Crawford, 8674 Dalton Avenue NE, stated that there should be stipulations for size and floor area ratio, stating that setbacks should be larger depending on the size of the facility. Mr. Crawford noted that there are already billion-dollar companies operating in the community. He noted the state requirements for these projects, referencing the AUAR process in Becker and its outcomes. He noted the existing state regulations and the state regulations adopted this year, which could help solidify what Monticello puts into place as the framework for regulation. He recommended adjusting the FAR depending on the size of the project and suggested larger setbacks to help obscure buildings. Mr. Crawford reminded Commissioners to consider traffic during construction. Councilmember Christianson asked Mr. Crawford what he proposes regarding FAR setback conditions for smaller scale facilities. Mr. Crawford suggested that facilities 100 acres or smaller could have different setbacks than larger sites and that the FAR and setback should be scaled based on the site. Lisa Murphy, 4339 89th Street NE, stated her opposition and said she had researched data centers not having many employees and producing significant noise. Lisa Murphy referenced Xcel Energy’s property as an example buffer zone for data centers. Cheryl Mikkelsen, 330 West 3rd Street, noted the City’s growth and management of that growth, including with respect to financing, which has generally been good. Cheryl Mikkelson stated her opposition to this type of development, expressing concern over responsibility for payment of infrastructure and the prior citizen comments. She inquired whether solar panels would be required and stated concern regarding site appearance, noting that people chose to live in Monticello for a reason. Chris Scribner, Wright County resident, inquired about required setbacks from schools, parks and on Federal and State land. Mr. Scribner inquired whether a data center can reuse existing wells or will drill new wells on the site. He also suggested that any generators on site be required to meet a specific standard. Ryan Buboltz, Big Lake, said he relocated for a smaller community feel and convenience, explaining his concern with lower-income housing development and crime increase in Eagan. He stated the City should ask what value a data center development might bring to Monticello. Mr. Buboltz stated his opposition to the consideration. Mr. Buboltz recognized the City’s work on the issue but re- stated his concerns regarding benefit to the community. Kevin Cichon inquired about the applicable EPA pollution standards for generators and inquired what might occur if the Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – 09/02/2025 11 recommended denial to the City Council. He indicated that it seems an ordinance will be created whether the citizens like it or not and recommended separation from communities. Lisa Keenan, 8270 State Highway 25 NE, Monticello Township, stated her opposition to data centers and the ordinance. Lisa Keenan suggested stricter regulations on a DCPUD if the ordinance is enacted. Ms. Keenan proposed minimum setbacks of 300 feet from residential property lines, lighting mitigation, and sound-proofing and pollution control for generators. Ms. Keenan shared information she had researched on data centers built in Virginia and the ordinance updates they are working on to address the complications and issues with incompatibility. She inquired if substations would be erected to support data center use. She noted pre- and post-construction noise studies and types of acoustic barriers that are used in other location. Ms. Keenan noted the extent of the timeline of construction proposed was a concern and stated that it is her hope that no wells are allowed to be drilled on the site. She cited similar concerns on electrical usage. Ms. Keenan also encouraged an understanding of groundwater analysis and the liability for affected landowners if incorrect. Mr. Tapper asked Ms. Keenan to share the research information to include in further ordinance discussions. Mie Morimoto returned to the podium, stating concern for noise affecting children’s development and animal habitat, and the potential for light pollution. She emphasized the need for better communication between citizens and the government. Shannon Bye, Monticello Township resident, stated that there are examples of unsuccessful data center development and recommended the ordinance to address contingencies for abandonment given the limited abilities for site conversion. Ms. Bye reminded the citizens in audience of the environmental review process for a data center project, with public comments closing on September 4 and encouraged review. Ms. Schumann indicated that the AUAR Scoping Document review referenced is being conducted on a defined geographic area, which is a 546-acre project area located south of 85th Street. Ms. Schumann stated that the current document available is a Scoping Document, which defines the geographic area to be studied and what will be studied as part of the prescribed full AUAR environmental review process. The full environmental review document will come later. She noted the location of information on the City’s website. Scott Crawford, Monticello Township, addressed the Commission and recommended the sound study address seasonal impacts due to tree coverage. Mr. Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – 09/02/2025 12 TERI LEHNER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MONTICELLO CITY CODE, TITLE XV, LAND USAGE, CHAPTER 153: ZONING ORDINANCE TO DEFINE AND REGULATE DATA CENTER AND TECHNOLOGY CAMPUS LAND USES WITHIN THE CITY, AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO SCHEDULE A JOINT WORK SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. C. Consideration of Amending the Monticello City Code Title XV, Chapter 153: Zoning, for the regulation of Cannabis related land uses in section § 153.091 Use-Specific Standards. Applicant: City of Monticello Ms. Schumann reminded Commission of the recently amended zoning ordinance relating to the regulation of cannabis-related businesses, adopted in late 2024. Ms. Schumann stated that the proposed amendment addresses the allowance for cannabis-business operations within the I-1 (Heavy Industrial) district if/when adjacent to a residential zoning district and proposes to be consistent with the same requirement for the I-2 (Industrial and Business) district, which prohibits such uses when directly abutting residential. Ms. Schumann also explained the City ordinance places distance buffers from certain uses per Statute. She stated that the proposed amendment would allow I-94 as the dividing boundary to the application distance of any such buffer. Ms. Schumann stated that the amendment also proposes a clerical revision to reference the correct section number within the cannabis-related ordinance for purposes of regulations applicable to all businesses. Ms. Schumann noted speaking with the City Attorney on whether the same reasonable restriction for location can be adopted to limit retail cannabis-related businesses adjacent to residential zoning districts. Since the drafting of the report, staff has received information to confirm the potential to apply a reasonable restriction to prohibit retail cannabis operations directly adjacent to residential. Ms. Schumann spoke to select locations within B-3 and B-4 where retail would be directly adjacent to residential. She noted that there are currently general buffer requirements between any residential and commercial uses and on-site consumption would require a CUP. If Planning Commission did want to research that item, Planning Commission can direct that additional action. She noted that the City had gotten retail inquires directly adjacent to residential. Mr. Tapper asked if staff may be aware of any State revisions enacted to buffering, per an article read relating to other Minnesota cities struggling with cannabis retail mitigation. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – 09/02/2025 13 Ms. Schumann said not to her knowledge, but information may be researched and research if requested. Mr. Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Mr. Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. MELISSA ROBECK MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-034 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE XV, CHAPTER 153: ZONING, CHAPTER § 153.091 USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR SECTIONS RELATED TO THE REGULATION OF CANNABIS BUFFERS AND INDUSTRIAL CANNABIS BUSINESSES BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of a one year extension of Conditional Use Permit approval for an Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for a Restaurant as a Principal Use and Drive-thru Services as an Accessory Use in a B-4, Regional Business zoning district. Applicant: HAZA Foods (Wendy’s) Ms. Schumann provided background information on the prior approval for the conditional use permit for the future Wendy’s restaurant location. Ms. Schumann explained that the applicant continues to work on the project construction estimates, which is the reason for the proposed extension. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2025-35 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION TO SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU FACILITIES BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT Z. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. 4. Other Business A. Community Development Director’s Report Community Development Director Angela Schumann provided an overview of the Report to the Planning Commission and the public. No action was taken on the agenda item. 5. Adjournment TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M. Recorded By: Anne Mueller___ Date Approved: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – 09/02/2025 14 Recorded by: Anne Mueller__ Date Approved: November 3, 2025 Attest: ___________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Date Approved: October 7, 2025 ATTEST: _________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director MINUTES REGULAR MEETING – PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 7, 2025 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Chair Andrew Tapper, Rick Kothenbeutel, Teri Lehner Commissioners Absent: Vice-Chair Melissa Robeck, Rob Stark Council Liaison Present: Councilmember Kip Christianson Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Bob Ferguson 1. General Business A. Call to Order Chair Andrew Tapper called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. B. Roll Call Mr. Tapper the roll. C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items None D. Approval of Agenda TERI LEHNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. E. Approval of Meeting Minutes • Workshop Minutes - August 5, 2025 • Regular Meeting Minutes - August 5, 2025 • Joint CC/PC Workshop Minutes - September 2, 2025 ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE WORKSHOP AND MEETING MINUTES. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. F. Citizen Comment None 2. Public Hearings A. Consideration for Variances to Front Setback, Roof Pitch and 15% Brick/Stone Building Materials requirement for a Garage Expansion in an R-1 (Single Family) Residential District Applicant: Chip Bauer Construction Inc. City Planner Steve Grittman described the background of the home predating building code standards applicable to homes in the R-1 zoning district. The Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – October 7, 2025 2 structure has a 25-foot front setback from the Sandy Lane right-of-way and roof pitch of 4:12, with the code requiring 5:12 at minimum, and front façade building materials that do not include brick or stone. He explained the minimum 15% coverage consisting of brick or stone is applicable. The applicant is proposing an addition to the garage to create a third stall and reconfigure the driveway for access, with variances to these standards for consistency with the existing structure. Mr. Grittman stated staff recommends approval for the three variances indicated based on meeting the standard for practical difficulty, including which include complications due to grade at the building site and the incorporation of front gables to add to home and neighborhood character. Mr. Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Mr. Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. RICK KOTHENBEUTEL MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-36 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO FRONT SETBACK, ROOF PITCH, AND 15% BRICK/STONE BUILDING MATERIALS REQUIREMENT FOR A GARAGE EXPANSION IN AN R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-39 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR A GARAGE EXPANSION IN AN R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. B. Consideration for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a proposed driveway paving in the rear yard, in an R-1 (single-family) residential district Applicant: Josh and Andrea Sigler Mr. Grittman reviewed the application request to expand an existing gravel driveway and convert to pavement, which would extend beyond the existing attached garage into the backyard. Mr. Grittman explained the ordinance guidelines for driveways and the need for a CUP involving the rear yard driveway. He displayed the applicant’s proposal sketch made from a 2001 as-built survey indicating detached garage location to the south and proposed setbacks. The proposed plan also demonstrates a “green space” and an existing 6-foot fence installation. He noted the drawing was not- Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – October 7, 2025 3 to-scale, however, the proposed driveway and attached garage are included on a separate sketch to accompany the prior survey. Mr. Grittman said staff is recommending approval for the CUP, subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z and based on findings in said resolution. The applicant will need to ensure that the additional pavement does not extend farther than approximately 12 feet from the south wall of the garage by means of an updated survey, per the discretion of the Building Department. Mr. Kothenbeutel noted the wetlands to the north outside of the zone for concern. Mr. Grittman said engineering staff is confident in the mitigation measures and spoke to the natural elements for impervious drainage for gravel driveways. Mr. Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Mr. Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. RICK KOTHENBEUTEL MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-38 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED DRIVEWAY PAVING IN THE REAR YARD, IN AN R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. Ms. Schumann said the item will be moved forward for City Council consideration on the October 13 Consent Agenda. C. Consideration of an Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Carcone Second Addition, for interim improvements to support the land use of vehicle sales, display and storage Applicant: Aeron Ashbrook Mr. Grittman provided an overview of request, reminding EDA members of the prior request by the applicant to amend the existing PUD via CUP to allow for expansion of the subject and primary parcel to the east, incorporating the noted parcel into the West Metro property (3.43 acres total), with future undefined improvements. The proposed amendment entails full area site grading with asphalt and area lighting for vehicle display and sales. As a part of the proposed amendment, the applicant has asked to limit the installation of concrete curb on portions of the project area, subject to a more fully developed site and phasing plan in the future. Mr. Grittman said as an interim modification, pavement can be installed while still managing stormwater and controlling dust and erosion . He stated that Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – October 7, 2025 4 it is reasonable to permit the use of the property pending more long-term growth. As noted in the Conditions, staff recommends full improvements consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance be required if no further approvals are granted for additional development within a three -year period with enough time to finalize the further use of the property. Mr. Tapper asked for clarification as to how this matter differs from the previous request for an amendment. Mr. Grittman said the previous request was for approximately one acre for pavement and limited grading improvements and discussion to limit other potential improvements to the property. The current request is to expand further and improve the entire 3-acre lot including the drainage and pond area along the west side of the parcel. Mr. Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Mr. Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-37 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR CARCONE SECOND ADDITION, FOR INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS TO SUPPORT THE LAND USE OF VEHICLE SALES, DISPLAY AND STORAGE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. RICK KOTHENBEUTEL SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. Ms. Schumann said the item will be moved forward for City Council consideration for Consent Agenda at a future meeting. 3. Regular Agenda None 4. Other Business A. Community Development Director’s Report Ms. Schumann provided background to the Council action relating to the previous Planning Commission meeting and recommendations in September – all items approved as recommended. A part of the 2025 Planning & Zoning budgeting items included efforts to amend the park dedication ordinance, Ms. Schumann said. Staff presented at the September 26 Parks, Arts & Recreation Commission (PARC) meeting – further reviews will take place by City Attorney to include discussion points from PARC, then Planning Commission and City Council with completion anticipated nearing the end of January 2026. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – October 7, 2025 5 Development updates and other projects’ progress were shared with the EDA and audience. No action was taken on the agenda item. 5. Adjournment TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:35 P.M. Recorded by: Anne Mueller__ Date Approved: November 3, 2025 Attest: ___________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director , Community Development Director Planning Commission Agenda – 11/03/2025 1 3A. Consideration of an update on the Monticello Industrial Alternative Urban Areawide Review Prepared by: Community Development Director Meeting Date: 11/03/25 Council Date (pending Commission action): NA Additional Analysis by: City Administrator, City Engineer/Public Works Director, Assistant City Engineer ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Not applicable. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Monticello Tech LLC is proposing to develop a technology campus on 550 acres of land located in the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. The area proposed for development lies south of 85th Street and east of TH 25, adjacent to the current city boundary. Monticello Tech LLC presented a concept to the Planning Commission and City Council at a public workshop in December 2024. Following the workshop, the property owners in the subject area petitioned for annexation, and the City determined an environmental review process would be the appropriate next step. Per Minnesota Rules part 4410.3610, development of a technology campus would meet the State’s mandatory requirements for an environmental review process managed by the City of Monticello as the Responsible Government Unit (RGU). The City has determined that an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) should be prepared in compliance with the State’s environmental review requirements. During the regular meeting, staff and consultants involved in the preparation of the Monticello Industrial AUAR will present an overview of the AUAR process generally and the Monticello Industrial AUAR process. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION Not applicable SUPPORTING DATA A. Environmental Reviews – City of Monticello website Planning Commission Agenda – 11/03/2025 1 3B. Consideration to take from the table the proposed amendments to Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance to define and regulate data center and technology campus land uses within the City and to call for a public hearing on the ordinance on December 2, 2025 Prepared by: Community Development Director Meeting Date: 11/03/25 Council Date (pending Commission action): Pending Additional Analysis by: City Clerk ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Motion to take from the table the proposed amendments to Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance to define and regulate data center and technology campus land uses within the City and to call for a public hearing by the Planning Commission on the ordinance on December 2, 2025. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The Planning Commission acted to table action on the proposed amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regulating data and technology campus development on September 2, 2025. As the item was tabled, the Commission is asked to formally act to bring the item back for consideration and to call for a public hearing on the proposed amendment on December 2, 2025. A draft of the revised ordinance will be available prior to the Planning Commission meeting for review and public comment during the hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommend alternative 1. SUPPORTING DATA A. Environmental Reviews – City of Monticello website . Planning Commission Agenda – 11/03/25 1 4A. Community Development Director’s Report Council Action on/related to Commission Recommendations • Consideration for Variances to Front Setback, Roof Pitch and15% Brick/Stone Building Materials requirement for a Garage Expansion in an R-1 (Single Family) Residential District Applicant: Chip Bauer Construction Inc. No appeal to the variance received. Variance stands as approved by the Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment & Appeals. • Consideration for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed driveway paving in the rear yard, in an R-1 (single-family) residential district. Applicant: Josh and Andrea Sigler Approved on the City Council consent agenda on October 13, 2025. • Consideration of an Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Carcone Second Addition, for interim improvements to support the land use of vehicle sales, display and storage. Applicant: Aeron Ashbrook Approved on the City Council consent agenda on October 13, 2025. Cannabis Business Registration The City continues to receive a variety of inquiries related to cannabis-related businesses, including lower potency hemp products. As of October, two retail-related cannabis applicants with preliminary OCM approval have received City confirmation that their selected Monticello locations are eligible based on both zoning district and buffers. One of those applicants has moved further forward in the OCM license process and Wright County has received a formal request to register the business. The City and Wright County are working through the release of the zoning, fire and building compliance form to OCM to allow the business to proceed. The prospective licensee’s operation will be located at 220 Sandberg Road. If licensed by the OCM, the business will satisfy one of two retail cannabis registrations allowed in Monticello. As a reminder, only a select group of retail-related licenses are subject to the cap. Broadway Plaza The developer’s request for extension to the final plat and PUD was approved by the City Council in October. The new deadline for recording of the plat and related documents is May 25, 2026. Schafer Contracting has also submitted the Interim Use Permit request to locate a concrete batch plant on the site as part of the I-94 expansion project. As the property is currently still in Monticello Township and within the MOAA, the application will be reviewed by the MOAA Board on November 12, 2025. The concrete batch plant use is temporary only. Planning Commission Agenda – 11/03/25 2 News from the Department of Building Safety & Code Enforcement Residential New Construction Permitting • Delta Modular Construction has submitted twenty-two townhome permits, all permits have been reviewed and eighteen have been issued. These homes will be part of the Country Club Manor 4th Addition. • JP Brooks is submitting permits for the new Meadowbrook development. Two single-family & six townhome plans are under review. Commercial Permitting • Famous Footwear is under construction in what was a vacant tenant space at 1417 7th Street East next to Five Below. • The permit has been issued and groundwork started for Minnesota Sports Cards at their new location 1400 7th Street East. • Right next door at 1390 7th Street East, Big Bore BBQ started remodeling the previous McDonalds building. The demolition work inside has been completed and with the building being vacant for so long, they did find some unexpected issues but are working through them. • Discount Tire, 1300 7th Street East, has prepared the site with silt fencing and infrastructure protections. Once the permit is issued, they will be ready to start. • The Fairfield/Mariott project is moving along with construction beginning on the third floor of the hotel. The building permit for Boulder Tap House and event center has also been issued. Project Update List The project update list current through October 2025 is attached. Website Project Page A reminder to stay current with news and information by visiting: Projects | Monticello, MN Concept Projects Project Type Address/Location Description Review Date & Info Progress Report General Equipment Industrial 13 acre parcel along CSAH 39 and West Chelsea Road Concept Stage review for planned unit development for Machinery/Truck Repair and Sales Joint City Council and Planning Commission review on 7/2/24 Post Concept Stage PUD, Pre-Development Stage PUD Application Submittal Lakeshore Management Commercia/Residential 9127 and 9187 State Highway 25 NE Concept review for planned unit development for mixed use housing and commercial Joint City Council and Planning Commission Review on 9/2/2025 Pending Land Use Application Projects Project Type Address/Location Description Approval Date & Info Progress Report Previously Approved Projects Project Type Address/Location Description Approval Date & Info Progress Report Broadway Plaza PUD Commercial 6321 E. Broadway Street bound by Interstate 94 to the North and East Broadway Street to the South Development Stage PUD and preliminary plat for a 76-room hotel, 15,000 square-foot event center, 6,800 square-foot restaurant, and a 6,000 square-foot post-frame building. 11/24/2024 Approved 11.25.24, Annexation Pending Haven Ridge West Residential Near the Southeast corner of 85th Street NE and Fallon Ave NE, Also South of 85th Street NE between Eislele Ave NE and Edmonson Ave NE Concept Stage review for a planned unit development for a 298-unit residential development with various lot sizes and townhome section Reviewed by Planning Commission on 1/7/25 Preliminary Plat, Development Stage PUD approved at January Meeting. Haven Ridge 2nd Addition Residential South of Farmstead Ave and West of Fallon Ave NE 59 Single-Family Lot Development Reapproved 8/28/2023 Home sites under construction Country Club Manor 3rd/4th Addition Residential Along South side of 7th St W between Elm St and Golf Course Rd 82 Twinhomes Senior 55+ Development 4/22/2024 Under construction, home sites under construction Big River Commercial Vacant property north of Chelsea Rd, south of Interstate 94, and west of Fenning Avenue PUD for New Construction of two commercial lots for a quick-service restaurant and a coffee shop, with 6 lots platted for subsequent commercial development. 4/8/2024 Open Rockstone Auto Commercial 219 Sandberg Road Conditional Use Permit Request for Minor Automotive use as a Principal Use in the B- 3, Highway Business District 1/27/2025 Open Fairfield Inn & Restaurant Commercial Along south side of Chelsea Road directly north of Deephaven Apartments Development Stage Permit (CUP) for construction of a 98-room hotel and restaurant in the northern "Populus" biome of the Pointes at Cedar District 7/22/2024 Construction commenced Wendy's CUP Commercial Near Highland Way, Union Crossings Conditional Use Permit for Amendment to PUD and accessory drive-through 9/23/2024 Approved; building permit submitted Valvoline Commercial Big River 445 PUD Amdt to Big River 445 PUD and Development and Final State PUD - Auto Repair - Minor 10/28/2024 Construction commenced Les Schwab Commercial Big River 445 PUD Amdt to Big River 445 PUD and Development and Final State PUD - Auto Repair - Minor 10/28/2024 Construction commenced Discount Tire Commercial 1300 7th Street East Conditional Use Permit for Auto-Repair Minor and Cross Access 3/24/2025 Construction commenced Mastercraft Outdoors PUD Industrial 1.46 acre vacant lot along the West side of Fallon Ave NE between Washburn Computer Group and Norland Truck Sales Development Stage review for a planned unit development of a vacant site for an Industrial Service use 3/24/2025 Approved JPB Land/Meadowbrook Residential 44 acre parcel along Edmonson Avenue 3/24/2025 Construction commenced Karlsburger Foods Commercial 3236 Chelsea CUP for cross-access parking 7/28/2025 Approved Big Bore Commercial 1390 7th Street Conditional Use Permit for Restaurant and Drive-Through 7/28/2025 Construction commenced West Metro Commercial 103 Sandberg Amendment to PUD for parking and lighting improvements 5/6/2025 Approved Jovan Properties Commercial 100 Chelsea Amendment to PUD for building expansion 5/6/2025 Approved Xcel Energy Commercial First Lake Substation Conditional Use Permit for Monopole 7/28/2025 Approved Withdrawn Land Use Application Projects Project Type Address/Location Description Approval Date & Info Progress Report Tamarack/The Meadows at Pioneer Park Residential 68 acre parcels along Fallon Avenue Concept Stage review for planned unit development for single-family residential 5/6/2025 Withdrawn MONTICELLO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS