Planning Commission Agenda - 12/02/2025AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING – PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 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
• Regular Meeting – November 3, 2025
• Workshop – November 3, 2025
• Joint City Council & Planning Commission Workshop – November 3, 2025
To be approved by the City Council
F. Citizen Comment
2. Public Hearings
A. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land
Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Sections 153.012 Definitions, 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
B. Consideration of a request for an amendment to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance, Section 153.048, Pointes at Cedar District to allow Public
JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
Monticello Community Center
5:00 p.m. Concept Stage Submittal for a 3.49-acre, 96-unit residential development
within the B-4: Regional Business district
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda – 12/02/2025
2
Warehousing as an Interim Use Permit, and to establish required use standards,
and consideration of an Interim Use Permit for Public Warehousing, Temporary
in the Pointes at Cedar (PCD) District
Applicant: City of Monticello
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of a recommendation of reappointment of Melissa Robeck to the
Planning Commission.
4. Other Business
A. Community Development Director’s Report
5. Adjournment
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING – MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, November 3, 2025 - 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: Chair Andrew Tapper, Vice-Chair Melissa Robeck, Rick
Kothenbeutel, Rob Stark
Commissioners Absent: Teri Lehner
Council Liaison Present: Councilmember Kip Christianson
Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Bob Ferguson
1.General Business
A.Call to Order – 6:01 p.m.
Chair Andrew Tapper called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning
Commission to order at 6:01 p.m.
B.Roll Call
Mr. Tapper the roll.
C.Consideration of Additional Agenda Items
None
D.Approval of Agenda
MELISSA ROBECK MOVED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 3, 2025 REGULAR
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA. RICK KOTHENBEUTEL SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
E.Approval of Meeting Minutes
•Special Meeting - August 19, 2025
•Regular Meeting - September 2, 2025
•Regular Meeting - October 7, 2025
ROB STARK MOVED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 19, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
ROB STARK MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
MELISSA ROBECK MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 7, 2025 REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
F.Citizen Comment
None
DR
A
F
T
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – November 3, 2025
2
2. Public Hearings
None
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of an update on the Monticello Industrial Alternative Urban
Areawide Review
Community Development Director Angela Schumann provided an overview for the
Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process and for the Monticello Industrial
AUAR and introduced consultants from engineering firms WSB and Kimley-Horn.
Director of Natural Resources Alison Harwood of WSB introduced herself; explained
the working partnership with City staff and presented information on the AUAR and
the AUAR process.
Ms. Harwood explained that the AUAR is a hybrid between the Environmental
Assessment worksheet and Environmental Impact Statement, with a series of
questions for higher-level reviews. She noted that City is likely more familiar with
the EAW process for specific and known developments of a defined area and project
size, density, type of land use, and impacts. She explained the EIS is utilized when a
known specific development is proposed.
Ms. Harwood explained that the AUAR process allows the City to consider how
different land uses impact the community’s environment without an individualized
specific project. Ms. Harwood explained how the analysis informs how development
occurs and provides tools for future planning and mitigation of potential impacts.
Ms. Harwood said the AUAR study and process is managed by a Responsible
Government Unit (RGU), the local unit of government authority. It includes a
defined geographic study area and provides development scenarios within the study
area as part of the environmental review. Ms. Harwood spoke to the AUAR as not an
approval document, but only an informative instrument for local planning and
development decision-making. It is valid for five years.
Ms. Harwood spoke on State Statute (MN Rule 4410) regarding the various types of
environmental reviews and some of the specific thresholds for review, including
residential development, land conservation and wetland impacts,
commercial/industrial development on a specific scale, and transmission line
projects. AUAR review is used for certain land use scenarios including residential or
commercial development, warehousing and light industrial uses.
Ms. Harwood described the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MN-EQB), the
State agency that coordinates and oversees the environmental review program,
provides guidance on and info for processes, and maintains clerical responsibilities
to the programs.
Ms. Harwood overviewed the comprehensive list of items for AUAR review.
DR
A
F
T
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – November 3, 2025
3
Ms. Schumann stated that Monticello Tech LLC approached the City in 2024 with
concept proposal to develop a technology campus on 550-acres of MOAA land. The
city determined that an AUAR process should be undertaken. She said the City
became the RGU when the landowner petitioned to annex. Ms. Schumann
explained the scoping process for the review of scenarios before the full AUAR
moved forward. Ms. Schumann indicated that the AUAR is being prepared by
Kimley-Horn and reviewed by Monticello engineering consultant WSB with Staff.
Ms. Schumann said the AUAR covers two development scenarios. The first is the
technology campus as proposed by Monticello Tech and the second is consistent
with the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan for light industrial uses. If a specific
user comes forward, they must be under the studied AUAR thresholds or conduct a
secondary AUAR for amendment to review “worst-case” potential impacts to
identify mitigation measures.
Ms. Schumann displayed an aerial of the subject parcel and summarized the two
potential scenarios in the Monticello Industrial AUAR. Scenario 1 included
characteristics for proposed data center development; Scenario 2 reflected
development more similar to typical light industrial land use, which as
manufacturing and warehousing consistent with Light Industrial Park use.
Planning Consultant Leila Bunge of Kimley-Horn introduced herself and spoke to the
draft Monticello Industrial AUAR contents for review. The overview reflects the
required categories of AUAR study, but expands to include information on power
supply needs, site security, and electric and magnetic fields (EMF) with mitigation
plans. Ms. Bunge explained the additional documents and studies completed with
the AUAR including wetland delineation, transportation analysis, water/aquifer
analysis, wastewater/stormwater information and archaeological research. She
noted that the AUAR requires State regulatory agency review.
Once a specific project is identified, Ms. Bunge explained that the mitigation plan
within the AUAR identifies the additional future studies applicable to one or both of
the presented scenarios including such items as noise evaluation, stormwater
management plan, phased Environmental Site Assessments, tree surveys, and
others.
Ms. Bunge reviewed the draft Monticello Industrial AUAR’s mitigation plan in depth
as it relates to both scenarios. She discussed the impact on resources and potential
future study for climate adaptation, land use, geology/soils, various water resources,
contamination, fish and wildlife, cultural resources, visual, air, noise, and
transportation.
In summary, Ms. Schumann said the AUAR provides information for the City to make
informed decisions about land use development. All information in the mitigation
plan is preliminary at this phase; the City and consultants are still in the process of
drafting the complete AUAR. Ms. Schumann stated that once the AUAR is accepted,
DR
A
F
T
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – November 3, 2025
4
the mitigation plan becomes the foundation for future decision-making for
development.
While the Planning Commission is not required to review an AUAR, Ms. Schumann
said the purpose of the review is to inform the Planning Commission on what an
AUAR is, what data is collected, and how a mitigation plan is developed and will be
applicable. As the Commissioners review land use plans relating to the study area,
whether a technology campus or a typical light industrial development, the AUAR
information will apply.
Ms. Schumann summarized how the results from an AUAR also inform potential
developers and become an important instrument used during and after construction
development activity.
Ms. Schumann touched on the initial AUAR Scoping process, which was required
based on the size and scope of the proposed project.
Ms. Schumann then reviewed the timeline of next steps for the Monticello Industrial
AUAR, noting the upcoming public open house on November 20, 2025. She said a
future joint workshop of the Planning Commission and City Council will be held to
discuss the results produced from the reviews and public feedback, leading to
consideration of the complete AUAR early 2026.
Ms. Schumann displayed the website locations for City AUAR general and specific
information online for environmental review and the MN-EQB for general AUAR
guidance. She noted the presentation would also be available to review online
following the meeting.
In response to a question from the Commission on when environmental review is
required, Ms. Harwood provided a summary on State Statute (MN Rule 4410)
regarding the need and obligation to environmental guidance, which includes over
20 categories overseen by the MN-EQB.
No action was taken on the agenda item.
4. 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
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED 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. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION.
The Planning Commission inquired when they would have the opportunity to review the
revised draft ordinance. Ms. Schumann said an additional joint workshop with City
Council is scheduled for November 10, 2025 to review the outline of the revised draft
DR
A
F
T
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – November 3, 2025
5
document. A full draft of the revised ordinance will be available prior to the Planning
Commission meeting for review and public comment during the hearing.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0.
5. Other Business
A. Community Development Director’s Report
Ms. Schumann reported on Cannabis Business Registration activities in conjunction
with Wright County licensing, stated that staff receive two to three inquiries a week
regarding various questions. She also reported that an interim use permit is being
requested for I-94-related construction activity on the Broadway Plaza development
site, which is in Monticello Township.
6. Adjournment
ROB STARK MOVED TO ADJOURN THE NOVEMBER 3, 2025 REGULAR PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:46 P.M.
Recorded by: Anne Mueller__
Date Approved: December 2, 2025
Attest:
___________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director: Anne Mueller ___
Date Approved: November 3, 2025
Development Director DR
A
F
T
MINUTES
WORKSHOP – MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, November 3, 2025 – 5:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: Chair Andrew Tapper, Rick Kothenbeutel, Rob Stark
Commissioners Absent: Vice-Chair Melissa Robeck, Teri Lehner
Council Liaison Present: Kip Christianson
Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Jim Thares, Bob Ferguson, Tyler Bevier
1.General Business
A.Call to Order
Chairperson Tapper called the workshop of the Monticello City Planning Commission
to order at 5:00 p.m.
B.Roll Call
Mr. Tapper did not call the roll, however, it was noted that only three
Commissioners were in attendance and City Planner Steve Grittman was also absent.
C.Discussion on Amendments to 2040 Vision + Plan and Zoning Ordinance for single-
family housing goals
Community Development Director Angela Schumann remarked on the nature of the
workshop as a continuation from the previous Planning Commission workshop,
which followed a joint Planning Commission, City Council and Economic
Development Authority (EDA) workshop earlier in the year. The purpose of both
was to discuss goals and objectives for single-family housing development. She said
the discussion points from the March workshop captured a clearer definition and
expectation of said goals for further discussion. The subsequent Planning
Commission workshop in summer of 2025 yielded direction on drafting potential
housing-related amendments of the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan: Chapter 3, Land
Use, Growth & Annexation.
Ms. Schumann indicated that a series of goal statements follows each chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan and explained that for the Land Use chapter, a more specific
housing goal is desired based on the workshop feedback. During the August 5
workshop, Planning Commission provided guidance for the following goal
statement:
“Residential development will support Monticello’s vision for retaining our small-
town character and will reinforce a sense of community and belonging. We will plan
for measured, incremental residential growth which is thoughtfully planned and
designed and which creates livable neighborhoods that retain quality and value into
the future.”
DR
A
F
T
Planning Commission Workshop Minutes – 11/03/2025
2
Ms. Schumann stated that the prior Planning Commission workshop also resulted in
feedback that the 2040 Plan should be amended to specify that the density
calculation for residential designations is based on gross density. The Commission
had suggested that the Low Density Residential (LDR) designation be amended to 2-
4 units per gross acre. Further, the Commission suggested that the Low Density
Residential context description should Include language that a higher level of
amenities in the individual units and/or proposed neighborhood is required to
achieve the higher end of the density range.
Ms. Schumann stated that the focus of the current workshop would be identification
of Future Land Use Map areas for potential re-guidance to lower density land use
classifications, in alignment with the focus on developing additional single-family
neighborhoods. She noted it would be important to also consider how to maintain
affordable workforce housing options.
Ms. Schumann explained that the EDA has prepared housing needs and demands
studies, which inform the City’s housing goals and programs. An update of the study
is planned for 2026. She noted the presence of Economic Development Manager
Jim Thares, who would address any potential concerns pertaining to workforce and
affordable housing goals. She noted that a discussion point for the upcoming study
will be an evaluation of single- and multi-family residential ratios for development.
Mr. Stark spoke about the current financial aspects of the housing market,
recognizing the current housing shortage. He noted that in Monticello, a number of
high-density units have already been achieved. Mr. Stark spoke in favor to creating
more large lot parcels for estate development.
Staff inquired what makes estate property more desirable for purposes of the map
review. Commissioners indicated that generally would include fewer neighbors,
more mature trees, and adjacency to wooded or wetland areas.
Ms. Schumann mentioned the cost to provide utility services in relationship to larger
lots and asked the Commission how the City might implement larger lots while
continuing to provide municipal sewer and water services to future-annexed parcels.
Mr. Tapper noted examples of clustering development for purposes of utility service.
He then suggested they review land inventory available within the growth areas that
might be attractive for estate residential.
Ms. Schumann said continued conversations with the Township will discuss how
each entity may envision goals for the outlying areas of the Monticello Orderly
Annexation Area (MOAA). She suggested the Planning Commission should consider
areas for lower density that might see more near-term growth.
Ms. Schumann referenced two potential locations, one along Fenning Avenue near
the former “Monte Club” site guided as Low Density Residential and another
location near the Bertram Chain of Lakes which is guided for medium or mixed
DR
A
F
T
Planning Commission Workshop Minutes – 11/03/2025
3
densities. Ms. Schumann suggested the Commission consider where the trunk
utilities are located and the terrain necessary for development.
Mr. Kothenbeutel referenced an area south of the Bertram Chain of Lakes, in which
the suggested estate homes might fit nicely and could draw interest to similar
development.
Mr. Tapper asked if gross density could factor in the amenities of the land. Ms.
Schumann responded affirmatively and stated that clustering home sites would
allow the development to meet the gross density required, but would result in
smaller lots while preserving the amenities.
Ms. Schumann noted that the development of larger lots occurs generally at slower
pace to develop and that the City would then see a slower permitting pace.
The Commission discussed how the City would implement the lower-density
requirements. Ms. Schumann responded that the amendments to the 2040 Plan
goal statement, the reduction in the gross density and the change in text in the 2040
Plan’s Low Density Residential classification would be brought forward for decision.
With those in place, developers would have a clearer understanding of what is
expected for low-density residential development in Monticello.
Members discussed areas on the land use map south of Bertram, providing feedback
that these areas should be estate residential. In addition to the presence of the park
their proximity to the City and schools was noted. An area along 90th Street and
School Boulevard was also suggested as a location for conversation from medium
density to lower density residential.
Ms. Schumann referenced that conservation design is written into the 2040 Plan to
allow for density while preserving desired amenities.
Mr. Tapper asked about the areas southeast of Spirit Hill in terms of their ability to
be guided. Ms. Schumann noted that during the development of the 2040 Plan,
these areas were outside of the 2040 Plan’s 2% growth projections for housing and
guided Development Reserve. However, given the conversations about wetland,
wooded areas, and other natural elements which may draw interest, they may be
candidates for Estate Residential designation. The Commissioners concurred.
As the workshop concluded, Mr. Schumann explained that the next session will
continue discussions on land-use guidance affecting the zoning ordinance for
potential amendment. Mr. Grittman will also attend to address zoning
considerations related to density and lot area ratio.
2. Adjournment
By consensus, the workshop ended at 5:59 p.m.
Recorded by: Anne Mueller___
DR
A
F
T
Planning Commission Workshop Minutes – 11/03/2025
4
Date Approved: December 2, 2025
Attest:
____________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director__________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
DR
A
F
T
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/2025
1
2A. Public Hearing - Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV,
Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Sections 153.012 Definitions, 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
Prepared by: Grittman Consulting,
Stephen Grittman, City Planner and
Community Development Director
Meeting Date:
12/02/25
Council Date (pending
Commission action):
TBD
Additional Analysis by: City Administrator, City Attorney, Public Works Director/City
Engineer, Assistant City Engineer, Community and Economic Development Coordinator, Chief
Building Official, Economic Development Manager
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Consideration of Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land Usage,
Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, various sections of text necessary to define and regulate data
center and technology campus land uses within the City
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2025-41 recommending approval of an Amendment
to the Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance,
Sections 153.012 Definitions, 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, based on findings in said
resolution.
2. Motion to direct staff to prepare Resolution No. 2025-41 recommending denial of an
Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning
Ordinance, Sections 153.012 Definitions, 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, based
on findings to be made by the Planning Commission and to authorize the Chair of the
Commission to execute said resolution.
3. Motion to postpone action on Resolution No. PC-2025-41.
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/2025
2
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Property: City of Monticello
Planning Case Number: 2025-24
Request(s): Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land Usage,
Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Sections 153.012 Definitions,
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
Deadline for Decision: NA
Land Use Designation: Light Industrial Park
Zoning Designation: See report
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable: NA
Current Site Uses: NA
Surrounding Land Uses: NA
Project Description: Consideration of adoption of a new base Zoning District, known as
the Data Center Planned Unit Development District (DCPUD) for
the purpose of facilitating application and review of data center
projects.
ANALYSIS:
Context
Since the summer of 2024, the City has been evaluating land use regulations for data center
development in Monticello, following a series of inquiries for potential data center development
in the community.
In reviewing the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan in response to the inquiries, city staff determined
that the 2040 Plan did not clearly identify how data center uses fit within the City’s plans for
future growth.
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/2025
3
As such, City leaders first needed to determine whether and how to allow data centers as a
specific land use within the City’s planning documents before decision on a specific project or
development can be made.
Land use policy as provided in the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan and regulation language within
city codes must come before any individual project can be considered for development in the
community.
Throughout 2025, the City held a series of public meetings and workshops to discuss how these
unique land uses may be considered for development in Monticello.
Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan | Land Use Planning & Authority
Land use planning is an authority granted to local governments by the State and is one of the
City’s primary responsibilities. Specifically, Minnesota Statute 462 governs municipal planning
and zoning. Land use regulation is intended to allow local governments to provide for public
health, safety, and general welfare.
In Minnesota, the foundation of land use planning is a Comprehensive Plan. The City’s adopted
Comprehensive Plan is the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan.
The 2040 Plan is the city’s blueprint for growth and is the foundation upon which development
and land use decisions are based. It is the official adopted policy regarding the future location,
character, and quality of physical development, and the conservation and enjoyment of the
natural environment.
The 2040 Plan is used by the City Council, Planning Commission, other boards and Commissions,
and City staff to inform and guide policy decisions regarding land use, development and
infrastructure improvements within the City. Developers, real estate professionals and property
owners also use the Plan as an informative document to understand the City’s vision and
policies regarding land use and development.
To address the potential for data center land uses, the City first reviewed the policies and land
use objectives within the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. Following evaluation and a public
hearing, the City adopted amendments to the Monticello 2040 Plan in early 2025 identifying the
land use designation appropriate to data center uses and outlining land use goals and priorities
for data center development.
The findings in support of the amendment supporting data center land uses included the
potential to accomplish tax-base stability and diversity, and the potential to create employment
including high-wage positions and levels of periodic employment as a component of the City’s
economic development goals.
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/2025
4
As the City has continued to evaluate these uses, the development of data center facilities was
also discussed as an opportunity to extend municipal utilities to the city’s growth areas and
with the potential of reduced taxpayer impact, as the developer would be responsible for
providing these utility extensions.
The 2040 Plan amendments recognize that data center development has unique land use
characteristics. These include the potential for significant land consumption, high-capacity
demand on utilities, and off-site impacts to neighboring land uses. Data center development is
also highly variable in scale, corresponding to related variability in benefit and impact.
The City’s adopted 2040 Plan amendments addressed these land use concerns by outlining a
series of review considerations for any data center land use. These include the following:
1. The City’s 2040 Plan recognizes data centers as a singularly unique land use due to size
and scope.
2. Data center use locations will not create conflict with other land uses, especially
residential land uses, through off-site impacts including unusual amounts of noise,
lights, odors, or other similar aspects. Data center users will demonstrate site conditions
that meet this condition and are consistent with other light industrial development.
3. Where data center development creates shortages in land supply, utility services,
electric generation service to the broader area, or any other impacts on the City of
Monticello or its neighboring communities, and which are not specifically mitigated by
the data center developer and its associated partners, the City is under no obligation to
accommodate the use within any land use district or location, or through any land use
process.
4. Data center uses shall demonstrate convincingly that its burden on municipal services,
infrastructure, or fiscal condition is completely mitigated by the data center project and
its developers, and such mitigation is sustainable by its subsequent owners, users, and
other related entities.
5. The data center will not inhibit future growth; it will accommodate and facilitate the
extension of efficient and orderly municipal infrastructure to the edge of the
development property consistent with the City’s plans for growth.
6. Full and clear assurances from both the data center use and the electric utility provider
that data center development will not create threats of power loss to the community,
nor limit the city’s other growth and development interests in the future.
While the comprehensive plan provides broad guidance for land use policy, it is the zoning
ordinance and other City codes that are the regulatory tools used to implement the land use
policy.
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/2025
5
With the adoption of the 2040 Plan amendments, the City then needed to develop a regulatory
framework within the zoning ordinance to address the unique development characteristics of
data centers.
Zoning Ordinance Regulation
The City’s role in developing and administering zoning ordinances is to provide clear regulations
in support of the City’s policy goals and a process to evaluate information provided by a land
use applicant against those policies and ordinances.
To successfully achieve this, the zoning ordinance must require all information needed to
adequately address the City’s goals and standards. It is specifically the developer/applicant’s
responsibility to provide information on their specific project and impact as part of any land use
application process. The City’s ordinance should also provide the process to enforce the
adopted ordinance and any approvals granted under it.
The Planning Commission and City Council held workshops over the summer of 2025 to provide
guidance for development of a draft data center zoning ordinance. Discussions during the
workshop focused on two primary considerations:
1. The ordinance for data center uses would need to provide specific standards and
submittal requirements to ensure a thorough understanding of how any scale of data
center development would meet the intent of the 2040 Plan considerations, specifically
including potential impacts.
2. Data centers are highly individualized developments, each with their own design,
construction and systems. Any ordinance developed to regulate the use must set the
minimum expectation for all data centers to meet while recognizing that variability
exists.
Through discussion, the City considered a variety of regulatory approaches. It was determined
that a planned unit development approach would best address the City’s goals and complexity
of data center development.
A critical rationale for the use of PUD is that it requires a rezoning action. The use of rezoning
provides for significant discretion on the part of the City, as it is a legislative action of the City.
The use of DCPUD as proposed requires rezoning to the DCPUD District for any data center or
data center campus use. Data centers would not be allowed outside of DCPUD zoning.
Unlike the traditional PUD process, the proposed DCPUD approach does not allow the same
level of flexibility from identified standards. Typical PUD zoning implies a level of flexibility with
a companion level of added enhancement. The flexibility and enhancements are developed in a
series of negotiated development goals through the PUD review process. In contrast, the
proposed DCPUD ordinance allows data centers as permitted uses, but only under a specific set
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/2025
6
of minimum performance standards. As drafted, a variance would be required for any deviation
from the minimum performance standards of the DCPUD.
The DCPUD regulations proposed allow the City to use a customized process for review of an
application, as opposed to the standard “permitted use” or “conditional use” zoning approach.
Data Centers will be permitted uses in the DCPUD, but the standards and process for review will
be unique to the use, reflecting the unique challenges and benefits data centers present. The
DCPUD further requires development review submittals different from those for a typical
planned unit development. The PUD flexibility in the DCPUD district will relate to those internal
aspects of a proposed project that do not have substantive external impacts on the surrounding
private property or on public facilities.
Public Hearing & Public Workshops
The draft ordinance for a Data Center Planned Unit Development District was prepared and
presented for consideration to the Planning Commission in August and September. A public
hearing was held on the draft ordinance spanning both meetings.
A considerable amount of public testimony was received during the hearing and in written form
in August and September. In September, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing
and tabled action on the ordinance to allow for additional research and discussion, with
guidance from the Planning Commission and City Council leading to next steps.
The Planning Commission and City Council held four additional workshops in September and
October of 2025. The workshops included discussion on how the draft ordinance currently
addressed the concerns raised by the public during the hearings, and feedback on how the
ordinance could be revised to further support effective regulation of the use in the interest of
the community’s goals.
Two public question and answer sessions were also held on September 24, 2025 and November
20, 2025.
The feedback and comments received during the hearings and workshops have resulted in
significant revisions to the DCPUD ordinance presented for a new hearing and consideration.
DCPUD Ordinance Components | Revised Draft
The proposed ordinance incorporates the following elements. A description of revisions made
to the draft ordinance following the prior public hearings is included in italics.
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/2025
7
1. Purpose. This statement outlines the intent of the district.
The statement has been revised in the current draft to strengthen the City’s goals for
data center development which does not burden the community or limit the achievement
of its goals. It specifically states that there is no inherent right to rezoning.
2. Definitions Unique to the District. These definitions are integral to this use and clarify
the use or uses allowed. The formal ordinance will include these within the Definitions
section of the chapter and within the district for clarity.
The revised draft ordinance now includes a definition for accessory data centers uses, in
recognition that some principal uses (corporate campuses, health care facilities in
example) may desire an ancillary data center facility to support their operations. A
definition of data mining has been added to limit the potential for development of
facilities which do not meet the City’s tax base goals.
3. Approval Criteria. These criteria are the foundation upon which the City will evaluate a
request for rezoning to DCPUD. Many of these statements reflect, or are refinements of,
the goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan. They include expectations for the
operational aspects of the use, and the appropriate locations for a DCPUD. Each of the
criteria is necessary to make a positive finding for rezoning. Included in this list of
criteria is assurance (and reasonable evidence to find) that the data center use will not
negatively replace other City land use development opportunity or ability to provide
utility extensions to serve other growth.
These criteria have been revised to further clarify the City’s expectations for alignment
with City’s long-range development goals and for the financial commitment and
dedication requirements for necessary infrastructure.
4. Permitted Uses. Provides for data centers and their related activities, both principal and
accessory uses. Once rezoned, data centers are a presumed allowable use, including the
variety of ancillary elements that come along with various types of projects. While they
are “permitted” in the sense that there is no discretion as to their legality in the district,
they are also subject to the performance standards of the district. That is, a permitted
use incorporates all of the requirements of the district to be considered an allowable
land use.
5. Accessory Uses. These include those aspects of data center development that are often
unique to this use as well as site development improvements and accessory structures
as regulated by the general zoning ordinance. These elements of data center
development are specified here to ensure and clarify that data center projects include
more than just the principal buildings containing computer processing hardware.
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/2025
8
The draft has been revised to include more uses in support of additional tax base, such as
office uses, as well as accessory uses in support of sustainability practices on-site. These
include allowances for green roofs, EV charging, and solar installations.
6. Prohibited Uses. Although the Zoning Ordinance generally requires that unlisted uses
are presumed to be prohibited, the uses included here clarify the narrow nature of the
DCPUD district intent. The prohibited uses have other impacts inconsistent with the
intent of the 2040 Plan for data center development and the purpose of the data center
ordinance.
The revised ordinance adds to the list of prohibited uses in the DCPUD to include outdoor
storage and limitations on ground-mounted solar systems.
7. District Performance Standards. These standards set the minimum standards for which
all data center must comply. They regulate both the site development and ongoing
operational aspects of data center development. If it cannot be demonstrated that the
standards can be met in a particular location, it would be a basis for establishing a
different land use and, presumably, denying a data center development application. If
the DCPUD is approved and operated consistent with these standards, the City, the user,
and the neighboring property should have a clear expectation of nature of the use and
its impacts. Included in the Performance Standards:
a. Floor Area Ratio
b. Building Setback
c. Building Height
d. Building Height
e. Noise Limits
f. Lighting
g. Landscaping and Screening
h. Fencing Design and Placement
This portion of the draft ordinance has been revised significantly based on the comments
received during the public hearings and workshops. Many of the performance standard
areas have been reviewed to strengthen the minimum allowances. Additional standards
for setbacks, back-up power generation, site landscaping, screening, noise monitoring,
and trash enclosures have been added.
8. DCPUD Initiation of Proceedings. This section refers to the existing zoning ordinance as
to those eligible to file a land use application.
Revised to incorporate the recommended concept stage review process.
9. DCPUD Application. This section outlines the information and process required to
prepare an application for the District. It further coordinates a DCPUD zoning
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/2025
9
application with the requirements for platting and the terms and processes of the City’s
Subdivision Ordinance as may be applicable.
Revised to incorporate the recommended concept stage review process.
10. DCPUD Concept Stage Submittal.
The section is new to the revised ordinance. It encourages a potential applicant to meet
in a joint workshop with the Planning Commission and City Council to review their
proposal. The section includes a list of submittal requirements in the interest of
providing an understanding of the proposal and defines the review process for a concept
submission.
11. DCPUD Rezoning and Development Stage Submittal Requirements. Provides for the
application submittals required. The list of required application materials is designed to
provide the information necessary to determine that a DCPUD district should be created
for a specific site, and then to evaluate whether a submitted application can prove
consistency with the various standards of the district ordinance. For purposes of
creating the district and considering a rezoning, the material needs to support a rezoning
decision. As a “Development Stage PUD”, the material submitted will verify the ability of
the applicant to meet the terms of the City’s rezoning requirements for DCPUD. As
noted above, the data submitted in this section is intended to document consistency
with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, focusing on the external impacts of the use
and City’s ability to grow the community reasonably and responsibly.
The submittals do not include requirements for detailed building plans or landscaping
plans as is common under a general PUD. Rather, the development of a DCPUD is
expected to comply with the minimum DCPUD performance standards, which will be
verified at site plan review and building permit.
The revised draft has refined and added to the list of required submittals. Additions to
the ordinance require a statement of compliance to any environmental review mitigation
plan, ambient-level noise analysis, and statement regarding telecommunication capacity.
Refinements include additional detail for the utility and traffic studies, including
information on the financial costs and securities. A comprehensive companion fiscal
summary is also required to detail the infrastructure costs, phasing and financial
guarantees.
12. DCPUD Development Stage Permit (and Preliminary Plat) Review. Provides the
required process for review, including the requirement for public hearing. This section
specifies the use of a “Site Improvement Plan Agreement”, an agreement that governs
the terms of the City’s approvals and the applicant’s ongoing development and use of
the property. The draft Site Improvement Plan Agreement is incorporated into this
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/2025
10
review to ensure that the Final Stage review (below) is a primarily ministerial review,
without the need or expectation to close gaps in the project’s design or elements.
The revisions to the draft ordinance propose to allow the ordinance for rezoning to be
adopted at development stage but defer effective date until final stage approval and
compliance with assigned conditions. Clarifications to the site improvement plan
agreement are also proposed. A statement on the City’s denial process is now included.
13. Final Stage Permit Submittal Requirements. For Final Stage consideration in the
DCPUD, the applicant is asked to provide updated documentation of compliance with
the terms of the district and any conditions placed on the City’s approval of
Development Stage review. The expectation at this stage is that all final plans, reports,
and other documents will be in final form.
The section has been revised to include a timeline of required submission between the
development and final stage applications. The addition of submission of proposed
transportation plans has been added.
14. DCPUD Final Stage and Final Plat Review. The process for review and approval is
identified in this clause. Final Stage Permit is not expected to be a discretionary level of
review. Instead, it is primarily a ministerial check to ensure that the applicant has
provided all of the data and proper assurances required by the District and by the
Development Stage approvals. At this stage, City Council would, if all conditions have
been met, authorize execution of the Site Improvement Plan Agreement and publish the
rezoning ordinance.
Clarification on the publication of the rezoning ordinance has been made.
15. Site Improvement Plan Agreement. This clause specifies the use and role of this
agreement in monitoring development and ongoing compliance.
The revised draft includes significant modification to support the financial requirements
associated with the DCPUD, include timing of submission. The section now requires
securities for landscaping and noise compliance, and submission of any agreements if
properties or buildings are not owned in common by a single property owner.
16. Site Plan review. Specifies that development of the site is subject to an administrative
review to verify compliance with the Site Improvement Plan agreement and the DCPUD
code performance standards.
This section has been revised to include a statement requiring compliance with the
approvals. Now includes representation by a single Planning Commission and City
Councilmember in the site plan review, which is an administrative process.
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/2025
11
17. Timeline for performance. The language of this section is intended to ensure that a
project is initiated within a reasonably short timeframe and moves forward diligently to
completion. As the City considers dedicating significant resources to these projects, it is
incumbent on the data center owner/user to proceed with its project in a timely
manner. As noted in the Fiscal Impacts discussion above, the City is relying on property
tax benefits from these projects as the underlying rationale for approval. It is thus
critical that the projects proceed and are built out in a reasonable period of time.
The draft ordinance has been revised to recognize a longer timeline for building permit
submission may be necessary. Timelines and process for extension requires have been
added.
18. Amendment to DCPUD. As projects are built out over phases, it is expected that
internal modifications may occur. This section outlines the conditions under which an
existing approved project can continue to evolve, and/or when it will require additional
review and approval. Again, it is expected that a required amendment will be enforced
when the external impacts of a project are substantively modified. Internal
development is anticipated to change over time, without need for revisions to the
DCPUD zoning or its Site Improvement Plan Agreement.
Revisions have been made to the draft to clarify that amendments to the PUD would not
be allowed to introduce other principal uses. Such proposal would require a revocation
applicable to that portion of PUD and separate review process. The amendment proposal
may not eliminate, diminish or vary from the standards established in the DCPUD
ordinance.
19. Revocation. This clause, a common “ultimate” remedy (although very uncommonly
used) for City zoning violations, is included in this ordinance, to ensure that the City
retains this authority even though the ordinance and district are unique in nature.
Revision to clarify process and vote requirement.
In addition to the sections noted above specific to the DCPUD requirements, the ordinance draft
has been revised to include references to the DCPUD District in the existing ordinance use
tables.
Additional Comments or Alternatives for Consideration
The draft ordinance is intended to reflect additional research as well as discussion and
comments received during the prior public hearing and the public workshops on data center
regulation.
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/2025
12
As Planning Commission considers the draft ordinance, it may also wish to discuss other
feedback received in workshops or in public comments, including, but not limited to:
- Limitations on acreage/size of data center planned unit development
- Limitations on square footage of data center buildings
- Setback requirement thresholds generally and/or scaled based on the size of the site
- Height of building relative to the distance of setback and/or proximity to specific land
use types
- Further limitations or regulation of site lighting to “dark sky” requirements
- Increased regulation on the level of noise beyond state requirements and exploration of
possible low frequency regulations
- Additional limitation on external generators or specific types of generators
- Restriction on water-based cooling or types of cooling systems
- Additional requirements for native plantings within setbacks or allowance for additional
sustainability requirements
The above is not meant to be a comprehensive list of potential considerations. The workshop
minutes, minutes of the prior public hearing, and public comments are included for
Commission’s reference on other potential considerations.
Performance standards, submittal requirements or other language included within the
proposed ordinance may also be recommended for revision as part of the Planning
Commission’s recommendation.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City adopted amendments to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan in early 2025 to allow data
center land uses under a series of specific related considerations. Adoption of an ordinance
regulating data center uses is recommended based on the current policies adopted in the
Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan, and based on the findings identified in the resolution for
approval.
If the City determines that additional revisions to the ordinance are recommended, it can direct
those revisions as part of the decision for adoption or postpone action to request the revisions
be made and brought back for consideration. The Planning Commission can postpone action
following closure of the hearing or continue the hearing and postpone action to the next
regular meeting.
If the City determines that denial of the ordinance is appropriate at this time, findings of fact for
denial should be stated for the preparation of a resolution for denial. In that case, the City
would be indicating that the 2040 Plan is not reflective of the City’s current position on the
proposed land use. The City should then direct staff to notice for a public hearing for
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/2025
13
amendments to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. This would allow a review of amendments
to the current policies of the 2040 Plan in relationship to data center uses generally, and/or
more specifically to the nature of data center uses desired by the City.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution PC-2025-41
B. Ordinance No. 8XX - Draft
C. City Land Use Process Timeline with Agenda/Minute Links
D. Citizen Comments – December Public Hearing
E. Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan - Light Industrial Park, Excerpt
F. Monticello Strategic Transition Plan, Excerpt
G. Setback, Height and Floor Area Ratio Examples
H. DCPUD Development Area Reference Graphics
I. MPCA Guide to Noise Control
J. DCPUD Review Process Graphic
K. Tax Impact Example & Analysis
L. Excerpt, MN House of Representatives File No. 16
M. Citizen Comments – August and September Public Hearings
N. Citizen Petition (Online)
Z. Conditions of Approval
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-41
1
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE
MONTICELLO CITY CODE, TITLE XV, LAND USAGE, CHAPTER 153: ZONING ORDINANCE,
SECTIONS 153.012 DEFINITIONS, 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 OTHER RELATED SECTIONS OF TEXT NECESSARY TO DEFINE
AND REGULATE DATA CENTER AND TECHNOLOGY CAMPUS LAND USES WITHIN THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City regulates land use through its Comprehensive Plan (currently the 2040
Monticello Vision + Plan), implemented through its development regulations, including its
subdivision and zoning ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the current Comprehensive Plan incorporates policy language that envisions a role
in the City’s land use patterns for data centers and similar technology campuses within the
Light Industrial Park land use designation, under a series of expectations and conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance serves as the primary implementation tool of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives for land use development; and
WHEREAS, the City utilizes a process for considering amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
from time to time, as various conditions or needs may warrant such considerations; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the direction of the Comprehensive Plan, the City finds that the best
interests of the City’s land use goals and objectives, and reasonable flexibility for development
planning and timing, would be best served by amending the current Zoning Ordinance to
accommodate “data centers” as a unique land use category, within a specific “Data Center
Planned Unit Development” zoning district; and
WHEREAS, with the applicable amendment, the City would establish and retain land use control
over projects of this type, to ensure more effective planning, cost-efficient development, and
preservation of other City goals and objectives related to industrial and economic development;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the amendments modifying the applicable
sections of the zoning ordinance and their effect on the City’s land use plans and policies; and
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-41
2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 19, 2025 and September
2, 2025 on the draft ordinance amendments and members of the public were provided the
opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission tabled action on the proposed amendment and closed the
public hearing on September 2, 2025 to allow for additional research and revision to the
proposed ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 2, 2025 on the revised
proposed ordinance amendments and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the research and the written and oral
public comments, as well as the recommendations of the staff report, which are incorporated
by reference into the resolution the following Findings of Fact in relation to the
recommendation of approval:
1. The City’s land use planning documents direct a balanced approach to development,
requiring adherence to high standards of use, but also recognizing the needs of the
private development market to efficiently plan for and finance that development.
2. The City’s land use goals for industrial development as identified in the Monticello 2040
Vision + Plan include an emphasis on high-wage and high-volume employment, as well
as tax-base stabilization and diversification.
3. The incorporation of data center development has the potential to accomplish tax-base
stability and diversity.
4. The incorporation of data center development, due to its concentration of use has the
potential to create employment that includes high-wage positions, and periodically,
levels of employment that can be a component of the City’s economic development
goals, even though total employment may be less than other industrial uses.
5. By retaining the ability to limit such uses in a controlled fashion, and only to suitable
locations, the potential allowance of data center development can accommodate both
the City’s economic development goals and objectives, as well as its interest in quality
land planning.
6. The proposed ordinance regulating data center development establishes and retains
land use control over projects of this type, providing regulations specific to data center
uses, while facilitating more effective planning, cost-efficient development, and
preservation of other City goals and objectives related to industrial and economic
development.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC 2025-41
3
7. The proposed ordinance requires that developers and users of data center facilities
study, analyze, and account for all relevant public costs, including public infrastructure
serving the project, subject to the review of the City, so as to avoid such costs being
spread to the general public.
8. The proposed ordinance requires that developers and data center facilities account for
the City’s long term land use and growth when selecting potential sites so as to ensure
that the City’s plans are not constrained by large data center location decisions.
9. The proposed ordinance makes it clear that the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan, through
its future land use mapping, land use policies, and economic development objectives,
ensures that the City retains the full discretion and ability to approve only those data
center projects that clearly its various goals, objectives, and policies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the proposed
amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance as provided in Ordinance 8XX to this
resolution be approved, based on the findings noted herein.
ADOPTED this 2nd day of December, 2025 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By: _______________________________
Andrew Tapper, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
ORDINANCE NO.
1
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XV, CHAPTER 153 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, KNOWN
AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ESTABLISHING A DATA CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section §153.012, Definitions, is hereby amended to add or amend the following:
Data center, accessory. A use which is incidental and subordinate in both area
and extent to a principal use of property and which serves the principal use for
the purpose of storage, management, processing, and transmission of digital
data, which houses computer or network equipment. Such accessory use shall
not include any mechanical equipment not fully shielded by building walls and
shall not include any external power generation equipment.
Data center. A facility used primarily for the storage, management, processing,
and transmission of digital data, which houses computer or network equipment,
systems, services, appliances, and other associated components related to digital
data storage and operations, together with its accessory and appurtenant
facilities, which may also include offices, air handlers, back-up power generators,
water cooling systems and water storage facilities, utility substations, and other
associated infrastructure necessary to support sustained operations at a data
center. The term Data Center shall not include digital data computing facilities
which are not the principal use of a property in extent or area but which perform
similar functions. The term Data Center shall not include data mining as defined
by this ordinance.
Data center campus. A Data Center that occupies more than one building, but is
otherwise interconnected by power supply, communication systems, power
generation or other operational systems to form a unified Data Center facility.
This definition may include, but shall not be limited to, “Technology Campus”,
“Cloud Computing Center”, “Information Technology Campus”, and similar
phrases and terms. May include data management or storage buildings, offices,
and ancillary support buildings and structures including secure and controlled
entrances, and perimeter fencing.
Data center floor area ratio (DCFAR). The floor area ratio for a data center
facility shall be defined as the ratio obtained by dividing the total gross floor area
of the principal and accessory data center building(s) by the total gross land area
of the proposed Data Center Planned Unit Development, less the square footage
ORDINANCE NO.
2
of stormwater ponding or public waters (measured from ordinary high water
level), wetlands (measured from the delineation line), easements necessary for
public improvements, right of way required to be platted for any purpose, and
land area for required setbacks and perimeter buffer yards established per this
ordinance. All measurements shall be to the nearest 1/10th of an acre.
Data mining. A temporary or portable structure used primarily for the storage,
management, processing, and transmission of digital data which houses
computer or network equipment, systems, services, appliances, and other
associated components related to digital data storage and operations. Such
facilities are less than 5,000 square feet individually or when assembled in
multiple temporary or portable structures and are not constructed of customary
industrial building materials such as concrete panels, masonry block, brick or
other similar materials. These facilities include no permanent employment on-
site.
Section 2. Section §153.045, Industrial Base Zoning Districts, is hereby amended to add the
following:
(F) Data Center Planned Unit Development (DCPUD) Zoning District
(1) Purpose. The City Council finds that data center uses are highly variable in
size, scope, impact, and potential issues, and all such variables may have
differential impacts on existing and future land uses, or on the City’s land use
plans and regulations. The purpose of the Data Center Planned Unit
Development (DCPUD) Zoning District is to provide for, and regulate, Data Center
development in appropriate locations, specifically within areas that are
otherwise designated for Light Industrial Park land use in the Monticello
Comprehensive Plan (2040 Vision + Plan), as it may be amended. It is the intent
of this ordinance that all costs of development and infrastructure attributable to
data center development, if approved, shall be borne by the data center
developers, owners, and/or operators, and that approvals, if granted, shall
provide for financial guarantees in this regard as a condition of any such
approvals. There shall be no inherent right to rezoning to DCPUD, nor to any of
the approvals necessary to develop a data center in the City.
(2) Approval Criteria. No land shall be zoned as DCPUD unless the planned
unit development is found consistent with all of the following factors, or if
inconsistent, where the City Council specifically finds that the design of the
facility has mitigated any inconsistent factor.
(a) Land is guided as Light Industrial Park in the City’s applicable
Comprehensive Plan.
ORDINANCE NO.
3
(b) Land is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial District) in the City’s applicable zoning
ordinance if currently annexed to the City of Monticello.
(c) The DCPUD will be served by City sanitary sewer and water supplies for
specified data center demands and is able to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the City that the DCPUD will not create shortages in the
capacity of the City’s sanitary sewer and water supplies or create an
inability to provide adequate utility service in other existing or planned
areas of the City, including the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area.
(d) The DCPUD will provide financial guarantees for the installation of all
municipal utilities, transportation, and any other public infrastructure
deemed necessary by the City to support the DCPUD and for any
infrastructure improvements or mitigation for the expected public
infrastructure impact or capacity increase created or required by the
DCPUD and will identify a timeline satisfactory to the City for the
submission of payments and securities for such infrastructure.
(e) The DCPUD, if developed in phases, will provide the necessary financial
guarantees to avoid the stranding or incomplete extension of municipal
infrastructure resources to the furthest extent of the PUD. Except where
expressly approved by the City Council, all public rights of way or
easements shall be dedicated and/or extended to limits of the property
zoned DCPUD to facilitate extension to adjoining property as a part of
first-phase of development.
(f) The DCPUD will be adequately served with electricity supplies for the
specified data center demands from the local electric power supplier as
required by phase if applicable and demonstrates power supply capacity
to existing property owners in the City and planned areas of the City,
including the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area.
(g) The DCPUD will provide adequate vehicular and non-vehicular
transportation facilities, such as roadways, pathways, sidewalks or
similar, to serve the project and will adequately extend such facilities to
serve adjoining future development areas.
(h) The DCPUD will not displace other land uses the City deems important for
the stable, long-term growth of the community, including other industrial
lands or lands critical to the achievement of the City’s long-range
development goals, and the City determines that absorption of land area
for data center development is appropriate based on the City’s industrial
ORDINANCE NO.
4
and other long-range land use development goals as described in the
Monticello 2040 Plan and other adopted City planning documents.
(i) The DCPUD will provide identified public benefits, including the creation
and maintenance of tax base, and will avoid negative impacts such as
those identified in this section, over the long term.
(j) The DCPUD identifies and demonstrates adequate compliance with the
provisions of this section and State law for exterior impacts perceptible
from the boundaries of the facility, including but not limited to those for
noise and lighting impacts.
(k) The DCPUD will demonstrate compliance with all other applicable
sections of this chapter.
(l) All applicable State Pollution Control Agency, Department of Natural
Resources, Department of Health, and Department of Transportation
requirements are met to the City’s satisfaction.
(m) The DCPUD will not conflict with other elements of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
(3) Permitted uses. Uses allowed in the DCPUD are as follows, subject to the
procedural and performance standards of this District, and all generally
applicable standards of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance:
(a) Data Center.
(b) Data Center Campus.
(c) Accessory buildings and uses as expressly provided for by this section.
(4) Accessory uses. The following accessory uses are allowed in the DCPUD:
(a) Offices.
(b) Appurtenances, or support facilities such as outdoor generators,
mechanical or electrical equipment including substations and
transmission structures, or similar elements.
(c) Off-Street Parking, subject to the requirements of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance Section §153.067 per Parking Schedule #2.
(d) Signs, Fencing, Off-Street Loading, and Grading, Drainage Erosion Control
and Stormwater Management and Erosion Control subject to the
provisions of this chapter, except as otherwise prohibited or regulated by
this section.
(e) Roof-mounted solar-energy systems or green-roof installations.
ORDINANCE NO.
5
(f) EV charging stations.
(g) Any other use that is subordinate to and serving the principal use and
customarily incidental to the principal use. Such use must be depicted in
DCPUD Development and Final Stage plans and be specifically authorized
by the adopted DCPUD ordinance.
(5) Prohibited uses. The following uses are specifically prohibited in the
DCPUD:
(a) The use of cargo containers, railroad cars, semi-trailer containers, and
other similar storage containers, or any building that does not meet the
building standards of this section.
(b) Commercial wind energy systems.
(c) Commercial telecommunication towers as defined by this chapter.
(d) Ground-mounted solar energy systems.
(e) Outdoor storage as defined by the chapter.
(f) Data mining as defined by this ordinance.
(6) Environmental Review. If an EAW, EIS or AUAR is applicable for the
proposed DCPUD project under State or law, such review must be completed
prior to application. Such review may commence after a concept submission as
outlined by this section. Individual components of a DCPUD development which
may require separate environmental review may be completed after application.
Such review is subject to the applicable provisions of this chapter.
(7) District performance standards. Any application for amendment to the
zoning map to rezone land to DCPUD under this Section shall be considered
incomplete if it does not address each of the performance standards in such a
way as to provide the City with sufficient information to properly evaluate each
element in this Section. Any deviation from these standards requires approval of
a variance, which shall be reviewed in accordance with §153.028.
(a) Any application for DCPUD shall be accompanied by a proposed
Preliminary Plat subject to the application and procedural requirements
of Chapter §152: Subdivisions and shall only be developed on land subject
to said Plat.
(b) The minimum data center floor area ratio (DCFAR) for the DCPUD and any
individual phase of the DCPUD shall be .25. At no time shall any individual
developed phase of the of the DCPUD be constructed at an FAR of less
than 25%.
ORDINANCE NO.
6
(c) The minimum setback for all principal, accessory and appurtenant
structures shall be as follows.
Table X-X
Structure Setback from DCPUD Property Line
(Setbacks applicable for parcels adjacent but for
intervening street easement or ROW)
Parcels
used for
principal
agricultural
uses only
Parcels
used,
guided or
zoned for
residential,
civic/institu
tional or
mixed-uses
Delineated
wetland,
public
parkland, or
public
recreational
property
Parcels
guided or
zoned
commercial
Parcels
guided or
zoned
industrial
Principal building
structure(s) when any
equipment (including
generators) is fully
screened by principal
building(s) or located
within a principal
building(s), or is located
to the interior of the site’s
principal structure(s) and
ground mounted
100’ 200’ 200’ 100’ 100’
Principal building
structure(s) when
mechanical equipment
(including generators) is
oriented to any exterior
portion of the structure(s)
and/or non-ground
mounted
200’ 300’ 300’ 200’ 200’
Off-Street Parking 100’ 150’ 150’ 50’ 50’
Off-Street Loading
Facilities
100’ 150’ 150’ 100’ 100’
ORDINANCE NO.
7
Fences or Walls May be placed at any location between the property line and
principal structure(s), except such fences or walls may not be
located within a drainage and utility easement or designated wetland
buffer area, and perimeter buffer landscaping materials must be
planted on the exterior of the fence or wall.
Other Accessory or
Appurtenant Structures
(exceptions: lighting)
100’ 300’ 300’ 100’ 100’
(d) The maximum height for principal and accessory structures shall be 50’.
i. Appurtenant structures may exceed the height of the principal or
accessory structure by a maximum of 15’. Private communication
antenna within the DCPUD may exceed this height up to a maximum
of 100’ as specifically identified and approved in the Final Stage PUD.
Substation equipment within the DCPUD are exempt from this height
requirement.
(e) Principal building exterior finishes shall consist of materials compatible in
grade and quality to the following:
i. Decorative rock face block.
ii. Glass.
iii. Cast in place concrete or pre-cast concrete panels.
iv. Brick.
(f) Accessory building exterior finishes shall consist of materials compatible
in grade and quality to the following:
i. Decorative rock face block.
ii. Glass.
iii. Cast in place concrete or pre-cast concrete panels.
iv. Brick.
v. Exterior insulated finish systems.
(g) Noise emanating from the facility, or from any appurtenant or accessory
use or element of the facility, shall be in compliance with and regulated
by the State of Minnesota pollution control standards and rules.
Mitigation strategies are required to be implemented to provide
assurance of conformity with these regulations.
ORDINANCE NO.
8
i. Monitoring equipment must be installed and maintained over the
operational life of the DCPUD. Monitoring stations must be placed at
each DCPUD boundary property corner and every 1000’ along the
DCPUD property line when abutting residential property.
ii. Monthly inspection of monitoring stations for operational sufficiency
and monthly noise monitoring reports meeting State of Minnesota
pollution control guidelines for measurement must be provided by a
third-party monitoring and inspection service over the operational life
of the DCPUD. The service provider shall be subject to the review and
consent of the City. The monitoring service shall prepare a monthly
report to the City of Monticello on the facility’s noise performance.
The operational cost of monitoring shall be at the owner(s) expense
and a security for such monitoring shall be specified as part of the
required site improvement plan agreement.
(h) Back-up power generators within the DCPUD may only be used for back-
up power generation purposes for uses within the DCPUD.
i. Testing of generators may only occur between the hours of 8 AM and
4 PM, Monday through Friday. A testing schedule must be filed
annually with the City.
(i) All lighting fixtures and illumination levels must meet the requirements of
§153.063. Lighting, except that illumination must be 0.0 footcandles at
the property line abutting properties used, zoned or guided for
residential, civic or institutional, recreational, or parkland uses. No
external light source shall be located closer than 50’ from any property
line of a parcel used, zoned or guided for residential, parkland or
recreational uses.
(j) Any outdoor facilities or equipment such as back-up generators, parking
and private circulation areas, other mechanical equipment regardless of
location, security or chain link fencing, or any other similar outdoor
facilities shall be fully screened to 100% opacity when viewed at
comparable grade from abutting property used, zoned, or guided for
residential or recreational uses, and from the public right of way.
i. Landscaping materials used for screening may be counted toward the
minimum site landscaping requirements of this chapter.
ii. Landscaping utilized for screening must be designed by a qualified
landscape architect to meet the opacity requirements within 3 years
of planting.
ORDINANCE NO.
9
iii. Screening may be accomplished through individual or combination
use of fencing or walls meeting the materials requirements of this
section, landscaping, and/or berming.
iv. Landscaping materials and berming used for screening may be located
within the required structure setback; fences and walls are subject to
the structure setback above.
v. Fences or walls used for screening purposes must install the required
perimeter buffer landscaping materials on the exterior side of the
wall.
vi. Chain link fence with slats shall not be used for screening purposes.
(k) All trash enclosures and storage must be located within a structure and
identified on DCPUD plans.
(l) Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be fully screened when viewed from
the adjoining property lines via screening walls or parapets which match
the building materials of the building on which they are located.
(m) Site landscaping shall meet the required minimum site landscaping
standards of this chapter, with the additional requirements or exceptions
follows:
i. The DCPUD shall provide for established sodding in all ground cover
areas not otherwise used for tree or shrub plantings except as
exempted for approved native plantings.
ii. The DCPUD shall provide irrigation systems for all landscaped areas
except as exempted for approved native plantings.
iii. The DCPUD shall not be required to install island delineation
landscaping as required by this Chapter.
(n) A perimeter buffer shall be installed around the entire perimeter of the
DCPUD and maintained for the duration of DCPUD facility operation per
the requirements of this chapter, subject to the following additional
requirements or exceptions:
i. Installation of such buffer shall be required regardless of any
intervening or abutting roadway or public right of way.
ii. Such buffer must include a 25% minimum evergreen species
requirement, to be spaced throughout the buffer.
ORDINANCE NO.
10
iii. The required perimeter buffer for the full DCPUD area shall be
installed and completed with the first phase of development.
iv. The perimeter buffer landscaping material may be located within the
applicable structure setback and shall be located at the exterior side
of any screening or perimeter buffer wall.
v. The perimeter buffer shall not be required where the DCPUD property
boundary directly abuts a property used for industrial uses but shall
be required when adjacent to or abutting all other property uses,
including public right of way or public street easement.
(o) Fencing or walls shall be constructed of maintenance-free vinyl fencing or
brick, stone, masonry or decorative stamped and colored concrete which
mimic brick, stone or masonry.
(p) Chain link fencing may be used for security purposes and shall be black or
black coated vinyl and shall not include slats. Linear barbed wire is
permitted on the top of such fenceline. In such case, screening to 100%
opacity must be placed between the security fence and property line.
(q) The facility shall provide parking for employees or service personnel at a
rate per §153.067, Parking Schedule #2.
(r) Substations within the DCPUD shall be subject to the following:
i. Must be located within the DCPUD.
ii. Must comply with the accessory setbacks as established herein.
iii. Must comply with the lighting standards established herein.
iv. Must comply with the perimeter buffer requirements for landscaping
materials per §153.060.
v. Electrical transmission lines extended to the substation are not
subject to §153.065 Underground Utilities.
vi. Substation equipment is not subject to the height requirements of
this section or this chapter.
vii. The number of substations serving a data center or data center
campus are limited to those necessary for operating the data center
or data center campus exclusively.
(s) In addition to the standards of this section, all other provisions of the
City’s ordinance, including zoning and subdivision regulations, shall apply
to the facility, unless otherwise exempted. With regard to specific zoning
ORDINANCE NO.
11
district standards, the requirements of the DCPUD zoning district shall
apply. Except for regulations of applicable zoning overlay districts, where
the terms of this section vary from the zoning and subdivision regulations,
the requirements of this section shall apply.
(8) DCPUD Initiation of Proceedings. Requests for DCPUD concept stage,
development stage permit, rezoning to DCPUD, and DCPUD final stage permit
shall be initiated by application of the property owner or other person having
authority to file an application pursuant to § 153.027(B), Authority to File
Applications.
(9) DCPUD Application.
(a) Applications for rezoning to DCPUD shall be subject to this section and
shall not be subject to the Specific Review Procedures and Requirements
of this chapter for rezoning to Planned Unit Development.
(b) Submission of a DCPUD Concept Stage Submittal shall be in accordance
with this Section and are not subject to the Specific Review Procedures
and Requirements of this Chapter for Planned Unit Development.
(c) Applications for DCPUD Development Stage Permit and DCPUD Final
Stage Permit shall be in accordance with this section and are not subject
to the Specific Review Procedures and Requirements of this chapter for
Planned Unit Development. The application for DCPUD Development
Stage Permit and DCPUD Final Stage Permit shall not run concurrently.
(d) Applications for Preliminary and Final Plat as required by this section shall
be submitted in accordance with § 152: Subdivisions.
(e) Rezoning to DCPUD does not revoke, rescind or otherwise render as not
applicable the requirements of this ordinance for any applicable overlay
district effective at the time of annexation and as required by State law.
(f) All other requirements or provisions not specifically provided for by this
section or otherwise exempted shall be as per City Code.
(10) DCPUD Concept Stage Submittal. Prior to submitting applications for
development stage PUD, preliminary plat, and rezoning for the proposed DCPUD,
the applicant is encouraged, at its option, to prepare an informal concept and
present it to the Planning Commission and City Council at a concurrent
workshop, as scheduled by the Community Development Department. The
purpose of the concept stage submittal is to:
(a) Provide preliminary feedback on the concept in collaboration between
the applicant, City staff, Planning Commission, and City Council.
ORDINANCE NO.
12
(b) Provide a forum for public information on the DCPUD prior to a
requirement for extensive engineering and other plans.
(c) Provide a forum to identify potential issues and benefits of the proposal
which can be addressed at succeeding stages of PUD design and review.
(11) DCPUD Concept Stage Submittal Requirements. Proposals for a DCPUD
Concept Stage Submittal shall include at least the information below to be
considered complete (except as exempted by the Community Development
Department based on a written request submitted by the proposer).
(a) A listing of contact information including name(s), address(es), email(s)
and phone number(s) of: the owner of record, authorized agents or
representatives, engineer, surveyor, and any other relevant associates.
(b) A listing of the following site data: Address, current land use guidance,
current zoning, parcel size in gross acres and square feet, and current
legal description(s).
(c) A narrative explaining the applicant's proposed objectives for the DCPUD,
and public values that the concept submitter believes may be achieved
by the project.
(d) A narrative description of proposed DCPUD use, including anticipated or
known accessory or appurtenant uses.
(e) A narrative description of the public infrastructure requirements of the
DCPUD as known.
(f) Conceptual information on proposed power transmission routing within
the city and to the boundary of the DCPUD, if known.
(g) Calculation of the proposed DCPUD FAR.
(h) Outline a conceptual development schedule indicating the approximate
date when construction of the project, or stages of the same, can be
expected to begin and be completed (including the proposed phasing of
construction of public improvements and recreational and common
space areas).
(i) A concept PUD proposal illustrating:
i. Proposed DCPUD boundary.
ii. Layout of proposed lots and proposed uses. Denote outlots planned
for public dedication and/or open space (schools, parks, etc.).
ORDINANCE NO.
13
iii. General location of wetlands and/or watercourses over the property
and within 200 feet of the perimeter of the subdivision parcel.
iv. Location of existing and proposed streets within and immediately
adjacent to the subdivision parcel.
v. Proposed sidewalks and trails.
vi. Proposed location of any electrical substation(s).
vii. General location of wooded areas or significant features
(environmental, historical, cultural) of the parcel.
viii. Location of utility systems and connection points that will serve the
property including the proposing routing to demonstrate service to
the furthest extent or boundary of the DCPUD.
ix. Location of access points to public right of way.
(12) DCPUD Concept Stage Submission Review. Upon receiving a PUD concept
plan proposal, the Community Development Department shall:
(a) Schedule a joint workshop of the Planning Commission and City Council
and shall provide notice of the meeting to all property owners within 350
feet of the property boundary of the proposal. During the joint workshop,
the Planning Commission and City Council may make comment on the
merit, needed changes, and suggested conditions which may assist the
proposer in future application for proposed rezoning and PUD
development plan.
(b) The Planning Commission and City Council will also take comment from
the public as part of the joint workshop. The comment is explicitly not a
public hearing on the concept and the public comments are intended to
represent preliminary feedback related to the DCPUD concept
information.
(c) The Council and Planning Commission shall make no formal decision as
part of the consideration. The City Council and Planning Commission’s
comments are explicitly not an approval or decision on the project and
are intended to represent preliminary feedback on the DCPUD concept
information and its relationship to the comprehensive plan and this
DCPUD ordinance.
(13) DCPUD Development Stage Permit, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning
Application Submittal Requirements. Proposals for a DCPUD Development Stage
Permit and Rezoning to DCPUD shall include at least the information below to be
ORDINANCE NO.
14
considered complete (except as exempted by the Community Development
Department based on a written request submitted by the proposer). All costs of
application and preparation of submission materials, including required studies,
are borne by the applicant.
(a) Project narrative, including:
i. Existing zoning district(s) and comprehensive plan land use
designation of subject DCPUD property area and all adjacent lands
within 350’ of the subject DCPUD property boundary.
ii. Statement explaining the applicant's proposed objectives for the
DCPUD, and public values that will be achieved by the project
including general projections for tax base, building valuation,
employment creation or other community benefit.
iii. Statement of how the project will meet each of the Approval Criteria
and District Performance Standards as required by this section
iv. A narrative description of proposed DCPUD uses and operations,
including anticipated or known accessory or appurtenant uses, such
description shall include any information on transmission line
corridors or routes within the city.
v. Proposed phasing of full DCPUD site development, including number
of phases, development timeline for each phase and for the full
DCPUD.
vi. Calculation table detailing the gross area calculation of the full DCUD,
the area calculation of each exception to the DCFAR, and resulting
FAR for each phase of the DCPUD and full DCPUD.
vii. Maximum building height for any proposed principal structure on site
and maximum height of any additional appurtenant or accessory
structure on site.
viii. Description of proposed building materials for all principal and
accessory buildings meeting the requirements of this ordinance.
i. Estimated square footage calculation of full usable/buildable area
within the DCPUD.
ii. Maximum building coverage within the DCPUD site improvement
boundary.
iii. Estimated building square footage within the DCPUD site
improvement boundary by phase.
ORDINANCE NO.
15
(b) Total maximum impervious surface coverage within the DCPUD.
(c) Proof of title in a form approved by the City Attorney.
(d) Legal description of the property for which the DCPUD is requested.
(e) All information required for Preliminary Plat as provided in § 152.040,
including dedication.
(f) Certificate of survey for the full DCPUD property boundary signed by a
registered land surveyor and current within three months of plat
application to include legal description, all public utilities including pipe
size, material type, depths, location, and detail of private utilities and
easements, rights of way, and any other easements of record.
(g) DCPUD site improvement plan(s), including:
i. Citation of the proposed name of the project, contact information for
the developer and individual preparing the plan, signature of the
surveyor and civil engineer certifying the document, date of plan
preparation or revision, and a graphic scale and true north arrow.
ii. Minimum setback requirements as required by this section.
iii. Layout of proposed lots with future lot and block numbers.
iv. Area calculations for each parcel within the DCPUD property
boundary.
v. Outlots planned for public dedication and/or open space.
vi. Easements and rights-of-way within or adjacent to the subject DCPUD
property boundary, including detail on ingress and egress from the
subject site to abutting or adjacent public right of way.
vii. Location of all electrical substations and transmission equipment
located within the DCPUD, including area in acreage and applicable
setback for substation and general height information.
viii. Location, width, and names of existing and proposed streets and
rights of way within and immediately adjacent to the subject DCPUD
property boundary and all connection points to public right of way.
ix. Proposed sidewalks and trail connection points to public rights of way
and any planned public sidewalk and pathways.
x. Area calculations for gross land area, wetland areas, wetland buffers,
right-of-way dedications, conservation areas, and proposed public
parks.
ORDINANCE NO.
16
(h) Graphic depiction of site development phasing plan by acreage over the
full DCPUD property, including proposed public utility easement corridors
and/or rights of way.
(i) Delineation and functional assessment of wetlands and/or watercourses
over the DCPUD property and within 200 feet of the perimeter of the
subdivision parcel dated within the last year.
(j) Delineation of the ordinary high-water levels of all water bodies.
(k) Conceptual grading, drainage and erosion control plan prepared by a
registered professional engineer providing for stormwater management
planning based on the maximum impervious surface area of the site.
Contours must extend a minimum of 200 feet beyond the boundary of
the parcel(s) in question.
(l) If an environmental review was required for the DCPUD development
proposal, the final approved mitigation plan shall be provided with a
detailed narrative on how the proposed DCPUD Development Stage
submissions address components of the mitigation plan and timeline for
implementation or completion of each mitigation plan requirement,
including detail on the financial participation of the applicant.
(m) Noise study meeting MPCA measurement standards detailing existing
ambient noise levels measured at 1000’ foot interval points of the DCPUD
boundary and current within 6 months of the date of application.
(n) Traffic study which shall include adjacent local roadways where access is
provided and nearest collector roadways, as well as the collector
roadways intersections with the nearest arterial roadway, evaluating:
i. Average Daily Traffic and Peak Hour traffic volumes for passenger
vehicles during normal operations.
ii. Average Daily Traffic and Peak Hour traffic volumes and routes for
construction traffic during each phase of site development.
iii. Project volume, routes and frequency for commercial vehicles
supporting routine operations.
iv. Proposed location of right of way and pathway connections, including
sidewalks and trails, through or along the site perimeter to ensure
system connectivity to the furthest extent of the DCPUD boundary.
v. Any insufficient street or intersection design pursuant to project
construction, projected by phase.
ORDINANCE NO.
17
vi. Proposed improvements to mitigate insufficient design, including an
analysis of the projected cost of any public infrastructure necessary to
adequately serve the project as identified above, by phase.
vii. Sufficient information regarding the applicant’s financial capacity to
support the required improvements and system upgrades.
(o) A study that identifies both City and private utility supply and demand on
the relevant system. Such study shall evaluate and quantify demand by
proposed phase and timeline for construction and include water,
wastewater, and stormwater system information, and shall demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the City that the proposed facility can both (1) be
adequately served by the existing or planned capacity of the utility, and
(2) will not impede access or limit service capacity to those utilities by
other future users in the City’s planning and service territory; (3) is
designed to provide adequate service to the furthest extent of the
DCPUD, and (4) that the applicant has provided sufficient information
regarding the financial capacity and ability to secure performance to
support the required improvements or system upgrades. Such study shall
include:
i. Provide a specific utility phasing plan which demonstrates alignment
with the proposed development phasing and timing.
ii. Provide preliminary plans for extension of all public facilities,
including utilities, roadways, pedestrian facilities, and other such
public infrastructure to the furthest extent of the DCPPUD boundary
as determined by the City Engineer and approved by City Council.
iii. Include an analysis of impacts to surrounding private utility systems
and required mitigation.
iv. Identify deficiencies in the public system pursuant to the project and
provide a mitigation plan for identified deficiencies.
v. Updates or additional system plans or studies for public utilities
reflecting the impact of increased demands and infrastructure
required by the DCPUD; to be prepared to the specification of the City
Engineer.
vi. Include an analysis of the projected cost of any public infrastructure
necessary to adequately serve the project as identified above by
phase, and to ensure that the infrastructure required by this section is
adequately accounted for.
ORDINANCE NO.
18
vii. Sufficient information regarding the applicant’s financial capacity to
support the required system studies, public improvements and
system upgrades.
viii. For capacity and demand greater than that anticipated for light
industrial uses, a companion review study to verify above shall be
provided.
ix. The applicant may request that the City complete such utility studies,
at the applicant’s cost.
(p) Landscaping and perimeter buffer plan illustrating:
i. Location and proposed elements (walls, berming, landscaping) for site
screening as required by this section.
ii. Location and proposed elements (walls, landscaping) for perimeter
buffer as required by this chapter.
(q) Listing of all required federal and state permitting and current status of
permitting.
(r) A fiscal summary statement for purposes of preparing the Site
Improvement Plan Agreement, including:
i. An analysis of the projected cost of any public infrastructure
necessary to adequately serve the project as identified above by
phase.
ii. Statement identifying the applicant’s proposed contribution to
provide such public service demand.
(s) Statement, study, or permit provided by the electric utility provider
which demonstrates adequate capacity for the DCPUD, provides a
summary of the proposed routing plan and required electrical
infrastructure improvements, and which details any expected impact to
local or regional power supply.
(t) Statement of telecommunication provider(s) information detailing
sufficient system improvements as to avoid any local service interruption
during normal operations.
(u) Any other information as directed by the Community Development
Department required to evaluate the specific DCPUD proposal.
(14) DCPUD Development Stage Permit and DCPUD Rezoning Review.
ORDINANCE NO.
19
(a) The application for rezoning to DCPUD shall be reviewed in accordance
with § 153.028(B), Zoning Ordinance Text and Zoning Map Amendments.
(b) The application for Preliminary Plat shall be reviewed in accordance with
City Code 152.026, Preliminary Plat Procedure.
(c) As part of the review process for the DCPUD applications, the Community
Development Department shall generate an analysis of the proposal
against the Approval Criteria of this section to formulate a
recommendation regarding the rezoning to the Planning Commission and
City Council.
(d) As part of the review process for the DCPUD Development Stage Permit,
a Site Improvement Plan Agreement (SIPA) shall be prepared by the City
following the complete application submittal, which details and controls
the terms and conditions of the approval given by the Council, including
but not limited to the development phasing, required public
improvements, minimum performance standards, and the fiscal
requirements, guarantees, and securities necessary for the construction
of all required public improvements. Such draft agreement shall be
included for the City Council’s review of the Development Stage Permit.
The SIPA shall include a requirement that until the time of approval of a
final stage permit and the applicant has met each of the conditions of
approval required by the City Council, in addition to other requirements
including publication, the rezoning ordinance for DCPUD will not be
effective and no development may occur within the DCPUD.
(e) The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the DCPUD
applications and consider the applications’ consistency with the intent
and purpose of the DCPUD and comprehensive plan goals. The hearing
for rezoning and Preliminary Plat may run concurrently with the hearing
for the DCPUD Development Stage permit. The Planning Commission
shall make recommendations to the City Council on the merit, needed
changes, and suggested conditions of the proposed rezoning, Preliminary
Plat and DCPUD development plan. The Community Development
Department may forward an application to the City Council without a
recommendation from the Planning Commission only if it is deemed
necessary to ensure compliance with state mandated deadlines for
application review.
(f) Development Stage DCPUD approval shall occur by adoption of a
rezoning ordinance for the subject property specifying the uses,
ORDINANCE NO.
20
standards, and other requirements of said DCPUD zoning district. Such
ordinance shall include an effective date clause which delays the effective
date of the ordinance until the time of approval of a final stage permit,
approval of the Site Improvement Plan Agreement, and the applicant has
met each of the conditions of approval required by the City Council, in
addition to other requirements including publication. No permits for
development within the PUD may be issued until the ordinance takes
effect. If the final stage DCPUD is not approved by the City Council, or the
applicant fails to meet the conditions as described, the ordinance shall
not take effect, will not be published, and the subject property shall
retain its previous zoning designation.
(g) The City Council may hold a public hearing on the request for DCPUD on
the request for DCPUD Development Stage Permit, preliminary plat, and
DC PUD rezoning if they deem such necessary.
(h) After consideration of the Planning Commission recommendation and/or
hearing, if applicable, the City Council may approve the Development
Stage DCPUD permit or any part thereof in such form as it deems
advisable. The City Council’s decision will include the required conditions
of the proposed rezoning, preliminary plat and DCPUD development
stage permit. Approval of the amendment to rezone to DCPUD shall
require the approval of the majority of all the members of the City
Council, except as may be exempted by state statute.
(i) After consideration of the Planning Commission recommendation and/or
hearing, if applicable, the City Council may, in its sole discretion, deny the
Development Stage DCPUD permit, the DCPUD Preliminary and/or Final
Plat, or any part thereof. Such denial shall be based on findings of fact
that specify the conditions where the application fails to meet the
required terms of the DCPUD zoning process, standards, or other
requirements therein. The City shall be under no obligation to approve
any DCPUD rezoning, plat, or permit, and no DCPUD applicant shall have
any expectation or right of approval of any such rezoning, plat, or permit.
(15) Final Stage Permit Application and Final Plat Submittal Requirements. An
application for final stage permit and final plat that conforms with the approved
development stage permit and preliminary plat and associated PUD rezoning
ordinance shall be submitted no later than 60 days following the date of the
development stage permit approval for review. One extension to this timeline
may be granted by the City Council for such submittal for a maximum of an
additional six months, and the applicant shall request waivers for any statutory
ORDINANCE NO.
21
time limits as necessary. The applicant shall submit such extension request no
later than 14 days prior to the deadline for the application submission.
Applications which fail to meet this deadline shall be deemed void and shall
require review and re-application according to the development stage process of
this chapter.
Proposals for a DCPUD Final Stage Submittal shall include at least the
information below to be considered complete (except as exempted by the
Community Development Department based on a written request submitted by
the proposer).
(a) All revised DCPUD Development Stage Application submittal
requirements as identified above shall be updated and resubmitted with
the Final Stage DCPUD Permit application to incorporate all changes
required by the DCPUD Development Stage permit approval and
Preliminary Plat.
(b) Transportation and utility extension and connection plans meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer.
(c) All information required for Final Plat as provided in § 152.041.
(d) Up-to-date title evidence dated within the last 3 months for the subject
property in a form acceptable to the City shall be provided as part of the
application for the DCPUD Final Plat.
(e) The developer shall provide warranty deeds for property being dedicated
to the city for all parks, outlots, etc., free from all liens and encumbrances
except as otherwise waived by the City Council.
(f) Developer shall provide all easement dedication documents for
easements not shown on the Final Plat including those for public and
private utilities, trails, ingress/egress, etc., together with all necessary
consents to the easement by existing encumbrancers of the property.
(g) Private covenant documents or easements necessary to implement and
maintain the DCPUD as approved by the city.
(h) The applicant shall execute the final Site Improvement Plan Agreement
which references all terms and conditions of the DCPUD, including but
not limited to site improvement plans and performance standards,
required phasing, required public improvements, completion dates for
improvements and related fiscal requirements, guarantees and
securities, the required letters of credit, all required development fees
ORDINANCE NO.
22
and securities, escrows, and warranties, and their timing of submission
and any other information deemed necessary by the city;
(16) PUD Final Stage and Final Plat review.
(a) The application for Final Plat shall be reviewed in accordance with City
Code §152.027, Final Plat Procedure.
(b) The application for PUD Final Stage DCPUD Permit and Final Plat shall be
considered by the City Council at a public meeting, following a review and
report by the Community Development Department. Approval of the
PUD Final Stage and Final Plat shall be by majority vote of all members of
the City Council, except where State law may specifically require a super
majority.
(c) The City shall, upon approval of the DCPUD Final Stage permit and
satisfaction of all conditions of DCPUD approval, publish the DCPUD
ordinance. Such ordinance shall create a zoning district that is specific to
the property for which the PUD was applied and shall be designated in
such a way as to be able to mark the official zoning map to identify the
DCPUD ordinance. The DCPUD ordinance shall also designate that such
property is thereby rezoned to the DCPUD district as adopted. Such
ordinance shall include an effective date clause which may delay the
effective date of the ordinance until such time as the applicant has met
each of the conditions of approval required by the City Council, in
addition to other requirements including publication. No approvals are
valid, and no permits may be issued, until the ordinance takes effect. If
the final stage DCPUD is not approved by the City Council, or the
applicant fails to meet the conditions as described, the ordinance shall
not take effect, and the subject property shall retain its previous zoning
designation.
(17) Site Improvement Plan Agreement.
(a) An approved DCPUD shall be governed by the approved Site
Improvement Agreement and shall be binding on all successors, heirs,
and assigns.
(b) The agreement shall include, at a minimum, reference to the approved
DCPUD site improvement plans and performance standards, adopted
ordinance, required public improvements and completion dates for
improvements and related fiscal requirements, guarantees and securities,
the required letters of credit, all required development fees and
ORDINANCE NO.
23
payments and/or securities, escrows, and warranties, and their timing of
submission, and any other information deemed necessary by the city.
(c) The agreement shall identify the financial requirements for the
installation of all municipal utilities, transportation, and any other
infrastructure deemed by the City as necessary to support the DCPUD
and to mitigate the expected infrastructure impact or capacity increase
created or required by the DCPUD, and a timeline satisfactory to the City
for the submission of payments and securities for such infrastructure.
(d) The agreement shall require on-going compliance with approved
landscaping and screening plans for the full extent and operation of the
effective DCPUD.
(e) The agreement shall provide for securities necessary to review and verify
compliance with the noise requirements of this section.
(f) The agreement shall stipulate any extension authorized by the City
Council for timeline of recording of the final plat or timeline for the final
platting of outlots within the plat.
(g) The agreement shall require that the recording of the final plat, rezoning
proceedings, SIPA, and any applicable deeds, common area maintenance
agreements, or other City agreements specific to the subject DCPUD
occur prior to any development, including grading, within the DCPUD
boundary.
(h) For any DCPUD which includes subdivision of parcels which have no
direct frontage on a public street, the site improvement agreement shall
require common maintenance and easement agreement.
(18) Site Plan review. Following approval of the DCPUD, development within
the DCPUD shall be subject to the Site Plan review process of this chapter. Site
plans shall be consistent with the approved DCPUD ordinance and all other
applicable provisions of this chapter. A liaison from the Planning Commission and
City Council shall participate in the Site Plan review process.
(19) Timeline for performance.
(a) Upon DCPUD approval, the applicant is required to record the Final Plat
within 365 days of the Council’s approval of Final Stage and Final Plat.
One extension from this requirement may be granted by the Council
upon request for extension by a person having authority to file an
application. An extension shall be requested in writing and filed with the
city at least 14 days before the voidance of the approved Final Plat and
ORDINANCE NO.
24
Final Stage PUD. The request for extension shall specify the desired
timeline of extension and shall state facts showing a good faith attempt
was made to meet the final plat submission requirement. Such request
shall be presented to the City Council for a decision. The City Council may
deny or modify the extension timeline at its sole discretion and there
shall be no inherent right to extension.
(b) A building permit for a principal structure within the first phase of
development on site shall be filed within 1 year of the filing of the Final
Plat. One extension from this requirement may be granted by the Council
upon request for extension by a person having authority to file an
application. An extension shall be requested in writing and filed with the
city at least 14 days before the date of one year date, based on the date
of recording of the final plat with the Wright County recorder. The
request for extension shall specify the desired timeline of extension and
shall state facts showing a good faith attempt was made to meet the
building permit submission requirement. Such request shall be presented
to the Council for a decision. The City Council may deny or modify the
extension timeline at its sole discretion and there shall be no inherent
right to extension. The City Council may act after the 1-year period to
revoke the DCPUD, revoke the governing Final Stage PUD approval,
revoke the SIPA, and rezone the land to any other zoning district,
following a public hearing to be held by the City Council.
(c) If there is a lapse of more than 3 years between completion of any
individual phase and proceeding to any subsequent and successive phase
of development as approved by the SIPA, notwithstanding on-going
construction within an active phase of development as approved by the
SIPA. One extension from this requirement for each phase may be
granted by the Council upon request for extension by a person having
authority to file an application. An extension shall be requested in writing
and filed with the city at least 14 days before the date of one year date,
based on the date of recording of the final plat with the Wright County
recorder. The request for extension shall specify the desired timeline of
extension and shall state facts showing a good faith attempt was made to
meet the building permit submission requirement. Such request shall be
presented to the Council for a decision. The City Council may deny or
modify the extension timeline at its sole discretion and there shall be no
inherent right to extension. The City Council may act after the 3 year
period to revoke the DCPUD, revoke the governing Final Stage PUD
ORDINANCE NO.
25
approval, revoke the SIPA, and rezone the land to any other zoning
district, following a public hearing to be held by the City Council.
(20) Amendment to DCPUD. Approved PUDs may be amended upon request
by those who have authority to submit an application per this section. At such
time, the applicant shall make an application to the city for a DCPUD amendment
which shall follow the same process as defined in this section for Development
and Final Stage Permit, which applications shall not run concurrently. Such
amendment shall not:
1. Introduce any other principal use inconsistent with this section. In such
case, the application shall request revocation of the DCPUD for that
portion of the land proposed for the amended principal use(s) and shall
be subject to the application requirements of this chapter, as applicable.
2. Eliminate, diminish, or vary from the minimum performance standards of
this section.
3. Eliminate, diminish, or very from the standards established by the DCPUD
ordinance.
4. Amend any Final Stage site improvement plan element required by the
approved DCPUD.
5. Exceed any maximum or minimum established in the DCPUD Final Stage
narrative.
6. Create non-compliance with any condition attached to the approval of
the DCPUD Final Stage plan.
7. Create non-compliance with any term or condition of the approved Site
Plan Improvement Agreement.
(21) Revocation. If at any time the facility is in violation of the conditions of
approval, including terms of the Site Improvement Plan Agreement, the City
Council may revoke the DCPUD, revoke the governing Final Stage PUD approval,
revoke the SIPA, and rezone the land to any other zoning district, following a
public hearing to be held by the City Council.
Section 3. Section §153.090, Use Table – Base Zoning Districts, Industrial Uses, is hereby
amended as follows:
(1) Insert Data center/Data center campus.
(2) Data center/Data center campus shall be Permitted in DCPUD only and
shall be prohibited in all other zoning districts.
ORDINANCE NO.
26
(3) Additional Requirements: §153.045.
Section 4. Section §153.092, Accessory Use Standards, Table 5-4, is hereby amended as
follows:
(1) Insert Data center, accesory.
(2) Data center, accessory shall be Conditionally permitted in I-1 and I-2
districts only.
(3) Additional Requirements: May be allowed within approved Planned Unit
Development Districts by amendment to PUD.
Section 5. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the changes required by this Ordinance
as part of the Official Monticello City Code, Title XV, Zoning Ordinance, and to
renumber the tables and chapters accordingly as necessary to provide the
intended effect of this Ordinance. The City Clerk is further directed to make
necessary corrections to any internal citations that result from said renumbering
process, provided that such changes retain the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance as has been adopted.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage
and publication. The ordinance in its entirety and map shall be posted on the
City website after publication. Copies of the complete Ordinance and map are
available online and at Monticello City Hall for examination upon request.
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this __th day of _____, 20__.
__________________________________
Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jennifer Schreiber, City Clerk
AYES:
NAYS:
Data Center Timeline Review:
City Land Use Process Events & Actions
11/24/2025
The timeline below illustrates the research, review, and decisions by city council, boards, and commissions related to the
general introduction of data center land uses within the city.
Event & Details Materials
July 22, 2024: City Council Special Meeting
Topic: Data Center Discussion
• Agenda
• Minutes (PDF)
September 23, 2024: Special Joint City Council & Planning Commission & Economic
Development Authority Workshop
Topic: Data Center Discussion & Research
• Agenda
• Minutes (PDF)
February 4, 2025: Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Public Hearing: Item 2A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Technology Industry Land Uses
• Agenda
• Minutes (PDF)
February 24, 2025: City Council Regular Meeting
Item 4A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Technology Industry Land Uses
• Agenda
• Minutes (PDF)
June 2, 2025: City Council Special Meeting
Topic: Discussion on Data Centers
• Agenda
• Minutes (PDF)
July 1, 2025: Planning Commission Workshop
Topic: Draft Data Center Zoning Ordinance
• Agenda
• Minutes (PDF)
July 21, 2025: Special City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop
Topic: Draft Data Center Zoning Ordinance
• Agenda
• Minutes (PDF)
August 19, 2025: Planning Commission Special Meeting
Public Hearing: Item 2. Draft Data Center Zoning Ordinance
• Agenda
• Minutes (PDF)
September 2, 2025: Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Continued Public Hearing: Item 2A. Data Center Zoning Ordinance
• Agenda
Minutes (PDF)
September 24, 2025: Special City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop
Topic: Draft Data Center Zoning Ordinance; Public Question & Answer Following the Workshop
• Agenda
• Minutes (PDF)
October 7, 2025: Special City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop
Topic: Draft Data Center Zoning Ordinance
• Agenda
• Minutes (PDF)
November 3, 2025: Special City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop
Topic: Draft Data Center Zoning Ordinance
• Agenda
• Minutes not
yet available
November 10, 2025: Special City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop
Topic: Draft Data Center Zoning Ordinance
• Agenda
• Minutes (PDF)
November 20, 2025: Data Center Ordinance Public Q&A N/A
December 2, 2025: Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Public Hearing: Data Center Zoning Ordinance
From:Shannon Bye
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:curious
Date:Wednesday, October 15, 2025 9:52:24 AM
in the planning process is the council considering hyperscale, edge, cloud provider etc.,
criteria individually under the current considerations? Obsolescence by site varies greatly,
some are @ just 5 yr windows from construction plans
From:Development Services
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:FW: Oct 7th workshop
Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 11:15:32 AM
Comment in the Development Services inbox.
From: lisa Keenan
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 11:34 AM
To: Development Services <Community.Development@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lloyd Hilgart
<Lloyd.Hilgart@MonticelloMN.gov>; Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>; Tracy
Hinz <Tracy.Hinz@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lee Martie <Lee.Martie@MonticelloMN.gov>; Kip
Christianson <Kip.Christianson@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Oct 7th workshop
Hello,
I attended the Oct 7 joint workshop and was just reviewing the meeting minutes. I am
glad there is talk of a larger set back for residential than what was originally included, I
believe 300-350' is still too small. As one of the commission members mentioned at an
earlier meeting, we who live by this development property didn't choose this, the
possibility of a data center there didn't exist when we bought our home. Why not 500' or
more from residential?
The noise pollution from a data center is very concerning. I see the MPCA regulation are
based on one hour monitoring period and the noise level cannot exceed the limit for
more than 6 minutes out of every hour. Good to hear talk of a lower limit than what the
MPCA lists. Not only is the continuous noise a concern but in speaking with people who
work at data centers most have stated there are security gates that beep when opening
and closing. The noise from the gate would most likely not be breaking the rules as it
would not be more than 6 minutes an hour. However, imagine living next to it and hearing
the beeping in the middle of the night, night after night. That would be quite disruptive to
residents' sleep when it's beeping in the middle of the night as workers come and go.
This would tie in with the question of if the parking lot should be allowed outside of the
setback area? Definitely not, parking and the gate should be behind the set back area.
Perhaps there are gates that don't beep, however I believe they all beep as a warning
system that it's moving.
I don't see anything in the ordinance regarding when generators could be tested, how
long and time of day? Is that something that should be in the ordinance?
Last I would like to address water. While the quantity of water data centers use varies
greatly, they are generally huge consumers. In addition to that I am concerned for all of
us who have wells near the proposed site. I have read multiple articles and watched
videos where residents' wells were affected by the construction of the data center.
Either from the amount of earth moved or specific processes used during construction. I
feel the ordinance should specify they cannot drill wells, nor can they "de-water" the
property. While I realize the DNR has multiple regulations in place, I don't see how it
could hurt to have additional stipulations. Will there be any type of financial safeguard
put in place for those of us who have wells? Realistically, no giant tech company is going
to take responsibility for our wells being tainted should that happen, they will find
someone to state it has nothing to do with them. Obviously the average citizen doesn't
have the means to fight them and make them take responsibility. Please see the
attached videos.
I Live Next To Amazon's Largest Data Center. They're Stealing Our Water
I Live 400 Yards From Mark Zuckerberg’s Massive Data Center
One for your reading pleasure. Food for thought on the financial side of data
centers. https://futurism.com/future-society/ai-data-centers-finances
Thank you for your time,
Lisa Keenan
From:lisa Keenan
To:Angela Schumann; Development Services; Lloyd Hilgart; Charlotte Gabler; Tracy Hinz; Lee Martie; Kip
Christianson
Subject:Fwd: Watch "Science of data center noise | VERIFY" on YouTube
Date:Thursday, November 6, 2025 9:31:40 AM
Hello,
Could you please share this email with the planning commission (I couldn't find the individual
email addresses on the city website) and any other decision makers I inadvertently missed?
Below are links to two videos, one from Business Insider which is long but contains a lot of
good information. The secrecy and the fact the tech companies can just claim "trade secret"
and then not disclose information is concerning.
The other video talks about how the noise from data centers is different from other noise such
as traffic or an airport. Even at a lower decibel it can have negative health effects. Something
to keep in mind as you set decibel limits. One might venture to say data centers simply do not
belong on property next to a residential area, even with set backs and noise limits.
https://youtu.be/t-8TDOFqkQA?si=N_6bYzyhqhUEM7bf
https://youtu.be/JflFFqbZ1X8?si=16MyvTRLT9Zt5DfH
Thank you for your time,
Lisa Keenan
From:lisa Keenan
To:Lloyd Hilgart; Charlotte Gabler; Tracy Hinz; Lee Martie; Kip Christianson; Development Services
Subject:Meeting request
Date:Friday, November 14, 2025 10:55:31 AM
Hello Mr. Mayor, Planning Commision Members and City Council,
I am requesting a meeting or meetings with you all to discuss the proposed data centers and
the ordinance. A retired tech industry expert, Prescott Balch, has been in contact with me.
You can check out his profile on Linkedin to see his credentials. He resides in WI but is
willing to participate in a discussion or discussions via phone. I am happy to meet with you all
at once, in small groups or one on one and Prescott would join us via phone.
I firmly believe we can't do this without external help. Data Centers are new to all of us and
the tech industry is ever changing. We have all spent months researching, however this
definitely still falls under the category of "you don't know what you don't know". It's too big
and unrecoverable if it turns out to be a mistake. A tech expert can help us all to fully
understand the risks and rewards and then you all make an informed decision.
I am available to meet any time after 4pm during the week and have availability on the
weekends if that works better. Please reach out to me and let me know if you are willing to
meet. If you are willing please also provide your availability.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you for your time,
Lisa Keenan
From:Ted
To:Kip Christianson; Tracy Hinz; Lee Martie; Charlotte Gabler; Angela Schumann
Subject:Question about non-disclosure agreements
Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 12:03:34 PM
Hello all,
My name is Theodore Keith, I live in Monticello township. I have concerns about the data
center and the rezoning that is in discussion currently.
I think I remember in the recent meetings on it that y'all mentioned you signed non-disclosure
agreements with a company that is interested in that land to build a data center.
Is this correct that one or all of you signed non-disclosure agreements?
Thank you for your time,
Theodore Keith.
From:Charlotte Gabler
To:Harlan Hamson; Rachel Leonard; Angela Schumann
Subject:Re: Data Center
Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 12:20:26 PM
Good Afternoon-
Thank you for your email. I have included City Administrator Rachel Leonard and
Community Develop Director Angela Schummann.
I appreciate the feedback. No formal applications have been submitted at this time. Yes,
interested parties have expressed interest out in the Otter Creek Industrial Park (near Bertram)
as well as the 500 +/- acres south of town. At last check those property owners have
agreements with the potential developer of Frattalone (but have not closed the deals). Those
parcels are also still in the township/the orderly annexation area which requires a process that
takes time too if wanting to become in the city limits. We are also in the process of an AUAR
which reviews environmental items, we’re reviewing infrasture, as well as Xcel has to review
(which can take up to 18 months) with the developer if their system can take a large user like a
data center.
At the last workshop, the draft ordinance was
reviewed https://www.monticellomn.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/1420?fileID=24121
and once adjusted again, will be going to the Planning Commission Dec 2nd for Public
Hearing. If you have questions there is an open house again on Thursday Nov 20th 3:30-
6pm.
No NDA’s have been signed as that would violate the MN statute relating to public data.
Public utility rates are set by the Public Utilities Commission at the state level. Xcel submits
their request to them and they are the determiners whether or not Xcels request is approved.
I do hope this helps answer a few questions. A lot of information is needed before anything
could move forward and we are doing our diligence.
Thank you,
Charlotte
On Nov 18, 2025, at 12:08 PM, Harlan Hamson wrote:
Please keep the Data
Center out of Monticello.
From:Charlotte Gabler
To:Mike Beck
Cc:Angela Schumann; Rachel Leonard
Subject:Re: Data Centers
Date:Friday, November 21, 2025 11:07:51 AM
Attachments:stpp-data-centers-2025.pdf
Good Morning-
Thank your the email. I have included on this message City Administrator Rachel Leonard
and Community Development Director Angela Schumann.
I appreciate the information and will be reading through.
Thank you,
Charlotte
On Nov 21, 2025, at 10:59 AM, Mike Beck wrote:
Mayor Hilgart and members of the Monticello City Council,
With due respect we urge you to not even consider any data center in or even
near the City of Monticello. The impact of any gain in tax revenue will not be
even close to negative impact to the Monticello and its residents.
Look at the University of Michigan study from July of this year. It is attached.
Even if you do not wish to read the entire document, read page three.
Individuals and corporations are shopping to find gullible cities to offer them tax
incentives that do not return the promised economic benefits do not deliver on
their promises.
Any data center will lower the quality of life for the residents of Monticello.
Respectfully,
Rebecca and Michael Beck
780 Acorn Circle
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
July 2025 | 18stpp.fordschool.umich.edu
24. Mac Carey, “How Data Center Alley Is Changing Northern Virginia,” Oxford American, January 17, 2025, https://oxfordamerican.org/oa-now/how-
data-center-alley-is-changing-northern-virginia.
25. Sumitomo Corporation of Americas, “Sumitomo Corporation Group Establishes Joint Venture to Develop Renewable Energy Projects in Virginia;
Expanding Over 1.5 GW of Solar Power Projects in a Key IT Infrastructure Hub and Data Center Cluster,” PR Newswire, October 15, 2024, https://www.
prnewswire.com/news-releases/sumitomo-corporation-group-establishes-joint-venture-to-develop-renewable-energy-projects-in-virginia-
expanding-over-1-5-gw-of-solar-power-projects-in-a-key-it-infrastructure-hub-and-data-center-cluster-302275651.html.
26. Zachary Skidmore, “PJM Approves $5.9bn in New Transmission Projects to Support Data Centers,” Data Center Dynamics, March 4, 2025, https://www.
datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/pjm-approves-59bn-in-new-transmission-projects-to-support-data-centers/.
27. Darrell Proctor, “Power Demand from Data Centers Keeping Coal-Fired Plants Online,” POWER, October 17, 2024, https://live-powermag.
pantheonsite.io/power-demand-from-data-centers-keeping-coal-fired-plants-online/.
28. Alixel Cabrera, “Amid Tense Debate, Legislature Approves Plan to Keep Coal Plant Open,” Utah News Dispatch, February 29, 2024, https://
utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/02/29/legislature-approves-plan-keep-coal-plant-open/.
29. Emily Jones and Guatama Mehta, “Why Mississippi Coal Is Powering Georgia’s Data Centers,” The Current, August 27, 2024, http://thecurrentga.
org/2024/08/27/why-mississippi-coal-is-powering-georgias-data-centers/.
30. Sydney Brownstone and Lulu Ramadan, “Ferguson Signs Executive Order to Look at Data Centers after Seattle Times-ProPublica Investigation,” The
Seattle Times, February 4, 2025, https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/wa-governor-orders-team-to-study-data-centers-
environmental-and-jobs-impact/.
31. Rebecca Thiele, “House Passes Measure to Bolster Nuclear, Retain Coal for AI Data Centers on Utility Customer Dime,” WFYI Public Media, February
13, 2025, https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/house-passes-measure-to-bolster-nuclear-retain-coal-for-ai-data-centers-on-utility-customer-
dime.
32. “House Bill 4906 of 2023 (Public Act 207 of 2024) - Michigan Legislature,” Accessed May 5, 2025, https://legislature.mi.gov/Bills/
Bill?ObjectName=2023-HB-4906.
33. Peter Judge, “The data center life story,” Data Center Dynamics, July 21, 2017, https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/analysis/the-data-center-life-
story/.
34. Anne Snabes, “GLWA Bows to Public Pressure, Raises Water, Sewer Rates Less,” The Detroit News, February 26, 2025, https://www.detroitnews.com/
story/news/local/michigan/2025/02/26/great-lakes-water-authority-to-weigh-water-sewer-rate-hikes-wednesday/80475435007/.
35. Ron Starner, “Turning the Switch On,” Site Selection, June 1, 2017, https://siteselection.com/turning-the-switch-on/.
36. Robert Walton, “AI, Data Center Load Could Drive ‘Extraordinary’ Rise in US Electricity Bills: Bain Analyst,” Utility Dive, February 26, 2025, https://
www.utilitydive.com/news/data-center-load-growth-us-electricity-bills-bain/730691/.
37. “SB 57: Electrical Corporations: Tariffs,” Digital Democracy, Accessed May 5, 2025. https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260sb57.
38. “SB 222: Climate disasters: civil actions,” Digital Democracy, Accessed May 5, 2025. https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/
ca_202520260sb222.
39. “SB1243 Electric utilities; electric distribution infrastructure serving data centers,” Legislative Information System, Accessed May 5, 2025, https://lis.
virginia.gov/bill-details/20251/SB1243.
40. “HB2578 Retail Sales and Use Tax; exemption for data centers, reports,” Legislative Information System, Accessed May 5, 2025, https://lis.virginia.
gov/bill-details/20251/HB2578.
41. Carlos Robles y Zepf and Dr. Philipp Schaefer,“Sustainable Data Centers—The German Energy Efficiency Act: What Data Center Operators Need to
Consider Now and in the Future,” Mayer Brown, February 19, 2024, https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2024/02/sustainable-
data-centers-the-german-energy-efficiency-act-what-data-center-operators-need-to-consider-now-and-in-the-future.
From:Ben Gaisford
To:Charlotte Gabler
Cc:Angela Schumann; Rachel Leonard
Subject:Re: NO data center
Date:Friday, November 14, 2025 11:24:43 AM
Thank you for your response, Charlotte. I’ve always liked you and I’m sorry to lump you in.
You always have so much important and relevant information and context.
That said, I still feel like a public vote is more appropriate to determine if this is right for our
area. Unincorporated or not, it still affects residents of the city proper. Even the environmental
review is stepping over the line in my view.
I hope the city takes this into consideration.
Thanks,
Ben
On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 11:04 AM Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@monticellomn.gov>
wrote:
Good Morning Ben-
Thank you for the email. I have included City Administrator Rachel Leonard and
Community Development Director Angela Schumann.
I appreciate the feedback. No formal applications have been submitted at this time. Yes,
interested parties have expressed interest out in the Otter Creek Industrial Park (near
Bertram) as well as the 500 +/- acres south of town. At last check those property owners
have agreements with the potential developer of Frattalone (but have not closed the deals).
Those parcels are also still in the township/the orderly annexation area which requires a
process that takes time too if wanting to become in the city limits. We are also in the process
of an AUAR which reviews environmental items, we’re reviewing infrasture, as well as
Xcel has to review (which can take up to 18 months) with the developer if their system can
take a large user like a data center.
At the last workshop, the draft ordinance was
reviewed https://www.monticellomn.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/1420?fileID=24121
and once adjusted again, will be going to the Planning Commission Dec 2nd for Public
Hearing. If you have questions there is an open house again on Thursday Nov 20th 3:30-
6pm.
No NDA’s have been signed as that would violate the MN statute relating to public data.
Public utility rates are set by the Public Utilities Commission at the state level. Xcel
submits their request to them and they are the determiners whether or not Xcels request is
approved.
I do hope this helps answer a few questions. A lot of information is needed before anything
could move forward and we are doing our diligence.
Thank you,
Charlotte
From: Ben Gaisford
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 7:42 PM
To: Jennifer Schreiber <Jennifer.Schreiber@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: NO data center
You people need to stop acting unilaterally to push this data center. Nobody
wants it. It’s been made clear and you are not listening to us. It should be up to
us. If you really think we need it, hold a public vote and stop acting like the city
council is the only opinion that matters. I don’t want to hear any crap about how
it’s all just procedural or just for zoning. You know damn well it won’t stop
there because none of you are stopping it.
STOP THE DATA CENTER!
Data center will bring in no benefit and hardly any jobs to this area and will
only take away from our resources. They’re going to take our electricity, our
water, our peace, and leave us with huge ugly eyesore buildings. I don’t give a
crap about some tax revenue you claim it brings. That doesn’t do anything for
us.
STOP IGNORING THE CITIZENS!
It’s obvious you don’t care about what us citizens want. You want to help
yourselves. What are you getting out of this that the rest of us aren’t?
Kickbacks? Is that it? I remember the city abusing their authority and hiring
contractors because they were related to somebody. You probably thought that
was buried but I remember. I remember the piss poor work they did because
they didn’t care. Because they knew they didn’t have to do good work to get a
contract with this city. I have no reason to believe you aren’t still doing that.
Prove me wrong by holding a PUBLIC VOTE! Unless of course you’re scared
of missing out on whatever they’re sliding into your pockets.
STOP FAVORING CORPORATIONS OVER WHAT REGULAR PEOPLE
WANT!
From:Derrick Zychowski
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Re: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration
Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 12:07:54 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Yep I will be there. I appreciate all the time and effort the staff has put into this. I've never
attended a meeting before, we have always trusted the elected officials and city staff to do
what's best for the residents of Monticello. This one just seems to important to not get
involved. It could have long lasting impact on the residents and really the only benefit I've
heard is the tax revenue but no one has really tied that back to the benefit to the residents or
quantified the number other than to say tax base. Will that be talked about at the workshop?
Are we able to attend that? I think that's what people want to hear Angela is how does this
benefit the residents. I've been to both hearings and I yet to hear anyone talk about any
benefits. I admit I don't totally understand the process but at some point people want to know
how it would benefit the community. I again I appreciate the time and effort all involved all
put into this we want to trust you are doing what's best for Monticello.
On Wed, Sep 3, 2025, 8:54 AM Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@monticellomn.gov>
wrote:
No worries at all. We greatly appreciate all of the feedback we’ve received.
If you were able to watch or attend the meeting, you will note that action was tabled on the
ordinance. We will be holding a joint workshop with the Planning Commission and City
Council to walk through the ordinance in detail, including how the ordinance addresses
comments and/or could be further revised to address comments and questions.
Notice of the meeting will be posted here: Public Hearings / Meeting Notices | Monticello,
MN
Don’t hesitate to call or email with any questions.
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
Development Services
763-271-3224
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Derrick Zychowski
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 9:15 PM
To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Re: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration
I see my comment was posted tonight just wanted to pass along my apologies again to you
and your staff for the typo.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025, 10:46 AM Derrick Zychowski wrote:
Apologies the last line should read benefit the residents of Monticello.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025, 12:26 AM Derrick Zychowski
wrote:
Thank your for your response. You are welcome to use my comments in the document.
I know the meeting tonight was to establish guidelines in the event that someone was
interested in building a data center in Monticello. It sounded like we had someone
inquire about building one on the proposed site. I attended the majority of the meeting
but had to leave before it was over for a prior commitment. What are the next steps in
the process? I know there is another meeting 9/2. Who makes the final decision on
weather we have the right zoning rules? When is that decision made? The only benefit I
heard about the potential data center was it would increase the tax base. Isn't there
other ways to increase the tax base without putting the residents of Monticello at risk? It
didn't sound like many residents that attended the meeting had any interest in a data
center at the proposed site. Do you have any thoughts on how it would be the
residents of Monticello?
On Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 4:47 PM Angela Schumann
<Angela.Schumann@monticellomn.gov> wrote:
Thank you for emailing your comments related to the consideration of data center
development in the community.
Your comments will be forwarded to the Monticello Planning Commission for their
consideration as part of this evening’s public hearing on the draft zoning ordinance
regulating data centers. The data center ordinance being discussed at Planning
Commission is not specific to a particular data center project. The ordinance would
set the requirements for any data center development in the city. The report and draft
ordinance for the August 19th, 2025 item can be found here.
An Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Scoping Document has also been
prepared as related to development of an approximately 546 acre area south of 85th
Street NE. More information can be found at Environmental Reviews | Monticello,
MN. Your comments will also be included in the public comment documentation for
the AUAR Scoping Document. If you would like to make additional comment
specific to the AUAR Scoping Document, the comment period is open until
September 4, 2025. If you do not wish for your prior email to be included in the
AUAR document, please email me that you do not wish for your comment to be
included in the AUAR Scoping Document comments.
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
Development Services
763-271-3224
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
From:Charlotte Gabler
To:Joe Kraft
Cc:Rachel Leonard; Angela Schumann
Subject:Re: Request for the City to Oppose Data Center Development in Monticello
Date:Monday, November 24, 2025 9:19:47 AM
Good Morning Joe-
Thank you for the email. I have included City Administrator Rachel Leonard and
Community Development Director Angela Schumann.
I appreciate the feedback relating to data centers. The City definitely has a lot to review
to make sure we understand how decisions relating to this particular type user would
affect the community. I appreciate the reminder on smart growth as well.
Thank you!
Charlotte
Thank you and have a productive day!
Charlotte Gabler
Monticello City Council Member
Term Expires Dec 31st, 2026
Pronouns: she, her, hers
NOTICE: Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is
subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Joe Kraft
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 8:37 AM
To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Request for the City to Oppose Data Center Development in Monticello
Council Member Gabler,
I’m writing today because I strongly believe a data center would place an
unsustainable burden on Monticello’s resources while offering very little benefit to our
residents. Modern data centers are among the highest-consumption industrial
buildings in the country. The average large data center uses between 80–130
megawatts of electricity, which is as much power as 60,000–100,000 homes. Even
smaller facilities commonly draw 10–30 megawatts, still equal to thousands of
households. For water, a single data center can consume 3–5 million gallons per day
during peak cooling periods. To put that into perspective, that’s the same daily water
use as an entire small city. Many communities nationwide have already reported
groundwater stress and rising utility costs directly linked to data-center cooling
demands.
Despite this enormous strain on power and water infrastructure, data centers create
very few long-term local jobs—usually 30–50 full-time employees once construction is
complete. At the same time, cities are often left to fund costly upgrades for
substations, transmission lines, water capacity, road access, and emergency
services. Many data-center operators also seek tax breaks, meaning Monticello could
give up significant revenue while taking on long-term utility and infrastructural risk.
Other cities have seen increases in noise pollution from constant industrial fan
systems, spikes in carbon emissions from backup-generator testing, and a negative
impact on nearby residential property values.
Monticello has always prioritized smart growth and development that strengthens our
community. A data center would tie up massive amounts of electricity and water that
could otherwise support homes, local businesses, and future growth—while giving
very little back. I respectfully ask the council to oppose any data-center proposals and
instead focus on projects that provide true economic value, protect our environment,
and preserve the quality of life that makes Monticello such a great place to live.
Thank you for your time
Joe
MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 41
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK (LIP)
The Light Industrial designation accommodates a variety of light industrial uses. Uses are characterized by a higher level of amenities not required in the General Industrial
designation. Characteristics such as noise, vibration and odor do not occur or do not generate significant impacts. Hazardous materials handling and storage may also occur but
must be stored indoors or screened from the public right-of-way. Activities such as the handling of hazardous materials and outdoor storage are limited. This land use designation
does not include the principal retail commercial uses found in the Employment Campus and a more limited range of commercial activities. Transportation impacts which occur are in
direct support of the manufacturing or production use. The Light Industrial land use is distinguished from General Industrial land use by reduced potential for noise, visibility, truck
activity, storage, and other land use impacts.
The Light Industrial Designation accommodates uses such as processing, assembly, production, and fabrication manufacturing which uses moderate amounts of partially processed
materials, warehousing and distribution, research and development, medical laboratories, machine shops, computer technology, and industrial engineering facilities. Office uses
also occur within these areas. This designation also accommodates limited local-serving commercial uses which may generate storage or noise impacts.
“Computer technology” includes active technology uses dominated by office and research-oriented businesses.
The Light Industrial Designation accommodates Data Center (or similar “Technology Campus”) development for passive computer storage and processing only when specific
elements are demonstrated. Consideration of these uses in the LIP areas shall be subject to the following review requirements, among others as determined on a case-by-case
basis:
a. The City’s 2040 Plan recognizes data centers as a singularly unique land use due to size and scope.
b. Data center use locations will not create conflict with other land uses, especially residential land uses, through off-site impacts including unusual amounts of noise, lights,
odors, or other similar aspects. Data center users will demonstrate site conditions that meet this condition and are consistent with other light industrial development.
c. Where data center development creates shortages in land supply, utility services, electric generation service to the broader area, or any other impacts on the City of
Monticello or its neighboring communities, and which are not specifically mitigated by the data center developer and its associated partners, the City is under no obligation to
accommodate the use within any land use district or location, or through any land use process.
d. Data center uses shall demonstrate convincingly that its burden on municipal services, infrastructure, or fiscal condition is completely mitigated by the data center project and
its developers, and such mitigation is sustainable by its subsequent owners, users, and other related entities.
e. The data center will not inhibit future growth; it will accommodate and facilitate the extension of efficient and orderly municipal infrastructure to the edge of the development
property consistent with the City’s plans for growth.
f. Full and clear assurances from both the data center use and the electric utility provider that data center development will not create threats of power loss to the community,
nor limit the city’s other growth and development interests in the future.
Data Center development is considered against each of these factors, and other site- or use-specific factors that may be relevant at the time of any such proposal. The City
reserves the discretion to determine that any location or project has the potential to imperil the City’s infrastructure, related regional infrastructure, the City’s future land use goals,
the City’s various economic development goals and objectives, the City’s financial and fiscal obligations and projections, or any other reasonable area of City authority. No area
guided LIP (or any other land use category) shall have an inherent right to Data Center development under this amendment.
LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 42
Primary Mode
Vehicular with access
to collectors and
arterials
Transit or shuttle
service
Secondary Mode
Shared bike/
pedestrian facilities
MOBILITY
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK (LIP) CONTINUED
DEVELOPMENT FORM
• Floor Area Ratio
(FAR): 0.50 to 0.75
• Height: Up to 4 stories
• Lot Area: N/A
LOT PATTERN
VISUAL EXAMPLE
ZONING INFORMATION
2018 Correlating
Zoning District
IBC
Industrial Business Campus
I-1
Light Industrial District
LAND USE MIX
Industrial
• Warehousing and
Distribution
• Light Manufacturing
• Assembly
• Production & Fabrication
• Research and
Development
• Medical Laboratories
• Computer Technology
Commercial
• Minor Auto-Repair
• Self Storage
STRATEGIC TRANSITION PLANSUMMARY
Monticello Strategic Transition Plan (Approved 06/13/2022)6
PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION
Guiding Change
Cities like Monticello are in a perpetual state of growth and transition reflective of changes occurring amidst its people, businesses, visitors, and surroundings. Monticello is anticipating transition in its future precipitated by changes in the operation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plan (MNGP).
Xcel Energy, a major electric utility provider in the Midwest, operates the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant along the shores of the Mississippi River in Monticello. MNGP has been operational in Monticello since 1971.
Xcel Energy has submitted its required Integrated Resource Plan seeking re-licensure of the Monticello facility through 2040.
While Xcel Energy seeks re-licensure of the MNGP facility, the city is preparing for a future beyond licensure. Xcel MNGP carries a significant role within the community, particularly as a major area employer and local property tax generator.
Without a plan, the potential closure of the plant could present significant impacts for an unprepared community. Presently, Xcel MNGP is both the city’s largest employer and contributes approximately half of the city’s total annual tax base. This has been decreasing in both percentage and amount since 2016, due to a change in the formula for property valuation. However, the city will still need to consider increasing its tax capacity in other sectors to offset continued valuation decline, disinvestment, or eventual closure at the plant. The City’s goal is to plan for these circumstances with a steady and focused transition effort made over time.
To date, the City of Monticello has taken a proactive approach to assessing and diversifying its tax base. In addition to direct actions related to industrial and commercial development, this has included broader strategies that contribute holistically to the wellbeing of a community. As illustrated by the graphic above, this spans efforts around community development, collaborative partnerships, and policy and planning work, as well as more traditional focus on business and workforce development. Furthermore, this approach includes a focus on livability factors that contribute to making Monticello a great place to live, play, work, do business, and invest.
As Xcel continues to evaluate the lifespan and use of its Monticello facility, city leadership is setting the foundation for anticipated change. Over the last three years, the city has commissioned a series of studies and planning efforts to evaluate the economic impacts of Xcel MNGP closure. Many of these include feasible strategies to transition the city away from an energy-based economy, best practices for economic tax diversification, and developing an understanding of anticipated costs of such changes.
This Strategic Transition Plan Summary (STPS) is the cumulative summary of these efforts and represents a comprehensive strategy toward the future resiliency of Monticello. By embracing and planning for change, Monticello is capturing the opportunity to proactively guide its own economic future and establish conditions for a strategic, beneficial transition.
Monticello Strategic Transition Plan (Approved 06/13/2022)27
LONG RANGE PLANNING
HOP
Strategy 1.7.2 - Review and amend the commercial, industrial and residential development regulations and standards in the zoning code as necessary to reflect the intent and implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Policy and Regulatory Updates
HOP
Strategy 1.9.2 - Engage Monticello Township in a discussion regarding the Orderly Annexation Agreement, which expires in 2025.Collaborative and Interjurisdictional Efforts
SKIP
Strategy 1.10.1 - Consider the outcomes of regional planning initiatives and participate in processes resulting from the efforts of the Central Mississippi River Regional Planning Partnership.
Collaborative and Interjurisdictional Efforts
HOP
Strategy 2.1.1 - Adopt zoning regulations that allow for a wider diversity of housing types, identify character-defining features, and encourage a center of focus for each neighborhood.
Policy and Regulatory Updates
HOP
Strategy 2.7.1 - Amend the Zoning Map to be consistent with the Future Land Use Map and identify areas where mixed-density residential uses are appropriate.
Policy and Regulatory Updates
HOP
Strategy 3.1.1 - Amend zoning to allow small, neighborhood-serving shopping centers and commercial uses in the Mixed Neighborhood (MN) land use designation.
Policy and Regulatory Updates
Monticello Strategic Transition Plan (Approved 06/13/2022)28
LONG RANGE PLANNING
SKIP
Policy 3.3 - Connectivity to and from Centers Strengthen the connections between the City’s commercial centers and the neighborhoods, parks and schools around them through physical improvements, safe trail connections, and coordinated land use and transportation planning.
Public Infrastructure and System Upgrades
HOP
Strategy 3.5.1 - Identify specific underperforming or undervalued properties and locations to foster reinvestment and work with the property owners to achieve positive results through parcel assembly, parking lot consolidation, connections, and site enhancements.
Policy and Regulatory Updates
SKIP
Policy 4.1 - Utilize the Downtown Small Area Plan as the primary planning document that guides development and improvement in the Downtown. The components of the Downtown Plan shall be acknowledged and referenced in terms of development and improvement priorities. These include the Downtown Goals, Frameworks and Implementation Actions which will continue to remain high priority for the City until achieved. These are listed below for reference.
Targeted Locations / Site-Specific Priority Projects
HOP
Strategy 5.1.1 - Retain and plan for the development of land zoned for Employment Campus and Light Industrial Park that is sufficient to meet long-term needs for light industrial uses, manufacturing, production, and assembly, and other uses which support continued diversity in tax base and create living-wage employment.
Policy and Regulatory Updates
HOP
Strategy 5.1.4 - Develop a plan for servicing Employment Campus land areas with roads and utilities in recognition of their potential for tax base and employment generation.
Targeted Locations / Site-Specific Priority Projects
Monticello Strategic Transition Plan (Approved 06/13/2022)47
LONG RANGE PLANNING
2. Industrial Feasibility Analysis (2020)
Link to Transition Readiness
This analysis assesses the suitability of industrial sites for large format industrial. It can also be a resource for more general evaluation of industrial development opportunities. This supports transition readiness by ensuring the City is better prepared to respond to a large industrial development that could yield both significant benefits and impacts to the community, beyond the typical incremental growth patterns.
Document Summary
The Industrial Feasibility Analysis evaluates several sites for a new industrial park, targeted by a prospective large scale industrial user development. The study includes additional insight on broader industrial growth and potential throughout the city. This effort intends to provide a more in-depth study of the cost of utility infrastructure and transportation needs for the sites identified as potential future industrial development areas. The city identified six potential sites for the proposed new industrial park in conjunction with the potential large format project.
Analysis Results
All three of the identified sites were determined as feasible to support the proposed manufacturing facility. The sites allow for various layouts of the proposed facility. The site designs in the study can be adjusted to allow for the new facility and reduce investment for the required infrastructure within the project site. As it is the largest of the three identified sites, Site 3 South of 85th Street offers the longest absorption horizon as demonstrated in the table below. However, property owner interest in land sale will play a large role in availability for growth.
Figure 6. Site 3: South 85th Street
Monticello Strategic Transition Plan (Approved 06/13/2022)53
LONG RANGE PLANNING
INDUSTRIAL LAND ABSORPTION AND DEMAND STUDY
SKIP
The City should further evaluate the ability to site large-format users within long-range priority industrial sites.
Targeted Locations / Site-Specific Priority Projects
SKIP
Utilize the Capital Improvement Plan as a planning tool for the necessary infrastructure and land acquisition for long-term priority industrial growth areas.
Policy and Regulatory Updates
JUMP
To expand the tax base, the City should set a goal of generating an average of an additional $245,000 in taxes per year between 2020 and 2040 to offset the impacts of the anticipated Xcel plan closure and provide the City a buffer for long-term financial stability. This is about 2.2% or $675,000 of tax capacity.
Policy and Regulatory Updates
INDUSTRIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
JUMP
To support future development, coordinate with prospective development and plan for water, sanitary, and other infrastructure extensions from Featherstone Development to Site 3A (4,310 combined linear ft).
Public Infrastructure and System Upgrades
SETBACKS & HEIGHT
CITY OF MONTICELLO
BLOCK 52 | 17.5' SETBACK FROM
PINE ST. / PROPERTY LINE
AROPLAX | 100' SETBACK FROM
CHELSEA / PROPERTY LINE
23.5' HEIGHT
Setbacks : 0-100'
75' HEIGHT
CITY OF MONTICELLO
UMC | 253' SETBACK FROM CHELSEA RD. / PROPERTY LINE
WIHA | 355' SETBACK FROM 7 ST. WTH
50‘ HEIGHT
35‘ HEIGHT
Setbacks : 250'-350'
SETBACKS & HEIGHT
CITY OF MONTICELLO
FLEET FARM | 650' SETBACK FROM CHELSEA RD
Setbacks : 350'+
SETBACKS & HEIGHT
31‘ HEIGHT
(SILO 65')
CITY OF MONTICELLO
F.A .R
FLOOR AREA RATIO
516 E 7TH ST
12.79 ACRE PARCEL
1.739 ACRE BUILDING =
0.13 F.A.R
9668 FALLON
2.00 ACRE PARCEL
0.44 ACRE BUILDING =
0.22 F.A.R
CITY OF MONTICELLO
F.A .R
FLOOR AREA RATIO
10531 DALTON AVE NE
4.68 ACRE PARCEL
1.5 ACRE BUILDING =
0.32 F.A.R
9600 FALLON AVE NE
4.05 ACRE PARCEL
1.39 ACRE BUILDING =
0.34 F.A.R
↑
Residential N
North
South
150'200'East
West
North
150'252,000 SF (Approx.)South
330,000 SF (Approx.)East
110,000 SF (Approx.)West
200'944,000 SF Avaliable Area for Landscaping, Screening & Stormwater Only
100'50'
50'
200'
150'
Park or Civic/Institutional
~1980'
100 Acre Site | Equipment to Inside
~1980'
Development & Setback Reference
Total Square Feet of Site: 4,356,000
22
0
0
'
336,000 SF (Approx.)
336,000 SF (Approx.)
440,000 SF (Approx.)
220,000 SF (Approx.)
Av
a
i
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
,
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
2
2
0
0
'
Ri
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
W
a
y
Available Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R) 0.52
Landscaping, Screening, & Stormwater Area Calculations
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Principal & Accessory Use Setback Calculations - Total Area
3,024,000 SF Available Developable Area for Principal & Accessory Uses
1,332,000 SF Total Setback Area (Parking available in this area)
3,024,000 SF Available Developable Area for Principal & Accessory Uses
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
L
a
n
d
s
a
c
p
i
n
g
,
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
252,000 SF (Approx.)
Key
Available for Landscaping, Screening and Stormwater Only
Available for Parking, Landscaping, Screening and Stormwater
Available Developable Area for Principal & Accessory Structures
↑
Residential N
North
South
150'East
West
300'
North
150'222,000 SF (Approx.)South
330,000 SF (Approx.)East
110,000 SF (Approx.)West
300'884,000 SF Available Area for Landscaping, Screening & Stormwater Only
200'50'
50'
300'
150'
Park or Civic/Institutional
~1980'
2,368,000 SF Available Developable Area for Principal & Accessory Uses
2
2
0
0
'
2,368,000 Available Area for Development
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ri
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
W
a
y
Available Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R) 0.54
Av
a
i
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
,
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
L
a
n
d
s
a
c
p
i
n
g
,
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
Landscaping, Screening, & Stormwater Area Calculations
100 Acre Site | Equipment to Outside
~1980'
22
0
0
'
444,000 SF (Approx.)
444,000 SF (Approx.)
Available Developable Area for Principal & Accessory Structures
660,000 SF (Approx.)
440,000 SF (Approx.)
1,988,000 SF Approximate Total Setback Area (Parking available in this area)
222,000 SF (Approx.)
Available for Parking, Landscaping, Screening and Stormwater
Available for Landscaping, Screening and Stormwater Only
Key
Development & Setback Reference
Total Square Feet of Site: 4,356,000
Principal & Accessory Use Setback Calculations - Total Area
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota
Acoustical Properties, Measurement, Analysis, and Regulation
November 2015
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North | Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194 | www.pca.state.mn.us | 651-296-6300
Toll free 800-657-3864 | TTY 651-282-5332
This report is available in alternative formats upon request, and online at www.pca.state.mn.us
Document number: p-gen6-01
Authors
Amanda Jarrett Smith, MPCA
Anne Claflin, MPCA
Melissa Kuskie, MPCA
Editing and graphic design
Tanja Michels
PST Staff
PIO Staff
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) is reducing printing and mailing costs by
using the Internet to distribute reports and
information to wider audience. Visit our
website for more information.
MPCA reports are printed on 100% post-
consumer recycled content paper
manufactured without chlorine or chlorine
derivatives.
Foreword
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is empowered to enforce the State of Minnesota noise
rules. These rules and supporting acoustical information can be viewed in the document, “A Guide to
Noise Control in Minnesota.” This publication is intended to provide information on the basics of sound
and noise regulation.
Revised 2015
Contents
Foreword ...........................................................................................................................................2
Contents ............................................................................................................................................1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1
1. Noise rules in Minnesota ................................................................................................................2
1.1 The basics ................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Noise area classifications ........................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Common noise concerns ............................................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Regulatory agencies ................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Basics of how sound works .............................................................................................................6
2.1 Waves and sound pressure level ................................................................................................................ 6
2.2 Sound weighting networks ......................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Human perception of sound ...................................................................................................................... 9
2.4 Using decibel measurements ................................................................................................................... 10
3. Measurement procedures ............................................................................................................ 13
3.1 General procedures .................................................................................................................................. 13
3.2 Noise Test Procedure 1: Measurement procedure for non-impulsive noise ........................................... 14
3.3 Noise Test Procedure 2: Manual measurement procedure for non-impulsive noise .............................. 14
4. Minnesota noise pollution statutes and rules ................................................................................ 18
Minn. Rules § 7030 NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL .......................................................................................... 19
Minn. Stat. § 86B WATERCRAFT OPERATION ................................................................................................. 27
Minn. Stat. § 84.8 SNOWMOBILES ................................................................................................................. 29
Minn. Stat. § 87A. SHOOTING RANGES .......................................................................................................... 31
Minn. Rules § 6102, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES .............................................................................................. 31
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1
Introduction
Noise is a pollutant. While its physical and emotional effects are difficult to define quantitatively, the
noise level itself can be measured.
Sound: An alteration of pressure that propagates through an elastic medium such as air and produces an
auditory sensation.
Noise: Any undesired sound.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is empowered to enforce the State of Minnesota noise
rules (Minn. Rules Ch. 7030). Minnesota’s primary noise limits are set by “noise area classifications”
(NACs) based on the land use at the location of the person that hears the noise. They are also based on
the sound level in decibels (dBA) over ten percent (L10), or six minutes, and fifty percent (L50), or thirty
minutes, of an hour.
For residential locations (NAC 1), the limits are L10 = 65 dBA and L50 = 60 dBA during the daytime
(7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.) and L10 = 55 dBA and L50 = 50 dBA during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.)
(Minn. R. 7030.0040). This means that during a one-hour period of monitoring, daytime noise levels
cannot exceed 65 dBA for more than 10 percent of the time (six minutes) and cannot exceed 60 dBA
more than 50 percent of the time (30 minutes).
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
2
1. Noise rules in Minnesota
1.1 The basics
Minnesota’s noise pollution rules are based on statistical calculations that quantify noise levels over a
one-hour monitoring period. The L10 calculation is the noise level that is exceeded for 10 percent, or six
minutes, of the hour, and the L50 calculation is the noise level exceeded for 50 percent, or 30 minutes, of
the hour. There is not a limit on maximum noise.
The statutory limits for a residential location are L10 = 65 dBA and L50 = 60 dBA during the daytime (7:00
a.m. – 10:00 p.m.) and L10 = 55 dBA and L50 = 50 dBA during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.)
(Minn. R. 7030.0040). This means that during the one-hour period of monitoring, daytime noise levels
cannot exceed 65 dBA for more than 10 percent of the time or 60 dBA more than 50 percent of the
time.
The basic noise rules for other noise area classifications are:
Noise Area
Classification
Daytime Nighttime
L10 L50 L10 L50
1 65 60 55 50
2 70 65 70 65
3 80 75 80 75
1.2 Noise area classifications
Noise area classifications (NAC) are based on the land use at the location of the person who hears the
noise, which does not always correspond with the zoning of an area. Therefore, noise from an industrial
facility near a residential area is held to the NAC 1 standards if it can be heard on a residential property.
Some common land uses associated with the NACs include:
NAC 1: Residential housing, religious activities, camping and picnicking areas, health services,
hotels, educational services
NAC 2: Retail, business and government services, recreational activities, transit passenger
terminals
NAC 3: Manufacturing, fairgrounds and amusement parks, agricultural and forestry activities
NAC 4: Undeveloped and unused land
Note that, although there is a NAC 4, there are no noise standards for these areas. The full list of NAC
land uses can be found starting on page 21 of this guide or in Minnesota Rule 7030.0050.
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
3
1.3 Common noise concerns
By Minnesota law, the MPCA is empowered to enforce the state’s noise rules. Many other agencies and
levels of government, however, have an important role to play in upholding the noise standards.
Depending on the source and location of the noise, some agencies may be in a better position than
others to help citizens with noise concerns.
Industrial facilities
The MPCA enforces noise standards at facilities for which it has issued an air permit. For complaints
about noise at one of these facilities, please use the Online Citizen Complaints Form. If you prefer, you
may call the MPCA to make your complaint: 651-296-6300 within the Twin Cities metropolitan area or
1-800-657-3864 if you are outside of this area.
Local land uses
Local law enforcement agencies are empowered to enforce Minnesota state rules and laws relating to
the prevention and control of pollution (Minn. Stat. 115.071). Many local governments also have
nuisance noise ordinances or general public nuisance ordinances that can be used to enforce local noise
concerns.
Local governments are required to take reasonable measures to prevent the approval of land use
activities that will violate the state noise standard immediately upon establishment of the land use
(Minn. R. 7030.0030). Municipalities should consider the state noise standard when reviewing and
approving new projects in their jurisdiction. The MPCA can provide some expertise to support this
review process. Please contact noise.pca@state.mn.us.
Roads and highways
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) handles complaints about noise on highways
and other roads it manages. According to Minn. Stat. 116.07.2a, most roads are exempt from
Minnesota’s state noise rules. MnDOT does, however, have policies, agreed on with the MPCA, for
providing noise mitigation when it is determined to be both feasible and reasonable. MPCA reviews
some MnDOT projects and noise mitigation decisions. For further information on MnDOT’s noise
policies, please visit its website.
Vehicles
Minn. R.7030.1000-1060 outlines Minnesota’s state rules relating to motor vehicle noise. In addition to
the state rules, local governments may have nuisance sound ordinances, which are often easier to
enforce than the state rule. As with noise relating to local land-use decisions, contacting your local
government or law enforcement is your best course of action.
Airplanes
The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) responds to all concerns regarding noise relating to
aircraft or the airports. For more information, please see its website.
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
4
Snowmobiles, off-highway vehicles, and motor boats
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has source-specific noise rules for
snowmobiles (Minn. R. 6100.5700.5), off-highway vehicles (Minn. R. 6102.0040.4), and motor boats
(Minn. Stat. 86B.321), requiring them to be equipped with proper mufflers and conform to certain noise
standards. For more information on MDNR regulations for snowmobiles, off-highway vehicles, and
boats, please visit its website.
Mining
The MDNR also has source-specific rules to restrict noise and vibrations from different types of metallic
mining operations (Minn. R. 6130.3900 and 6132.2900). Local governments are relied upon to consider
noise when approving and permitting sand and gravel mining operations. The MPCA enforces noise
standards at mining facilities for which it has issued an air permit. For complaints about noise at one of
these facilities, please use the Online Citizen Complaints Form. If you prefer, you may call the MPCA to
make your complaint: 651-296-6300 within the Twin Cities metropolitan area or 1-800-657-3864 if you
are outside of this area.
Gun clubs
Minn. Stat. 116.07.2a exempts gun clubs from the receiver-based noise standards administered by the
MPCA. However, Minn. Stat. 87A includes some standards regarding gun club noise. Through this
statute, the MDNR is authorized to regulate gun club noise. For further information, please visit its
website.
Motor vehicle race track
Minn. Stat. 116.07.2a exempts motor vehicle race tracks built before July 1, 1996 from Minnesota’s
noise standards. All tracks built since that date must comply with the noise rules. Local governments
have often been successful in working with exempt tracks to mitigate noise concerns by establishing
time and date restrictions, muffler requirements, and noise barriers.
1.4 Regulatory agencies
Several agencies have noise regulations for different noise sources. Noise rules either set standards
based on the source of the noise (source standards) or based on who hears the noise (receiver-based
standards).
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency - The MPCA has a receiver-based standard intended to limit noise
levels and protect the health and welfare of the general public. The MPCA enforces the standard at
facilities for which the agency issues air quality permits. The MPCA also works with other agencies and
levels of government to enforce noise standards and reduce violations through pre-construction project
reviews.
Local Agencies - Local governing agencies, such as a cities and counties, are relied upon to enforce noise
standards relating to local land use and often have ordinances regulating noise levels. They are also
responsible for not allowing land uses that would immediately violate the state noise standard. For
instance, local governments should be cautious of allowing a loud local utility facility to locate in a
residential area.
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
5
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - The MDNR has source standards for snowmobiles,
motorboats, personal watercraft, off-highway vehicles, and gun clubs. MDNR also has source standards
for metallic mining operations. For more information, see its website.
Metropolitan Airport Commission - The MAC is responsible for all noise issues related to the
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and reliever airports. For more information, see its website.
Federal Aviation Administration - The FAA has source regulations for commercial jet engines. All
commercial jet engines must meet noise emission criteria prior to being certified for flight. However, the
Metropolitan Airport Commission is the best contact for noise concerns related to its airports.
Additional information on the FAA’s noise standards can be found on its website.
Minnesota Department of Transportation – MnDOT is responsible for state highway noise mitigation. It
works with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the MPCA to evaluate road projects for
noise impacts and possible mitigation measures. For more information see the Department’s website.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) - The FHWA does not have actual noise standards, but has a
70 dBA L10 guideline that is used to determine federal funding for noise abatement on highway projects.
New highway projects must go through a noise impact analysis and be considered for abatement
measures. Information on FHWA’s noise policies can be found on its website.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) - Regulation of railroad-related noise is the responsibility of the
FRA. For more information see the Administration’s website and to contact them about a noise concern,
call 1-800-724-5040.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) - OSHA has regulations to protect against
hearing loss in the workplace. These are “dose standards” that restrict the amount of noise an employee
receives over a period of time, such as eight hours. For additional information, visit OSHA’s website.
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - HUD has noise regulations that establish acceptable noise
zones for HUD housing projects. More information can be found on HUD’s website.
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
6
2. Basics of how sound works
2.1 Waves and sound pressure level
Sound travels in a wave motion through the air to our ears. A good way to imagine wave motion is with
a weight hanging from a spring. Picture the following diagram (Figure 1) as a single weight and spring
combination varying as time progresses along the horizontal axis.
In Figure 1 the first position of the weight on the spring is at rest with no forces exerted upon the
system. If the weight is raised above its point of rest and the progression of the weight moving down
and up again is observed over a period of time, a wave form is produced.
The amplitude of the moving weight is labeled as “A” in Figure 1 and corresponds with the maximum
movement of the weight from its “at rest” position to the peak of the wave form either up or down. We
hear changes in amplitude as changes in volume.
The period of the vibration is the amount of time taken to produce one complete cycle or, in this
example, how quickly the weight moves from top to bottom and back. The number of cycles per second
defines the frequency of the periodic (up and down) motion, which is given the unit of hertz, or Hz. We
hear different frequencies as higher or lower pitched sounds.
Figure 1. Weight on a spring – example of periodic motion
Figure 1. Weight on a spring – example of periodic motion
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
7
Figure 2 shows how the weight on a string (two-dimensional) example of sound waves compares to the
compression and expansion of sound waves through space (three-dimensional).
The graphical representation of sound waves in Figure 2 is of pure tones, which are sounds made up of a
single frequency. A familiar example of a pure tone is the sound produced when a single key of a piano is
pressed. For instance, the middle C key on a piano vibrates the associated wire at a rate of
approximately 260 times per second or 260 Hertz. The vibration of the wire transfers its motion to the
sound board of the piano, which then vibrates at the same frequency, causing the air adjacent to the
sound board to form compression and expansion waves in the air emitting outward from the sound
board. When received by the human ear, this is regarded as sound. Most sounds are not pure tones, but
a mixture of tones of varying amplitude, frequency, and duration.
The intensity of a sound is the amount of sound energy at a given moment in a given area. The sound
pressure level, measured in a unit called the decibel, or dB, is the ratio between the intensity of a sound
and that of a reference pressure, which is the threshold of perception. The decibel is a logarithmic
measurement which can accommodate a large range of values. The human ear can detect sounds more
than a million times quieter than a jet aircraft during take-off; therefore, to have a system with a
manageable range of numbers, the logarithm is used.
Sound pressure level = 20 Log10 * (Measured Sound Pressure / Reference Pressure)
Reference Pressure = 0.00002 Newtons / (meter)2
Figure 2. Comparison of periodic motion to sound waves
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
8
Many different properties affect the noise level of a specific source type. For example, three lawn
mowers may have three different noise levels because of differences in each specific piece of
equipment. Noise level also depends on the distance from the noise source and features of the
surrounding environment.
Figure 3 provides a rough estimate of decibel levels of some common noise sources.
2.2 Sound weighting networks
Sound level meters (SLM) used for monitoring can pick up sounds as a perfect computer, but the human
ear is not as precise. The human ear cannot hear very low frequencies or very high frequencies.
Weighting networks are used in noise monitors to adjust specific frequencies in the audio spectrum to
attempt to duplicate the response of the human ear.
The C-weighting network represents the actual sound pressure level that is received by the sound level
meter, and does not noticeably vary in its amount of compensation throughout the audio spectrum.
C-weighting is used during the calibration of sound level meters to ensure that the sound level displayed
on the meter is accurate and the same as the frequency of the calibrator.
The A-weighting network is used to duplicate the sensitivity of the human ear. At 100 Hertz, the
A-weighting network filters out approximately 20 dB from the incoming signal before it is combined with
the levels from the other frequency ranges to produce an A-weighted sound level.
Figure 3. Decibel levels of common noise sources
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
9
The graph in Figure 4 represents the sensitivity of the human ear in comparison to the compensation of
a C-weighting network and an A-weighting network. This illustration is useful in understanding how the
ear is inefficient in the detection of lower frequencies and is very sensitive to higher frequencies.
2.3 Human perception of sound
Sound has qualitative aspects that can be described with adjectives and quantitative aspects that can be
described with measurements. Sound can be qualitatively perceived as pleasant or annoying, and
quantitatively (as loudness) measured in terms of decibels.
Changes in loudness are described on a logarithmic scale because the human ear can hear such a wide
range of sound levels. The human ear can usually tell the difference when sound changes by 3 dBA and a
5 dBA change is clearly noticeable. Because of how the logarithmic scale functions in compressing the
measurements associated with sounds, an increase of 10 dBA sounds twice as loud.
Figure 4. Weighting networks with sound measurements done in the A-weighting
network are reported with the unit dBA
Figure 5. Change in decibel level and perceived change in loudness
± 1 dBA…………………….. Not Noticeable
± 3 dBA…………………….. Threshold of Perception
± 5 dBA…………………….. Noticeable Change
± 10 dBA…………………… Twice (Half) As Loud
± 20 dBA…………………… Four Times (One Fourth) As
Loud
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
10
Figure 6. Distance attenuation of noise levels from a point source (top) and a line source (bottom)
2.4 Using decibel measurements
Addition and subtraction of decibels is often necessary for estimating total noise levels or background
noise. Because decibels are measured using a logarithmic scale, conventional linear mathematics cannot
be used. The following rules of thumb provide a good estimate of the effect that type, distance, and
number of sources have on measured sound pressure level.
Sound propagation and sources
Sources of sound can be defined as point or line sources, based on the way sound pressure waves
spread away from the source. Sound waves move out from sources in a way similar to waves traveling
away from a rock dropped in a pond. A point source, like a factory, emits sound that spreads out in a
sphere. A line source, like a busy highway, emits sound that spreads out in a cylinder. Knowing the
sources of sounds makes it possible to make assumptions about how the sound behaves.
Distance attenuation
Over distance, sound attenuates, or is reduced in amplitude, and is perceived as becoming quieter. This
occurs as the sound travels outward to an increasingly larger sphere or cylinder, and the energy per unit
of area decreases. These basic principles allow us to make generalized assumptions about sound.
When the distance is doubled from a line source, the sound level decreases three decibels.
Example: If a sound level is: 70 decibels at 50 feet it will be
67 decibels at 100 feet, and
64 decibels at 200 feet
When the distance is doubled from a point source, the sound level decreases six decibels (Figure 6).
Example: If a sound level is: 70 decibels at 50 feet it will be
64 decibels at 100 feet, and
58 decibels at 200 feet
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
11
Number of sources
In many situations pertaining to noise control and monitoring, it is very useful to be able to add and
subtract multiple sources of sound. This can be done with principles similar to how sound attenuation
over distance is estimated.
A doubling of sound energy yields an increase of three decibels. For example, each generator at a
factory produces sound that is measured at 70 decibels, so running one generator would create sound
measured at 70 dBA, turning on a second generator would increase sound by 3 dBA to 73 dBA, and
doubling again to four generators would increase sound levels to 76 dBA. Figure 7 illustrates this
principle.
In the same way, reducing the number of sources by half will reduce the sound pressure by 3 dBA.
Consider the perception of changes in decibel levels (Figure 5) compared to the example of addition or
subtraction of sources (Figure 7). Doubling sources yields an increase of 3 dBA, which is a change that is
just perceptible.
Background noise
Background, or ambient, noise consists of all noise sources other than the noise source of concern. This
can include traffic, animals, machinery, voices, and other sounds.
Wind is often a major source of ambient noise and can frequently be a problem when trying to monitor
a specific source of noise. The MPCA’s noise test procedures state that measurements should not be
made when noise from wind or precipitation results in a difference of less than 10 dBA between the
background sound level and noise source being measured. In practice, this means that wind speeds
must be below 11 mph when making noise measurements and rainy weather conditions should be
avoided. When background noise is less than 10 dBA from the decibel level of the noise source to be
measured, confidence in the accuracy of the measurement decreases.
Figure 7. Addition and subtraction of decibel levels
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
12
In certain instances, when a single noise source is analyzed along with other noise sources, correction
factors can be used to isolate the noise source being monitored and calculate its individual noise level.
This is done by measuring and recording the total noise level of all sources. Next, the noise source to be
isolated is turned off and a noise level reading is taken with all the other existing noise sources in
operation. The background noise level is then subtracted from the total noise level. The result is used in
conjunction with the following background noise correction chart (Figure 8) to find the approximate
noise level of the source.
Figure 8 is a graph used to estimate the amount of background noise influencing a measurement. Based
on the measured background noise it gives the corresponding decibel level to be subtracted from the
total measurement to determine the decibel level of the noise source being monitored.
For example, if the total noise level is 74 dBA, and then falls to 70 dBA when the source of interest is
turned off, the difference of four decibels between the total noise level and background noise indicates
that two decibels should be subtracted from the total. This means that a 72 dBA noise level can be
attributed to the monitored source in the absence of background noise.
Figure 8. Background noise correction
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
13
3. Measurement procedures
This guide contains two measurement procedures. The general protocols remain the same, but your
choice of procedure depends on the capabilities of your sound level meter (SLM). Noise Test Procedure
1 (NTP-1) should be used if your SLM is capable of calculating monitoring results and Noise Test
Procedure 2 (NTP-2) should be used if your SLM only displays instantaneous readings.
3.1 General procedures
Sound level meter
Your sound level meter and microphone must comply with the specifications for ANSI S1.4-1983 Type 0,
1, 2, or S.
Calibration
You must also have a calibrator of a known frequency and sound level. Calibrators should be compared
to a lab standard periodically. Calibration must be performed before and after the monitoring period.
Adjustments should be made if necessary.
Weather conditions
Measurements should not be made when noise from wind or precipitation results in a difference
between the background sound level and noise source being measured that is less than 10 dBA. In
practice, this means that wind speeds must be below 11 mph and rainy weather conditions should be
avoided. Temperature and humidity should be within equipment specifications.
Background noise
As mentioned in the previous section, background noise is any ambient noise other than the noise to be
measured, including wind, precipitation, traffic, etc. The difference between the sound level of the
source being monitored and that of the background noise must be less than 10dBA. See page 11 for
suggestions on how to correct for background noise.
Location of measurement
Properly choosing a monitoring location is an important consideration. Measurements should be made
in the appropriate NAC, at the area of normal outdoor human activity nearest to the noise source. The
monitoring location may not necessarily be at the property line; for instance, if the property of the
complainant is large and residential outdoor activity is limited to a backyard patio (possibly such as on a
farm).
Measurements must be made outdoors from at least three feet off of the ground (a tripod is helpful for
this). Another important part of site selection is the consideration of errors caused by reflecting objects,
such as a house or other large manmade or natural structures. Measurements should be made at least
as far away from any large reflecting object as from the noise source being measured. If this is not
possible, stay at least 30 feet from structures.
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
14
Documentation of measurement
A survey form must be completed containing date, time, location, noise source, wind speed/direction,
temperature, humidity, equipment information (make, model, serial number), site sketch with the
location of the noise source and measurement location (including appropriate distances), data and
calibration information. A sample survey form can be found on page 16.
3.2 Noise Test Procedure 1: Measurement procedure for non-
impulsive noise
The following test procedure has been approved by the Commissioner of the MPCA for the
measurement of non-impulsive noise. The general procedures described above (3.1 General procedures)
should be followed whether you are using the NTP-1 or NTP-2 procedures.
Instrumentation:
Sound level meter and a microphone conforming to type 0, 1, 2, or S specifications under ANSI S1.4-
1983
Calibrator of known frequency and level
Small screwdriver for sensitivity adjustment
Microphone windscreen
Noise survey form
Tripod (optional)
Monitoring procedure:
Monitoring must be conducted for at least a one hour time period. Sound meter must use the "A"
weighting and FAST response characteristics. Follow your manufacturer instructions to obtain the L10
and L50 results.
3.3 Noise Test Procedure 2: Manual measurement procedure for non-
impulsive noise
The following test procedure has been approved by the Commissioner of the MPCA for the
measurement of non-impulsive noise. The general procedures described above (3.1 General procedures)
should be followed whether you are using the NTP-1 or NTP-2 procedures. The NTP-2 procedure is to be
used with SLMs that cannot calculate noise statistics and only provide instantaneous readings.
Instrumentation:
Sound level meter and a microphone conforming to type 0, 1, 2, or S specifications under ANSI S1.4-
1983
Calibrator of known frequency and level
Small screwdriver for sensitivity adjustment
Microphone windscreen
Noise survey form
Tripod (optional)
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
15
Manual monitoring procedure:
Using a hand-held SLM, take an instantaneous sound reading every 10 seconds and record on a data
sheet. A partner is very helpful.
Continue taking sound readings for one hour, which will give you 360 individual readings. Figure 9
provides an example of a manual monitoring data sheet.
To determine the L10, take the 36th loudest (10 percent of 360 = 36) individual sound reading by
counting from the loudest to the quietest on the data sheet. For example, in Figure 9, the L10 = 63 and is
the 36th X from the top of the sheet.
To determine the L50, take the 180th loudest (50 percent of 360 = 180) individual sound reading. In
Figure 9, the L50 = 57 and represents the 180th X from the top of the sheet.
Figure 9. Example manual monitoring data sheet
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
16
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
17
Noise survey
Investigator ______________________________________ Date _________________________
SLM Manufacturer and Model _______________________ Serial Number_________________
Calibrator Manufacturer and Model ____________________________________________________
Calibrator Serial Number____________________________ Calibrator Frequency (Hz) ____________
Initial Calibration (dBA) ___________ Final Calibration (dBA) ___________
Meteorological Conditions: Wind Speed ________ Direction ________ Temperature________
Source ________________________________________________________________________
Monitor Location _______________________________________________________________
Time Start _______________ Time End _________________
Results L10 _________dBA L50 _________dBA
Diagram (Indicate noise source, receiver, microphone location, reflecting objects, obstructions,
landmarks, and distances)
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
18
4. Minnesota noise pollution statutes and rules
Minn. Stat. § 116.07 POWERS AND DUTIES.
Subdivision 1. Generally. In addition to any powers or duties otherwise
prescribed by law and without limiting the same, the Pollution Control Agency shall have
the powers and duties hereinafter specified.
Subd. 2. Adoption of standards. (c) The Pollution Control Agency shall also
adopt standards describing the maximum levels of noise in terms of sound pressure
level which may occur in the outdoor atmosphere, recognizing that due to variable
factors no single standard of sound pressure is applicable to all areas of the state. Such
standards shall give due consideration to such factors as the intensity of noises, the
types of noises, the frequency with which noises recur, the time period for which noises
continue, the times of day during which noises occur, and such other factors as could
affect the extent to which noises may be injurious to human health or welfare, animal or
plant life, or property, or could interfere unreasonably with the enjoyment of life or
property. In adopting standards, the Pollution Control Agency shall give due recognition
to the fact that the quantity or characteristics of noise or the duration of its presence in
the outdoor atmosphere, which may cause noise pollution in one area of the state, may
cause less or not cause any noise pollution in another area of the state, and it shall take
into consideration in this connection such factors, including others which it may deem
proper, as existing physical conditions, zoning classifications, topography,
meteorological conditions and the fact that a standard which may be proper in an
essentially residential area of the state, may not be proper as to a highly developed
industrial area of the state. Such noise standards shall be premised upon scientific
knowledge as well as effects based on technically substantiated criteria and commonly
accepted practices. No local governing unit shall set standards describing the maximum
levels of sound pressure which are more stringent than those set by the Pollution
Control Agency.
Subd. 2a. Exemptions from standards No standards adopted by any state
agency for limiting levels of noise in terms of sound pressure which may occur in the
outdoor atmosphere shall apply to (1) segments of trunk highways constructed with
federal interstate substitution money, provided that all reasonably available noise
mitigation measures are employed to abate noise, (2) an existing or newly constructed
segment of a highway, provided that all reasonably available noise mitigation measures,
as approved by the commissioners of the Department of Transportation and Pollution
Control Agency, are employed to abate noise, (3) except for the cities of Minneapolis
and St. Paul, an existing or newly constructed segment of a road, street, or highway
under the jurisdiction of a road authority of a town, statutory or home rule charter city,
or county, except for roadways for which full control of access has been acquired, (4)
skeet, trap or shooting sports clubs, or (5) motor vehicle race events conducted at a
facility specifically designed for that purpose that was in operation on or before July 1,
1996. Nothing herein shall prohibit a local unit of government or a public corporation
with the power to make rules for the government of its real property from regulating
the location and operation of skeet, trap or shooting sports clubs, or motor vehicle race
events conducted at a facility specifically designed for that purpose that was in
operation on or before July 1, 1996.
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
19
Minn. Rules § 7030 NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL
7030.0010 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE.
For the purpose of chapter 7030, American National Standards Institute, Specification
for Sound Level Meters, S1.4-1983 is incorporated by reference. This publication is
available from the American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York,
N.Y. 10018 and can be found at: the offices of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
1935 West County Road B-2, Roseville, Minnesota 55113; the Government Documents
Section, Room 409, Wilson Library, University of Minnesota, 309 19th Avenue South,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454; and the State of Minnesota Law Library, 25 Rev. Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155. This document is not subject
to frequent change.
The Federal Highway Administration publication, Sound Procedures for
Measuring Highway Noise: Final Report, FHWA-DP-45-1R (August 1981) is incorporated
by reference. This publication is available from the United States Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1000 North Globe Road, Arlington,
Virginia 22201 and can be found at: the offices of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, 1935 West County Road B-2, Roseville, Minnesota 55113; the Government
Documents Section, Room 409, Wilson Library, University of Minnesota, 309 19th
Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454; and the State of Minnesota Law Library,
25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155. This document is
not subject to frequent change.
7030.0020 DEFINITIONS.
Subpart 1. Application. The terms used in this chapter have the meanings given
them in this part.
Subp. 2. A-weighted. "A-weighted" means a specific weighting of the sound
pressure level for the purpose of determining the human response to sound. The
specific weighting characteristics and tolerances are those given in American National
Standards Institute S1.4-1983, section 5.1.
Subp. 3. Daytime. "Daytime" means those hours from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Subp. 4. dB(A). "dB(A)" means a unit of sound level expressed in decibels (dB)
and A-weighted.
Subp. 5. Decibel. "Decibel" means a unit of sound pressure level, abbreviated as
dB.
Subp. 6. Impulsive noise. "Impulsive noise" means either a single sound
pressure peak (with either a rise time less than 200 milliseconds or total duration less
than 200 milliseconds) or multiple sound pressure peaks (with either rise times less than
200 milliseconds or total duration less than 200 milliseconds) spaced at least by 200
millisecond pauses.
Subp. 7. L10. "L10" means the sound level, expressed in dB(A), which is exceeded
ten percent of the time for a one hour survey, as measured by test procedures approved
by the commissioner.
Subp. 8. L50. "L50" means the sound level, expressed in dB(A), which is exceeded
50 percent of the time for a one hour survey, as measured by test procedures approved
by the commissioner.
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
20
Subp. 9. Municipality. "Municipality" means a county; a city; a town; a regional
planning and development commission established under Minnesota Statutes, chapter
473; the metropolitan council; or other governmental subdivision of the state
responsible by law for controlling or restricting land use within its jurisdiction.
Subp. 10. Nighttime. "Nighttime" means those hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00
a.m.
Subp. 11. Person. "Person" means any human being, any municipality or other
governmental or political subdivision or other public department or agency, any public
or private corporation, any partnership, firm, association, or other organization, any
receiver, trustee, assignee, agency, legal entity, other than a court of law, or any legal
representative of any of the foregoing, but does not include the agency.
Subp. 12. Sound pressure level. "Sound pressure level", in decibels, means 20
times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure to the reference
pressure. The reference pressure shall be 20 micronewtons per square meter.
7030.0030 NOISE CONTROL REQUIREMENT.
No person may violate the standards established in part 7030.0040, unless exempted by
Minnesota Statutes, section 116.07, subdivision 2a. Any municipality having authority to
regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures within its jurisdiction to prevent the
establishment of land use activities listed in noise area classification (NAC) 1, 2, or 3 in
any location where the standards established in part 7030.0040 will be violated
immediately upon establishment of the land use.
7030.0040 NOISE STANDARDS.
Subpart 1. Scope. These standards describe the limiting levels of sound
established on the basis of present knowledge for the preservation of public health and
welfare. These standards are consistent with speech, sleep, annoyance, and hearing
conservation requirements for receivers within areas grouped according to land
activities by the noise area classification (NAC) system established in part 7030.0050.
However, these standards do not, by themselves, identify the limiting levels of impulsive
noise needed for the preservation of public health and welfare. Noise standards in
subpart 2 apply to all sources.
Subp. 2. Noise standards.
Noise Area
Classification
Daytime Nighttime
L10 L50 L10 L50
1 65 60 55 50
2 70 65 70 65
3 80 75 80 75
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
21
7030.0050 NOISE AREA CLASSIFICATION.
Subpart 1. Applicability. The noise area classification is based on the land use
activity at the location of the receiver and determines the noise standards applicable to
that land use activity unless an exception is applied under subpart 3.
Subp. 2. Noise area classifications. The noise area classifications and the
activities included in each classification are listed below:
Noise Area
Classification
Land Use Activities
1
Household Units (includes farm houses) Transient lodging
Group quarters Mobile home parks or courts
Residential hotels Other residential
Cultural activities and nature exhibitions Medical and other health services
Correctional institutions Educational services
Religious activities Motion picture production
Entertainment assembly Resorts and group camps
Camping and picnicking areas
(designated)
Other cultural, entertainment, and
recreational activities.
2
Railroad terminals (passenger) Bus passenger terminals (intercity)
Railroad terminals (passenger and
freight)
Bus passenger terminals (local)
Rapid rail transit and street railway
passenger terminals
Bus passenger terminals (intercity and
local)
Other motor vehicle transportation Marine terminals (passenger)
Airport and flying field terminals
(passenger)
Marine terminals (passenger and freight)
Airport and flying field terminals
(passenger
and freight)
Automobile parking
Telegraph message centers Transportation services and
arrangements
Wholesale trade Retail trade -- apparel and accessories
Retail trade -- building materials,
hardware, and farm equipment
Retail trade -- automotive, marine craft,
aircraft, and accessories
Retail trade -- general merchandise Retail trade -- furniture, home
furnishings, and equipment
Retail trade -- food Retail trade -- eating and drinking
Other retail trade Finance, insurance, and real estate
services
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
22
Personal services Repair services
Business services Legal services
Other professional services Contract construction services
Governmental services (except
correctional institutions)
Miscellaneous services (except religious
activities)
Public assembly (except entertainment
assembly and race tracks)
Amusements (except fairgrounds and
amusement parks)
Recreational activities (except
designated camping and picnicking
areas)
Parks.
3
Food and kindred products --
manufacturing
Textile mill products -- manufacturing
Apparel and other finished products
made from fabrics, leather,
and similar materials -- manufacturing
Lumber and wood products (except
furniture) -- manufacturing
Furniture and fixtures -- manufacturing Printing, publishing, and allied industries
Paper and allied products --
manufacturing
Chemicals and allied products --
manufacturing
Petroleum refining and related industries Primary metal industries
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic
products -- manufacturing
Stone, clay, and glass products --
manufacturing
Professional, scientific, and controlling
instruments; photographic and optical
goods; watches and clocks --
manufacturing
Railroad, rapid transit, and street railway
transportation (except passenger
terminals)
Miscellaneous manufacturing (except
motion picture production)
Fabricated metal products --
manufacturing
Motor vehicle transportation (except
passenger terminals)
Aircraft transportation (except passenger
terminals)
Marine craft transportation (except
passenger and freight terminals)
Communication (except telegraph
message centers)
Highway and street right-of-way Utilities
Race tracks
Fairgrounds and amusement parks Agricultural
Agricultural and related activities Fishing activities and related services
Other transportation, communication,
and utilities (except transportation
services and arrangements)
Forestry activities and related services
(including commercial forest land, timber
production, and other related activities)
All other activities not otherwise listed.
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
23
4
Undeveloped and unused land area
(excluding non-commercial forest
development)
Non-commercial forest development
Water areas Vacant floor area
Under construction Other undeveloped land and water
areas.
Subp. 3. Exceptions. The noise area classification for a land use may be changed
in the following ways if the applicable conditions are met.
A. The daytime standards for noise area classification 1 shall be applied to
noise area classification 1 during the nighttime if the land use activity does not include
overnight lodging.
B. The standards for a building in a noise area classification 2 shall be
applied to a building in a noise area classification 1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) the building is constructed in such a way that the exterior to interior
sound level attenuation is at least 30 dB(A);
(2) the building has year-round climate control; and
(3) the building has no areas or accommodations that are intended for
outdoor activities
C. The standards for a building in a noise area classification 3 shall be
applied to a building in a noise area classification 1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) the building is constructed in such a way that the exterior to interior
sound level attenuation is at least 40 dB(A);
(2) the building has year-round climate control; and
(3) the building has no areas or accommodations that are intended for
outdoor activities.
D. The standards for a building in a noise area classification 3 shall be
applied to a building in a noise area classification 2 if the following conditions are met:
(1) the building is constructed in such a way that the exterior to interior
sound level attenuation is at least 30 dB(A);
(2) the building has year-round climate control; and
(3) the building has no areas or accommodations that are intended for
outdoor activities.
7030.0060 MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY.
Subpart 1. Measurement location. Measurement of sound must be made at or
within the applicable NAC at the point of human activity which is nearest to the noise
source. All measurements shall be made outdoors.
Subp. 2. Equipment specifications. All sound level measuring devices must
meet Type O, I, II, or S specifications under American National Standards Institute S1.4-
1983.
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
24
Subp. 3. Calibration. All sound level measuring devices must, at a minimum, be
externally field calibrated before and after monitoring using a calibration device of
known frequency and sound pressure level.
Subp. 4. Measurement procedures. The following procedures must be used to
obtain representative sound level measurements:
A. Measurements must be made at least three feet off the ground or
surface and away from natural or artificial structures which would prevent an accurate
measurement.
B. Measurements must be made using the A-weighting and fast response
characteristics of the sound measuring device as specified in American National
Standards Institute S1.4-1983.
C. Measurements must not be made in sustained winds or in precipitation
which results in a difference of less than ten decibels between the background noise
level and the noise source being measured.
D. Measurements must be made using a microphone which is protected
from ambient conditions which would prevent an accurate measurement.
Subp. 5. Data documentation. A summary sheet for all sound level
measurements shall be completed and signed by the person making the measurements.
At a minimum, the summary sheet shall include:
A. Date
B. Time
C. Location
D. Noise source
E. Wind speed and direction
F. Temperature
G. Humidity
H. Make, model, and serial number of measuring equipment
I. Field calibration results
J. Monitored levels
K. Site sketch indicating noise source, measurement location, directions,
distances, and obstructions.
7030.0070 SOUND ATTENUATION MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY.
Subpart 1. Purpose. Sound level measurements made for assessing sound
attenuation as specified in part 7030.0050, subpart 3, item B, C, or D, shall be made
according to the requirements of this part.
Subp. 2. Equipment. The equipment shall meet the requirements specified in
part 7030.0060, subpart 2.
Subp. 3. Calibration. The equipment must meet the calibration requirements
specified in part 7030.0060, subpart 3.
Subp. 4. Measurement procedure.
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
25
The measurement procedure described in FHWA-DP-45-1R, section 8 must be used for
determination of the sound attenuation.
Subp. 5. Equivalent methods. Methods equivalent to those described in subpart
4 may be used provided they are approved by the commissioner of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency. The commissioner shall approve an alternative method if the
commissioner finds that the method will produce representative data and results which
are as reliable as the methods specified in subpart 4.
7030.0080 VARIANCE.
If, upon written application of the responsible person, the agency finds that by reason of
exceptional circumstances strict conformity with any provisions of any noise rule would
cause undue hardship, would be unreasonable, impractical, or not feasible under the
circumstances, the agency may permit a variance upon the conditions and within the
time limitations as it may prescribe for the prevention, control, or abatement of noise
pollution in harmony with the intent of the state and any applicable federal laws.
7030.1000 DEFINITION.
"Motor vehicle" means any self-propelled vehicle not operated exclusively upon railroad
tracks and any vehicle propelled or drawn by a self-propelled vehicle and includes
vehicles known as trackless trolleys which are propelled by electric power obtained from
overhead trolley wires but not operated upon rails, except snowmobiles.
7030.1010 PROHIBITIONS.
Subpart 1. Operation of vehicle. No person shall operate either a motor vehicle
or combination of vehicles of a type subject to registration pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, chapter 168 at any time or under any condition of grade, load, acceleration, or
deceleration in such a manner as to exceed the noise limits contained herein for the
category of motor vehicle and speed limits specified, when tested with a measurement
procedure approved by the commissioner.
Subp. 2. Sale of vehicle. No person shall sell or offer for sale a new motor
vehicle or combination of vehicles of a type subject to registration pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, chapter 168 which when maintained according to the
manufacturer's specifications would exceed the noise limits contained herein for the
category of motor vehicle and speed limits specified, when tested with a measurement
procedure approved by the commissioner.
Subp. 3. Modification of vehicle. No person shall modify a motor vehicle or
combination of vehicles of a type subject to registration pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, chapter 168 in a manner which will amplify or increase the noise emitted by
the vehicle, above the noise limits contained herein for the category of motor vehicle
and speed limits specified, when tested with a measurement procedure approved by
the commissioner. No person shall operate a motor vehicle so modified.
Subp. 4. Sale of parts. No person shall sell or offer for sale replacement or
additional parts for a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles of a type subject to
registration pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 168 which when installed in the
vehicle will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the vehicle, above the noise limits
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
26
contained herein for the category of motor vehicle and speed limits specified, when
tested with a measurement procedure approved by the commissioner. No person shall
operate a motor vehicle incorporating such parts.
7030.1020 SCOPE.
This chapter applies to the total noise from a vehicle or combination of vehicles of a
type subject to registration pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 168 and shall not
be construed as limiting or precluding the enforcement of any other provision of law
relating to motor vehicle exhaust noise.
7030.1030 EXCEPTIONS.
Vehicles under parts 7030.1050 and 7030.1060 are allowed to exceed the noise limits
contained herein when performing acceleration maneuvers for safety purposes.
7030.1040 NOISE LIMIT FOR VEHICLES OVER 10,000 POUNDS.
Motor vehicle noise limits for vehicles with a manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating
of more than 10,000 pounds and any combination of vehicles towed by such motor
vehicle.
A. Speed limits greater than 35 mph.
B. Speed limits equal to or less than 35 mph and stationary run-up tests (for
vehicles with governed engines). For stationary run-up tests on all-paved surfaces, add 2 dBA.
C. Speed limits equal to or less than 35 mph and stationary run-up tests (for
vehicles with governed engines), for vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1978. For
stationary run-up tests on all-paved surfaces, add 2 dBA.
D. Speed limits equal to or less than 35 mph and stationary run-up tests (for
vehicles with governed engines), for vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1982. For
stationary run-up tests on all-paved surfaces, add 2 dBA.
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
27
7030.1050 MOTOR VEHICLE NOISE LIMITS FOR MOTORCYCLES.
A. For vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1975.
B. Speed limits greater than 35 mph for vehicles manufactured on or after
January 1, 1975.
C. Speed limits equal to or less than 35 mph for vehicles manufactured on or after
January 1, 1975.
7030.1060 NOISE LIMITS FOR OTHER VEHICLES.
Motor vehicle noise limits for any other motor vehicle not included under parts
7030.1040 and 7030.1050 and any combination of vehicles towed by such motor
vehicle.
Minn. Stat. § 86B WATERCRAFT OPERATION
86B.321 NOISE LIMITS.
Subdivision 1. Operation in excess of noise limits prohibited. A person may not
operate a motorboat under any condition of load, acceleration, or deceleration in a
manner that exceeds the noise limits contained in subdivision 2.
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
28
Subd. 2. Noise limits. (a) The noise limits for the total noise from the marine
engine or motorboat may not exceed:
(1) for marine engines or motorboats manufactured before January 1, 1982, a
noise level of 84 decibels on the A scale measured at a distance of 50 feet from the
motorboat or equivalent noise levels at other distances as specified by the
commissioner in a pass-by test or 86 decibels on the A scale measured at idle in a
stationary test at least four feet above the water and at least four feet behind the
transom of the motorboat being tested; and
(2) for marine engines or motorboats manufactured on or after January 1, 1982, a
noise level of 82 decibels on the A scale measured at a distance of 50 feet from the
motorboat or equivalent noise levels at other distances as specified by the
commissioner in a pass-by test or 84 decibels on the A scale measured at idle in a
stationary test at least four feet above the water and at least four feet behind the
transom of the motorboat being tested.
(b) The noise limits in paragraph (a) do not preclude enforcement of other laws
relating to motorboat noise. The officer or deputy doing the testing shall determine
which test or tests shall be used. Failure to pass either the pass-by or stationary idle test
is a violation of this section.
(c) Equivalent noise levels under paragraph (a) shall be specified by the
commissioner by written order and published in the State Register. The noise level
determinations are exempt from the rulemaking provisions of chapter 14 and section
14.386 does not apply.
Subd. 3. Applicability. The provisions of this section do not apply to motorboats
operating under a permit issued under section 86B.121 or a United States Coast Guard
marine event permit in a regatta or race while on trial runs or while on official trials for
speed records during the time and in the designated area authorized by the permit.
86B.521 MOTORBOAT NOISE CONTROL.
Subdivision. 1. Exhaust muffling system required. A motor may not be used on
a motorboat unless it is equipped with an efficient muffler, underwater exhaust, or
other device that adequately muffles or suppresses the sound of the exhaust of the
motor so as to prevent excessive or unusual noise. A motor may not be equipped with
an altered muffler, muffler cutout, muffler bypass, or any other device designed or
installed so that it can be used to continually or intermittently bypass any muffler or
muffler system installed in the motorboat or to reduce or eliminate the effectiveness of
such a muffler or muffler system.
Subd. 2. Sale of motor that exceeds noise limits prohibited.
A person may not sell or offer for sale a marine engine or motorboat that would exceed
the noise limits contained in section 86B.321, subdivision 2, under a test procedure
approved by the commissioner if the motor is maintained according to the
manufacturer's specifications.
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
29
Subd. 3. Modification of engine to exceed noise limits prohibited. (a) A person
may not modify a marine engine or motorboat in a manner that will amplify or increase
the noise emitted by the marine engine or motorboat above the noise limits contained
in section 86B.321, subdivision 2, under a test procedure approved by the
commissioner.
(b) A person may not operate a motorboat with an engine modified to increase
noise above the noise limits.
Subd. 4. Sale of parts that cause excessive noise prohibited. (a) A person may not
sell or offer for sale replacement or additional parts for a marine engine or motorboat
which when installed in the marine engine or motorboat will amplify or increase the
noise emitted by the marine engine or motorboat above the noise limits contained in
section 86B.321, subdivision 2, under a test procedure approved by the commissioner.
(b) A person may not operate a motorboat incorporating parts prohibited to be
sold under paragraph (a).
Subd. 5. Applicability. The provisions of this section do not apply to motorboats
operating under a permit issued under section 86B.121 or a United States Coast Guard
marine event permit in a regatta, or race, while on trial runs, or while on official trials
for speed records during the time and in the designated area authorized by the permit.
Subd. 6. Rulemaking exemption. The test procedures under subdivisions 2, 3, and
4 shall be established by written order by the commissioner and published in the State
Register. The establishment of test procedures is exempt from the rulemaking
provisions of chapter 14 and section 14.386 does not apply.
Minn. Stat. § 84.8 SNOWMOBILES
84.871 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS.
Subdivision. 1. Mufflers. Except as provided in this section, every snowmobile
shall be equipped at all times with a muffler in good working order which blends the
exhaust noise into the overall snowmobile noise and is in constant operation to prevent
excessive or unusual noise. The exhaust system shall not emit or produce a sharp
popping or crackling sound. This section does not apply to organized races or similar
competitive events held on (1) private lands, with the permission of the owner, lessee,
or custodian of the land; (2) public lands and water under the jurisdiction of the
commissioner of natural resources, with the commissioner's permission; or (3) other
public lands, with the consent of the public agency owning the land. No person shall
have for sale, sell, or offer for sale on any new snowmobile any muffler that fails to
comply with the specifications required by the rules of the commissioner after the
effective date of the rules.
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
30
6100.5700 REQUIRED EQUIPMENT.
Subp. 5. Mufflers. Mufflers:
A. No person shall operate a snowmobile unless it is equipped with a muffler as
required by law and these rules, except that snowmobiles may be operated in organized
events as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, section 84.871, without such a muffler.
B. No snowmobile manufactured on or after June 30, 1970, and before February
1, 1972, for sale in Minnesota, except snowmobiles designed for competition purposes
only, shall be sold, or offered for sale, unless it is equipped with a muffler that limits
engine noise to not more than 86 decibels on the A scale at 50 feet.
C. No snowmobile manufactured on or after February 1, 1972, for sale in
Minnesota, except snowmobiles designed for competition purposes only, shall be sold,
or offered for sale, unless it is equipped with a muffler that limits engine noise to not
more than 82 decibels on the A scale at 50 feet.
D. No snowmobile manufactured on or after April 1, 1975, except a snowmobile
designed for competition purposes only, shall be sold, offered for sale, or operated in
Minnesota unless it is so equipped and has been certified by the manufacturer to
conform to a sound level limitation of not more than 78 decibels on the A scale at 50
feet as originally equipped.
E. In certifying that a new snowmobile complies with the noise limitation
requirements of this rule, a manufacturer shall make such a certification based on
measurements made in accordance with the SAE Recommended Practice J192(a), as set
forth in the Report of the Vehicle Sound Level Committee, as approved by the Society of
Automotive Engineers September 1970 and revised November 1973.
F. No snowmobile shall be sold or offered for sale in Minnesota unless its maker
has previously furnished the commissioner with a certificate of compliance certifying
that all snowmobiles made by that maker meet or exceed the applicable noise level
restrictions established by these rules. The certification of compliance shall be in the
form of a "Snowmobile Safety Certification Committee" label conspicuously attached to
the machine showing certification by the Snowmobile Safety and Certification
Committee, Inc., or a label showing compliance with Snowmobile Safety Certification
Committee standards accompanied by a letter containing test results of an evaluation of
noise levels by a competent independent testing laboratory. Snowmobiles intended for
competition purposes only shall be exempt from this part provided a separate placard
identifying that such snowmobile is not so equipped is conspicuously and permanently
affixed thereto.
G. Except for organized events as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, section
84.871, no snowmobile shall be modified by any person in any manner that shall amplify
or otherwise increase total noise level above that emitted by the snowmobile as
originally equipped, regardless of date of manufacture.
A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota • November 2015 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
31
Minn. Stat. § 87A. SHOOTING RANGES
87A.05 NOISE STANDARDS.
Allowable noise levels for the operation of a shooting range are the levels determined
by replacing the steady state noise L10 and L50 state standards for each period of time
within each noise area's classification with a single Leq(h) standard for impulsive noise
that is two dBA lower than that of the L10 level for steady state noise. The noise level
shall be measured outside of the range property at the location of the receiver's activity
according to Minnesota Rules, parts 7030.0010 to 7030.0080, as in effect on May 28,
2005. For purposes of this section, "Leq(h)" means the energy level that is equivalent to
a steady state level that contains the same amount of sound energy as the time varying
sound level for a 60-minute time period.
Minn. Rules § 6102, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES
6102.0002 DEFINITIONS.
Subpart 1. Scope. For the purposes of parts 6102.0002 to 6102.0080, the terms
defined in this part have the meanings given them.
Subp. 2. ATV. "ATV" means an all-terrain vehicle.
Subp. 3. Commissioner. "Commissioner" means the commissioner of Natural
Resources.
Subp. 4. Department. "Department" means the Department of Natural
Resources.
Subp. 5. OHM. "OHM" means an off-highway motorcycle.
Subp. 6. ORV. "ORV" means an off-road vehicle.
Subp. 7. Vehicle. "Vehicle" means an OHM, ORV, or ATV.
6102.0040 REQUIRED EQUIPMENT.
Subp. 4. Mufflers.
A. No person shall operate a vehicle unless it is equipped with a muffler
having a spark arrestor approved by the United States Forest Service as described by
Code of Federal Regulations, title 36, chapter II, section 261.52, paragraph (j).
B. Vehicles shall not be sold, offered for sale, or operated in this state
unless equipped so that overall noise emission does not exceed a sound level limitation
of not more than 99 decibels on the A scale from a distance of 20 inches using test
procedures and instrumentation as set forth in the Society of Automotive Engineers'
Standard, SAE J1287, June 1988, or, if different procedures or instrumentation are used,
a noise level equivalent to that level.
C. No noise suppressing system or muffler shall be equipped with a
cutout, bypass, or similar device and no person shall modify or alter that system or its
operation in any manner which will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the
vehicle's motor to exceed the noise limits established in this subpart, except for
organized events as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, sections 84.795, subdivision 7;
84.804, subdivision 5; and 84.928, subdivision 5.
PROPOSED PROCESS
* Process information and submittals are draft for discussion and subject to City Attorney comment
Tax Valuation & Revenue Projection | Sample Data Center Project
Tax base generation and overall tax base stabilization and diversification have been cited by
the City as considerations for further evaluating data center land uses within the
community.
The following is a tax estimation and revenue example for a projected 3 million square foot
data center project.
The example illustrates the estimated impact for a sample single-family residential,
commercial, and multi-family residential project. The example also illustrates the
estimated impact and revenue from the development project itself.
It is important to note that estimation example is based on the following assumptions:
• Based on a 2025 tax capacity rate
• Valuation of $85/square foot, which is an estimate based on other industrial
warehousing facilities in the area
Levy $14,117,000 $14,117,000 Levy $100,422,479 $100,422,479 Levy $14,394,955 $14,394,955
Tax Capacity $37,445,040 $42,544,290 13.6%Tax Capacity $282,377,471 $287,476,721 1.8%Tax Capacity $105,596,779 $110,696,029 4.8%
Tax Capacity Rate 37.701%33.182%-12.0%Tax Capacity Rate 35.563%34.932%-1.8%Tax Capacity Rate 13.632%13.004%-4.6%
Data Center Sq. Ft.3,000,000 Data Center Sq. Ft.3,000,000 Data Center Sq. Ft.3,000,000
Price/Sq. Ft.$85 Price/Sq. Ft.$85 Price/Sq. Ft.$85
Total Valuation $255,000,000 Total Valuation $255,000,000 Total Valuation $255,000,000
Class Rate - First $150,000 1.5%Class Rate - First $150,000 1.5%Class Rate - First $150,000 1.5%
Class Rate - Over $150,001 2.0%Class Rate - Over $150,001 2.0%Class Rate - Over $150,001 2.0%
Taxable Market Value $5,099,250 Taxable Market Value $5,099,250 Taxable Market Value $5,099,250
2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025
Residential Tax Year Tax Year Change %Residential Tax Year Tax Year Change %Residential Tax Year Tax Year Change %
Estimated Market Value 400,000$ 400,000$ -$ 0.0%Estimated Market Value 400,000$ 400,000$ -$ 0.0%Estimated Market Value 400,000$ 400,000$ -$ 0.0%
Homestead Exclusion 10,550$ 10,550$ -$ ---Homestead Exclusion 10,550$ 10,550$ -$ ---Homestead Exclusion 10,550$ 10,550$ -$ ---
Taxable Market Value 389,450$ 389,450$ -$ 0.0%Taxable Market Value 389,450$ 389,450$ -$ 0.0%Taxable Market Value 389,450$ 389,450$ -$ 0.0%
Res. Homestead < $500k 1.0%1.0%Res. Homestead < $500k 1.0%1.0%Res. Homestead < $500k 1.0%1.0%
Res. Homestead > $500k 1.25%1.25%Res. Homestead > $500k 1.25%1.25%Res. Homestead > $500k 1.25%1.25%
Tax Capacity 3,895$ 3,895$ -$ 0.0%Tax Capacity 3,895$ 3,895$ -$ 0.0%Tax Capacity 3,895$ 3,895$ -$ 0.0%
Tax Capacity Rate 37.701%33.182%-4.519%-12.0%Tax Capacity Rate 35.563%34.932%-0.631%-1.8%Tax Capacity Rate 13.632%13.004%-0.628%-4.6%
City Tax Owed 1,468$ 1,292$ (176)$ -12.0%City Tax Owed 1,385$ 1,360$ (25)$ -1.8%City Tax Owed 531$ 506$ (24)$ -4.6%
2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025
Commercial Tax Year Tax Year Change %Commercial Tax Year Tax Year Change %Commercial Tax Year Tax Year Change %
Estimated Market Value 3,844,000$ 3,844,000$ -$ 0.0%Estimated Market Value 3,844,000$ 3,844,000$ -$ 0.0%Estimated Market Value 3,844,000$ 3,844,000$ -$ 0.0%
Homestead Exclusion -$ -$ -$ 0.0%Homestead Exclusion -$ -$ -$ 0.0%Homestead Exclusion -$ -$ -$ 0.0%
Taxable Market Value 3,844,000$ 3,844,000$ -$ 0.0%Taxable Market Value 3,844,000$ 3,844,000$ -$ 0.0%Taxable Market Value 3,844,000$ 3,844,000$ -$ 0.0%
Commercial Class Rate:Commercial Class Rate:Commercial Class Rate:
First $150,000 1.5%1.5%First $150,000 1.5%1.5%First $150,000 1.5%1.5%
Over $150,000 2.0%2.0%Over $150,000 2.0%2.0%Over $150,000 2.0%2.0%
Total Tax Capacity 76,130$ 76,130$ -$ 0.0%Total Tax Capacity 76,130$ 76,130$ -$ 0.0%Total Tax Capacity 76,130$ 76,130$ -$ 0.0%
Tax Capacity Rate 37.701%33.182%-4.519%-12.0%Tax Capacity Rate 35.563%34.932%-0.631%-1.8%Tax Capacity Rate 13.632%13.004%-0.628%-4.6%
City Tax Owed 28,701$ 25,261$ (3,440)$ -12.0%City Tax Owed 27,074$ 26,594$ (480)$ -1.8%City Tax Owed 10,378$ 9,900$ (478)$ -4.6%
2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025
Apartments Tax Year Tax Year Change %Apartments Tax Year Tax Year Change %Apartments Tax Year Tax Year Change %
Estimated Market Value 4,908,300$ 4,908,300$ -$ 0.0%Estimated Market Value 4,908,300$ 4,908,300$ -$ 0.0%Estimated Market Value 4,908,300$ 4,908,300$ -$ 0.0%
Homestead Exclusion -$ -$ -$ ---Homestead Exclusion -$ -$ -$ ---Homestead Exclusion -$ -$ -$ ---
Taxable Market Value 4,908,300$ 4,908,300$ -$ 0.0%Taxable Market Value 4,908,300$ 4,908,300$ -$ 0.0%Taxable Market Value 4,908,300$ 4,908,300$ -$ 0.0%
Apartment Class Rate 1.25%1.25%Apartment Class Rate 1.25%1.25%Apartment Class Rate 1.25%1.25%
Tax Capacity 61,354$ 61,354$ -$ 0.0%Tax Capacity 61,354$ 61,354$ -$ 0.0%Tax Capacity 61,354$ 61,354$ -$ 0.0%
Tax Capacity Rate 37.701%33.182%-4.519%-12.0%Tax Capacity Rate 35.563%34.932%-0.631%-1.8%Tax Capacity Rate 13.632%13.004%-0.628%-4.6%
City Tax Owed 23,130.72$ 20,358.33$ (2,772)$ -12.0%City Tax Owed 21,819.36$ 21,432.33$ (387)$ -1.8%City Tax Owed 8,363.74$ 7,978.47$ (385)$ -4.6%
2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025
Data Center Tax Year Tax Year Change %Data Center Tax Year Tax Year Change %Data Center Tax Year Tax Year Change %
Estimated Market Value -$ 255,000,000$ 255,000,000$ #DIV/0!Estimated Market Value -$ 255,000,000$ 255,000,000$ #DIV/0!Estimated Market Value -$ 255,000,000$ 255,000,000$ #DIV/0!
Homestead Exclusion -$ -$ -$ ---Homestead Exclusion -$ -$ -$ ---Homestead Exclusion -$ -$ -$ ---
Taxable Market Value -$ 255,000,000$ 255,000,000$ #DIV/0!Taxable Market Value -$ 255,000,000$ 255,000,000$ #DIV/0!Taxable Market Value -$ 255,000,000$ 255,000,000$ #DIV/0!
Commercial Class Rate:Commercial Class Rate:Commercial Class Rate:
First $150,000 1.5%1.5%First $150,000 1.5%1.5%First $150,000 1.5%1.5%
Over $150,000 2.0%2.0%Over $150,000 2.0%2.0%Over $150,000 2.0%2.0%
Tax Capacity -$ 5,099,250$ 5,099,250$ #DIV/0!Tax Capacity -$ 5,099,250$ 5,099,250$ #DIV/0!Tax Capacity -$ 5,099,250$ 5,099,250$ #DIV/0!
Tax Capacity Rate 37.701%33.182%-4.519%-12.0%Tax Capacity Rate 35.563%34.932%-0.631%-1.8%Tax Capacity Rate 13.632%13.004%-0.628%-4.6%
City Tax Owed -$ 1,692,028$ 1,692,028$ NA City Tax Owed -$ 1,781,290$ 1,781,290$ NA City Tax Owed -$ 663,108$ 663,108$ NA
City Taxes County Taxes School District Taxes
From:Derrick Zychowski
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:AI data center
Date:Monday, August 18, 2025 10:57:27 PM
Angela,
My name is Derrick Zychowski, a Monticello resident living very close to the site of the
proposed Data center. I know this has sparked quite a bit of interest and I certainly have my
opinion on the matter. As mentioned we live Monticello and have always been pleased with
the decisions the city has made about developing farmland but this one has me a bit confused.
I won't get into a long email discussion on the issue I guess I would ask one simple question.
What are 5 reasons having this data center in Monticello would be good for the residents of
Monticello? I look forward to your response.
Thank you,
Derrick Zychowski
August 19, 2025
Dear Planning Commission:
My family and I moved to Monticello last year. We have really enjoyed this community and plan
to raise our young family here in Monticello.
Thank you to Stephen for the recommendations to the Planning Commission. I particularly
appreciated the pictures and comparison sites for setback distances and data center exteriors.
That said, I do share concerns of others related to noise, water and electric use, as well as waste
water disposal.
So my recommendations and questions are below:
1) First, I agree with designating a specific “Data Center Planned Unit Development
(DCPUD) Zoning District.” I appreciate the specificity this brings to evaluating data center
proposals.
2) Second, I would like to see the setback on residential borders expanded from 200’ to
300’.
3) Third, I did not see a requirement on how waste water is disposed and would like to see
a requirement that waste water is discharged into a waste water system and not directly
into nearby bodies of water.
4) Fourth, if Monticello has alternative sources of water rather than our potable water
source, that should be considered for a data center.
5) Fifth, I would like to see specifics on the data center’s responsibility for future
infrastructure upgrades to electric, water, and waste water systems. Even if estimates of
usage are accurate upon the application, 10 years down the road, utility needs may
expand. Monticello residents should not have to share in these additional infrastructure
costs. In addition, the data center should pay at a higher rate for use of utilities. These
are two ways a data center can contribute to the common good of the community.
6) Sixth, I would like to raise the question of the sufficiency of the Minnesota Noise
Pollution requirements. Are these requirements strong enough to product the
residential feel and quiet of neighborhoods? Would a hum from a data center impact the
property values and ability to resell a home?
7) Seventh, I would like to better understand enforcement actions the city can take prior to
revocation. Revocation is a high bar, especially for an operational data center, but the
city needs recourse actions if the data center strains water or electric supplies or if we
have noise pollution violations. These measures need to be strong enough to be truly
punitive or to catalyze correction action rather than becoming a cost of doing business.
8) Finally, below are some links to some national reporting that raises concerns other
communities have faced with data centers:
a. https://one.npr.org/i/fis-381443930-
6b7bfc690f0f4f05c1343f59d629be08:fis-381443930-
6b7bfc690f0f4f05c1343f59d629be08-enclosure-audio
b. https://one.npr.org/i/nx-s1-5469933:nx-s1-5527651-1
c. https://one.npr.org/i/nx-s1-5430796:nx-s1-5527651-1
Thank you to the Planning Commission for allowing additional time to consider these
recommendations.
Allison Rajaratnam
Monticello, MN
From:leah.schmitz
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Annexation/Rezoning
Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 9:43:38 AM
Dear Angela and Whom All it May Concern,
My name is Leah Schmitz, I live at in the Monticello Township.
I am extremely concerned with the current "talk" of re-zoning portions of the Township for
potential future commercial/data center use.
Myself and many residents feel this was a "hidden" agenda and the decision has already been
made. You say it was/is posted but it's been very hush hush and not forthcoming with
information. If you wanted the support or feedback of the community youb would have been
working WITH the community to educate and advise us of the upcoming potential changes.
Instead, we as a community found out and had to come to you.
At the recent meetings, along with numerous letters and phone calls, the City of Monticello
has heard of all the opposition and concerns. I stand behind them all. I live in the Township for
many reasons, one, because I feel as though I live in the country or closest thing to it.
Neighbors not on top of each other. We have large beautiful yards, our roads have limited
traffic and the area seems mostly safe for children and people of all ages. Many of us walk
these streets each day. We see have the peace and quiet of the country.
The idea of a Data Center going in across the street makes me want to move. I realize that
means nothing when it comes to the main focus of $$ for the city. I just wish that the "people"
mattered more than the bottom dollar. If a poll was taken, I believe the people of Monticello
would vote this down!
Find other options for the growth of Monticello, supported by the residents to make this
money needed for the city, not at such an expense and loss to so many of us resident.
Thank you.
Leah Schmitz
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
From:Bob Stein
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:AUAR Comments regarding Data Center
Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 1:12:42 PM
Hello,
This is Bob Stein. I am a resident of the Monticello Community and would like to share
concerns regarding the continued discussion of the Data Center proposals in our city.
I do not understand why the city would choose to have their hands tied with 550 acres of a
data center that will realistically only employ 50 people to operate. We don't need to rush to
"fill" a map just to simply check a box and call it "growth" for our city.
The environmental concerns regarding water use, air quality issues, increased utility bills,
noise concerns, and increased traffic during the construction of such a facility all are valid
concerns.
We do not need this type of business in our community. I have yet to see or hear how this will
have any kind of positive impact to our community, other than loose references to a tax base
during its operations. Will it help lower my taxes? Monticello has sold numerous properties
throughout the area and none of them have lowered my taxes.
You've heard numerous concerns at your public hearings from people who live right across the
road from the proposed 550 acre campus. None of them are eager to have this as their
neighbor. Someone brought up a great point of saying "would you build this right across the
street from a school?" The answer would/should be "No!"
We continually endure issues with power and water during dry years. Xcel continues to want
to increase their rates due to growing demand for power. Why would we choose to willingly
strain both the power and water resources in our community? What if the Data Center would
require additional power poles/lines direct to their campus? You'd be running even more
power lines/towers through/over residential areas to serve their needs. I already dread the few
that cut through the south side of our community. You can feel the buzz and hum as you stand
near them.
Please explore other options for this site. A company of this scale has no interest in servicing
our community or adding any value to its members. All of this is new and emerging
technology. You can try all you want to paint them into a corner with guidelines or
regulations, but their pockets are far deeper than our city's pockets. If there are legal issues that
arise, you can bet that the company would gladly take the city to court and negate any and all
profits to the city. Look at Fibernet, great concept, but legally expensive due to court with
Charter, and now managed by Arvig.
I really don't understand why our city is rushing along this type of decision. It doesn't make a
lot of sense to me. You are presenting conflicting messaging with your public hearings at
Planning Meetings, where you direct/redirect people not to talk directly about this 550 acre
proposed facility, but instead about data centers as whole. All while the elephant is clearly in
the room, and that's what people want to talk about. Then you put information like this out on
social media, when instead it should be a mass mailing campaign to every single home in
town/townships. This feels rotten and like some mass formality to say you did your due
diligence, while the likelihood of this data center seems to be something you favor.
If the general sentiment of everyone in that room is negative towards a data center, how can
any council member or anyone on the planning commission claim to be a representative of the
community if they support a Data Center? Council Members are not a voice, they are a
microphone to share the concerns members in the community may have and make sure they
are heard.
Let them go find some other rural location, in the middle of nowhere that will have very little
impact on a residential community. Monticello does not need to be eager to welcome this type
of business to its community. Again, it appears most data centers employ roughly 50 people
for full time jobs. So taking 550 acres, thats about 1 acre per employee. Meanwhile you have
businesses in town like UMC, Cargill, and Polaris who all occupy a far smaller footprint and
employ a significant amount more people with good paying jobs.
We don't need this. Don't be wowed by bright lights and filling a map to call it progress. Let
them go somewhere else.
Bob Stein
Monticello Swim Club
Head Coach
From:Dwayne Olson
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:AUAR Scoping Document
Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 12:35:00 PM
The city needs to make sure of three things in it's review. First the Data Center needs to be at
minnimum 1000 yards from the nearest houses, second that the light pollution from the Center
be regulated as I have seen videos of Data Centers that light up neighboring housing like
christmas trees, and last that the Data Center is held accountable for any wastewater they
produce dosen't contaiment ground water. The other thing is energy consumption, however I
believe that is something the state would need to requlate. I work for a company that does
business with Data Center, however they do need requlation to protect the community
Dwayne Olson
Monticello resident.
From:Sarah Scribner
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Citizen Comments
Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 10:24:16 PM
Dear Monticello Planning Committee & City Council,
My husband Chris and I attended the 8/19/25 & 9/2/25 meetings regarding potential
changes to ordinances to allow a discussion for data centers. More specifically,
recommendations or things to consider to include in any Data Center ordinances.
We’ve lived in Monticello for 26 years. We specifically moved out of the twin cities
area for a more quiet and beautiful landscape. We remodeled our home, deciding
this would be our “forever home” where we have been blessed to raise our children,
go to church, gather with neighbors, work and live life.
We are 100% against the LOCATION of this data center and quite honestly any
data center in Monticello. We beg the Planning Committee and City Council to
make NO changes period. We DON’T need to change anything that would allow
or invite a data center to come to our area.
I know the City of Monticello needs money. Quite honestly, that is short-sighted and
there are other ways to pay for the necessary improvements needed in Monticello.
Quite honestly, and I mean no disrespect, but the City has not done a great job of
being fiscally responsible regarding the past default of the City Bonds regarding the
whole Fiber Net issue. Then there is the empty lower level of Block 52 which we
were told would have restaurants and stores. I wish the City would try to attract home
builders to be bigger / nicer homes, maybe with some acreage of 3-5 acres as that is
very hard to find in this area. Ideally, I’d love to see nice houses be built on the
property in question (off hwy 25 & 85th St) Or better yet, a natural area with a paved
bike path but that indeed is a dream.
Please think of how our actions today will affect the generations to come after us.
Please don’t allow the City of Monticello to take a quick fix & basically sell it’s soul to
the devil (aka hyperscae data centers).
Monticello is is no expert when it comes to dealing with billion dollar businsses that
want to use our resources and who honestly don’t care what gets ruined in the
process. Our natural resources are our biggest assets and we must protect them.
IF you absolutely must have recommendations, we would suggest the following
conservative measures.
1. Land Use / Zoning Codes
This was NOT part of the 2040 Plan so should NOT be changed.
2. “Light “ vs “Heavy” Industrial Categorization
Hyper Data Centers are considered “Heavy Industrial” for a number of reasons.
It simply is NOT appropriate to re-zone and put a “Heavy Industrial” site next to
existing neighborhoods, city parks and schools.
3. Set-backs from schools
Require at least a 2 mile set-back from any schools.
(Little Mountain Elementary, Pinewood Elementary, Monticello Middle School,
Monticello High School, Pumpkin Patch Preschool, Eastview Education Center, etc.)
4. Set-backs from city parks
Require at least a 2 mile set-back from any city / county / state parks.
(Namely, the City Parks of Hunter’s Crossing & Pioneer Park.)
5. Set-backs from existing neighborhoods
Require at least a 2 mile set-back from any existing neighborhood.
6. Environmental Risks
Request a FULL Environmental Impact Study (wetlands, plants, animals, birds, etc.)
This must evaluate the effects of construction and operation on the local ecosystem.
7. Water
Data Center is responsible for 100% of cost associated with bringing water to the site
and 100% responsible for all water usage. Tax payers are not responsible to pay for
any portion of it.
Again, limit the size to only a SMALL data center and limit the amount of water they
can utilize.
8. Wells
Data Center is NOT allowed to drill wells on the property. Nor are they allowed to
pump from existing wells on the property. (This would negatively affect surround land
owners who utilize the same aquifers.) All water must come from city supplied water
system for which they must pay for building it and using it.
9. MN DNR HYDROLOGIST
Request a MN DNR Hydrologist (independent party) investigation & “Impact Study”
of taking water from the area aquifers in Monticello area and the Mississippi River
and areas. (James Bedell DNR Area Hydrologist covering Monticello area. 320-726-
0978
James.Bedell@State.MN.US)
10. Water Cooling
Demand CLOSED-LOOP water cooling system.
(Or even demand they use wastewater & of course pay to build it)
11. Medical Concern
Cooling towers can pollute air w/ chemicals, risk of Legionnaires Disease & other
respiratory issues. Request data centers must pay to have an independent 3rd party
perform annual tests on their pollution, fix problems and are financially responsible to
injured parties.
12. Condensation on road
Increased motor vehicle accidents due to sleet / icy from condensation
Request an environmental / weather impact study regarding condensation on roads,
ice, black ice & fog; along with utilizing risk mitigation strategies.
Limit the size to only a SMALL data center.
13. Generators
Limit the number of generators on the property to 20.
Limit the time of day the back-up generators can “test”, say from 10 am – 12 pm.
Limit the size to only a SMALL data center.
14. Emissions from generators
Demand “Tier-4 Final” generators (present-day best emission standards)
15. Fire Risk
If a disaster happens, is the Monticello Fire Dept. equipped to handle a
Data Center explosion? Limit size to a SMALL data center.
16. Security Concerns
There is increased terrorism threat given that data centers may contain gov’t. data.
Limit size to a SMALL data center.
17. Construction process
Require all construction be completed within 2 years. No exceptions.
Limit size to a SMALL data center.
18. Pollution
Air Pollution Noise Pollution Light Pollution Water Pollution
Data Center must hire a third part vendor for monitoring it’s air pollution, noise
pollution, light pollution and water pollution. Citizens could report concerns to
investigate and these concerns must be addressed to a public satisfactory response.
IF not, the data center must be immediately shut down permanently. Not just pay a
fine.
19. Other Types Of Data Centers
Do NOT allow “Bit coining / Bit Mining” at all.
(Not just stating that it’s “not allowed as a primary use” but not allowed at all.)
20. Liability Insurance
The Data Center must carry One-Hundred-Billion dollar liability insurance policy to
pay damaged parties in Monticello Township and City of Monticello. .
21. Tax Incentives
The City must not offer them any tax incentives.
Data Center pays to get any and all utilities to the site
22. Life Span
After a 15-20 year life span, the property must be put back to it’s natural state of
grasslands and farm fields.
Thank you.
Chris and Sarah Scribner
From:Shannon Bye
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:comments for DRAFT AUAR: due 9/4, sent 9/2
Date:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 4:13:46 PM
Agricultural Land Conversion:
*The conversion of agricultural land to industrial use (e.g., for a data farm) can result in the
loss of valuable crop production space, impacting local food systems, farmers’ livelihoods,
and regional agriculture.
* data centers often involve significant soil disturbance, leading to a loss of soil health and
potential to sequester carbon, wetlands, grasslands, and woodlands sequester significant
amounts of carbon. Converting these habitats for industrial purposes could release stored
carbon into the atmosphere.
*Wetlands play critical roles in water filtration, carbon sequestration, and as habitats for
wildlife. Wetland loss due to development would disturb the local ecosystem and could
reduce biodiversity. Disruption of wetlands and open water areas could negatively affect
local aquatic ecosystems, leading to declines in fish and other aquatic species populations.
The recommendations in previous projects by Army Corp of Engineers, aren't monitored
unless there are complaints, I'd be curious to see what agency is overseeing adherence to
recommendations, in areas zoned industrial vs housing
data centers consume a lot of water (for cooling systems) and can generate runoff,
potentially leading to contamination of adjacent water bodies if proper stormwater
management systems aren’t put in place. Wetlands are typically protected by federal, state,
and local regulations, and their disruption should face significant legal challenges.
A full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would be required to assess all the
potential effects on the environment. This would help determine whether the proposed
project is in line with sustainability goals and whether mitigation strategies can be put in
place. This should be advance under the impression it is not a LIGHT industrial project
rather a significant project draining resources and generating waste materials
* Grasslands and woodlands are rich in species diversity. Such habitats provide critical
support to pollinators, birds, and wildlife, all of which would be disturbed by construction
and operation of a data farm.
*
Data farms of this size could fragment larger ecosystems, disrupting migration patterns and
reducing the ability of species to thrive.
* Data centers, particularly those located in regions that traditionally have rural or semi-
rural environments, can contribute significantly to the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect.
Large data farms generate heat due to the high energy usage for computing and cooling
equipment. This additional heat can raise temperatures in the immediate area, making the
environment hotter compared to nearby rural areas.
*The conversion of agricultural land and woodlands to impervious surfaces (e.g., concrete,
asphalt, buildings) would exacerbate this effect. These surfaces absorb and retain heat
more efficiently than natural landscapes, which increases local temperatures during
summer months. Here winters are sometimes harsh and summers can become hot, the
development of a data farm could create localized heat islands, exacerbating the urban-
rural temperature gap.
This could lead to higher cooling demands in residential areas, thereby increasing energy
consumption and further contributing to climate change in addition to impacting local
microclimates, disrupting seasonal patterns and affecting crop yields if the surrounding
agricultural land is still used for farming.
Data centers consume enormous amounts of electricity, often derived from non-renewable
sources, unless renewable energy is utilized. This would contribute to greenhouse gas
emissions, further exacerbating climate change. If the data farm is designed to run on
renewable energy (e.g., solar, wind), it could mitigate some of the climate change effects,
but much of the data infrastructure is still energy-intensive and powered by conventional
energy sources in many cases.
The removal of natural vegetation (woodlands, wetlands, grasslands) weakens the area's
ability to respond to climate-related stresses, such as floods, droughts, and extreme
temperatures. Natural ecosystems act as buffers, reducing the intensity of floods, improving
water retention, and providing shade that mitigates heat.
The construction of a data farm could have mixed effects on the nearby residential area.
There may be concerns about property value declines due to the perceived impact on
quality of life (increased traffic, noise, and heat) & large-scale changes to local ecosystems.
Concerns about health, noise, and environmental impacts could lead to local opposition for
numerous reasons.
The use of green technologies (e.g., renewable energy, cooling through natural methods
like geothermal or lake water, and energy-efficient hardware) can help reduce the data
farm’s carbon footprint and mitigate some of the heat island effects, however this project
has already been suggested is utilizing obsolete technology
From:Annie Felix
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Comments on Monticello Industrial AUAR Scoping Document and Draft Order
Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 3:46:35 PM
TO: Angela Schumann
Please consider my following comments on the proposed Monticello Industrial AUAR scoping
document.
The scoping document does not provide enough information to provide comments on
whether development scenario 1 and 2 is preferable. Both scenarios have the potential to be
large water users. I am most concerned about the two items below.
Page 29: Groundwater - "The AUAR will discuss any potential impacts to the Monticello
wellhead protection area and DWSMA." However, the AUAR also needs to discuss any
potential impacts to the domestic wells in the study area 1 mile buffer zone.
Page 34: Water Appropriation - "Municipal wells, stored in a water reservoir or water tower,
are the source of drinking water for the city. The City will be initiating a comprehensive utility
study for the study area relative to capacity and demand concurrent with the AUAR. The AUAR
will evaluate the existing and proposed infrastructure needs and will discuss the viability of
supplementing City water with alternative water sources. The AUAR will address water
appropriations permitting generally and under new state laws adopted in 2025, as applicable.
Evaluation of impact on surrounding supply/wells will be reviewed. Appropriate mitigation
measures or system improvements will be identified, if needed." The comprehensive utility
study for the study area needs to be conducted first in order to determine if there is an
adequate water supply for the potential industry/scenario. Any alternative water sources
would need to be identified, and impacts evaluated.
Regards,
Annie Felix
, Monticello, MN
From:megan sanborn
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Community Opposition: Monticello Tech LLC Data Center
Date:Monday, August 18, 2025 10:17:14 PM
Hey Angela,
Monticello already hosts a nuclear power plant and sits near coal-burning facilities. A water-
hungry, energy-hungry data center would push our resources and safety to the breaking point.
This project is near the Midwest’s largest solar field, and metals recycling industry.
Combined industrial pollution is ignored in their report.
The 546 acres targeted include prime farmland, state-important farmland, and 8 wetlands not
“vacant land.” These wetlands are home to monarchs, western regal fritillary butterflies,
whooping cranes, and bald eagles.
The project violates the Wright County Northeast Quadrant Land Use Plan (2007) and
Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan (2020).
Data centers require massive amounts of water to keep servers cool. We already use enormous
amounts of water to cool the nuclear plant. Adding more demand is dangerous and
irresponsible.
*dont forget our tritium ongoing leak problem..and reminder of how dangerous industrial
oversight already are here.
And remember Becker Metals’ lithium fire incident — once ignited, these fires are nearly
impossible to put out, releasing toxic smoke and runoff into our environment. (During school
hours)
The community already doesn't trust this project and putting it here is a horrible PR move for
Black Rock and Monticello Tech LLC.
This project is a direct threat to our farms, water, wildlife, and families.
Let’s stand together and say GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY to Black Rock and
Monticello Tech LLC.
-Megan Sanborn
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
From:Nicholas Skramstad
To:Development Services; Jennifer Schreiber
Subject:Concerned Eakern Cir Resident
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 11:27:59 AM
Attachments:primex-logo-horz-small d94e0736-9a07-4a5d-9d0f-1d8490d5fabd.png
sje50 1b355c40-9831-47f5-abdf-a6924e29d0ab.png
Good afternoon,
As I can't make it to today's public hearing, I would like to submit my comments in regard to
the zoning proposals. These comments surround data centers, why it is a bad choice for our
community, and facts of how it would hurt our community, rather than help.
• Not here to stop new technology, as data centers and AI are certainly a part of an ambious
future but it's not something that I want in my backyard
• Living a third of a mile away…concerned about noise level of 60db and wildlife being driven
away.
• I would like to know what is planned for noise ordinance, power monitoring, and the plan for
safe water
• We are not being told the ramifications for such a project in our growing city
• Data center’s needs outweigh the needs of the city
• While it has improved, we’ve had stress on the power grid without this data center and I feel
that we don’t have the power infrastructure for it
o There would need to be more investments in network reinforcement and power
congeson relief from Xcel. Are they willing to do this? ((Aneli, Stefano & Tina, Giuseppe &
Gagliano, Antonio. (2025)
• The majority of the jobs that these data centers create are for the erecon of the building
o Data centers during regular operation only employ 10-100, and AI is already being
looked at to run most operaons. These few jobs usually require a high bar for entry, and
are often contract positions
• As data center usage increases with AI and other implementations for future tech, power
consumption will increase from 4.4% consumption of US electricity to 6.7-12%. (Shehabi, A.;
Newkirk, A.; Smith, S.; Hubbard, A.; Lei, N.; Siddik, M., et al. (2024))
• The sign that we are too early to decide if this is a good idea, is that there is a huge lack of
transparency in the aforementioned report from these companies. Not only are these
companies yet to disclose what their energy output is, there is also a lack of metrics to
measure this figure by.
o I don’t want such a large unknown in this city. Truly the only advantage to this are
the temporary jobs it will bring and efficiency it will bring to those we will never
meet, does not outweigh how it affects a growing populaon right off of a major highway.
o We are only so large of a town, space is limited, and we can do a lot beter with
housing or retail space.
• This is all simply a company trying to take advantage of a town outside of the cies, for
relatively cheap land.
• Data centers will consume rural America, consuming our water and our power, while being
an eyesore for our growing city. We can do better.
References:
Aneli, Stefano & Tina, Giuseppe & Gagliano, Antonio. (2025). Modelling and experimental
surveys on the energy consumpon of a small-scale data center. Energy Efficiency. 18.
10.1007/s12053-025-10357-7.
Shehabi, A.; Newkirk, A.; Smith, S.; Hubbard, A.; Lei, N.; Siddik, M., et al. (2024). 2024 United
States Data Center Energy Usage Report. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Report #:
LBNL-2001637. htp:////dx.doi.org/10.71468/P1WC7Q Retrieved from
htps:////escholarship.org/uc/item/32d6m0d1
Thank you,
Nick Skramstad
Nicholas Skramstad
Associate Project Coordinator
Email:
Phone:
Address: 13005 16th Ave N #100, Plymouth, MN 55441
www.primexcontrols.com
Disclaimer - Notice: Nothing contained in this e-mail shall be considered an acceptance or binding
agreement. For PRIMEX policy on binding agreements please go to our website
at: www.primexcontrols.com/terms-and-conditions
From:Eli gindele
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data center
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 6:53:08 PM
Good evening,
I am a small business owner with three young children i was not able to make to the meeting tonight.
None of us want this development here besides the current land owner who’s the seller.
As a resident here who’s spent most of my 31 years here we do not want this here!
It will drive up all costs, taxes, utilities not to mention the ugly thing I gotta drive by to my daycare center
explaining to my kids what greed looks like…. We are trying hard enough don’t need to make it harder after
recently buying our families forever home I here in Monti
I think this towns changed quite a bit the last three years don’t need this crap here!!!
I draw my living from the swamps and bodies of water in the area don’t need acres of paved surfaces for a mile
square.
Thanks for your thoughts of the community not the investors
Sent from my iPhone
From:Annie Miles
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:data center / AUAR
Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 1:24:01 PM
Hello Angela,
I'm writing in regards to the data center. I've lived in Monticello for nearly twenty-five
years. I've seen a lot of the change that has happened, and so much of it has been
beneficial to this community. I do not believe the proposed data center is one of those
changes that would be beneficial to Monticello.
In what I have read about data centers, the environmental impact, the water use, and
the electricity demand from these centers is a significant problem. It especially seems
significant to note that the proposal includes parts of Pelican Lake area. I live near
this area and see the wildlife that lives there. Preserving the areas around Pelican
lake, preserving the agricultural areas, and possibly adding some other smaller
industrial or residential growth to this space seems to be a much more beneficial
option for our community than a data center.
Annie Miles
From:Gabriel Graveldinger
To:Charlotte Gabler; Angela Schumann; Rachel Leonard
Subject:Data center comment
Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 10:18:43 AM
Hello,
I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposal for a data center to be built in Monticello
Township. Such a thing would be a horrible waste of space not to mention the noise and
light pollution it will cause! Also quite an eye sore. This data facility will not create
many jobs for our community and will only decrease property values in the area while
driving up electricity and water costs. I would rather this area being zoned for residential
single family homes for families to raise their kids in a wonderful community and
environment. Or light industrial use for small businesses and to create more jobs for the
local community. A data center would not serve the residents of Monticello area nor will
it contribute to the health, beauty and culture of our area.
Please REJECT this proposal and seek a use for the area that will profit many, not
minimal, interests.
Thank you,
Gabriel Graveldinger
Monticello township
From:Paul and Kelsey H
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data Center Concern
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 1:01:04 PM
Dear Angela,
I’m writing as a concerned resident and parent in featherstone regarding the proposed data
center planned for the area just outside our community. While I understand the importance of
economic development and technological infrastructure, I have serious concerns about the
potential impact this project will have on our neighborhood especially for families with
children.
Our community is home to many small children who regularly play outdoors and walk or bike
in the area. The increased traffic from construction vehicles and ongoing operations poses
significant safety risks. Heavy truck traffic and commuter vehicles will also add to congestion
on our local roads, which are not designed for such high-volume industrial use.
Additionally, data centers are known to generate considerable noise from cooling systems and
backup generators, which could disturb the quiet character of our neighborhood both day and
night. Air pollution from increased traffic, as well as the potential environmental footprint of
such a large facility, raises further concerns for the health and well-being of our residents.
Beyond immediate safety and quality-of-life issues, I’m also concerned about the long-term
effects on property values, the strain on local infrastructure, and the precedent it sets for future
industrial development so close to residential areas.
I respectfully urge you and the planning department to carefully evaluate alternative locations
that would not place an industrial-scale facility in such close proximity to family
neighborhoods. Our community’s safety, environment, and quality of life should remain a top
priority in development decisions.
Thank you for your time, and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns
further.
Paul Hamel
From:Christina Johnson Koshiol
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data Center Concerns
Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 11:00:27 PM
Hi Angela
Sorry for the late email, but I'm hoping my written input can still be considered with other
input in the next step of considering data centers in Monticello, I do share other concerns that
Monticello has opened a door leading to eventual building of a data center by updating the
comprehensive plan for zoning and now looking at ordinance changes for requirements. I
understand it's a long process, but it does seem we are paving that road, without any
convincing argument about what benefit it brings to Monticello and a level of
defensiveness by some that looks like a red flag for its promotion.
It is clear that there is significant opposition to these data centers. Knowing many people who
spoke at the hearing, I am aware that this issue is far beyond politics. I know for a fact that
there was a very wide range in the political spectrum, all uniting against building this in our
community. Our surveys and plans have consistently shown that the people in Monticello
want a liveable community for families and our parks are a significant priority. Monticello
has prioritized protecting Bertam with significant resources over the last two decades. It was a
priority to have this natural space, not even allowing motorized boats. It's clear it has been
a draw as the campgrounds are full throughout the summer. Campers continue there each
summer through Camp Manitou. The athletic fields development is an additional draw to
people to Monticello and the park that is continuing to grow. And the Monticello School
district prides itself on providing a nature based learning program at Bertram. All of these
things are at significant risk with consideration of a data centers that have significant
environmental concerns as detailed by many. All without any significant benefit to Monticello
as Bertram is. It could undo years of efforts in the vision and protected space of Monticello,
that would pull people away from our community and cause a ripple effect that undermines
the entire vision of Monticello,
I am no expert, but have been loosely following concerns about data centers across the
country. And even people in other communities in Monticello are showing up to warn us.
Since we are at the next step of updating an ordinance, I would hope that we would implement
very strict environmental standards for these or any similar industrial businesses looking at
building in Monticello, especially in relation to neighboring residences and Bertram Park.
I'm using Google AI (below) to assist in outlining concerns and
zoning/originance considerations that I hope are being discussed and addressed in the next
step. But my hope is that a data center is not built anywhere near Bertram Park as well as
residences in Monticello..
Thank you,
Christina Johnson Koshiol
Key environmental ordinance concerns for data centers near parks include
excessive noise, high water consumption, air pollution, and significant energy use. Local zoning and
specific environmental regulations are used to manage these impacts, especially for facilities located
near sensitive areas like public parks.
Noise pollution
Data centers contain a large amount of continuously running equipment, such as cooling systems,
fans, and backup generators, that can create significant noise pollution. This is particularly disruptive
near parks, which are designated public spaces for recreation and relaxation.
Noise limits: Local ordinances often set specific decibel (dBA) limits at the property line,
with stricter limits typically enforced during evening and nighttime hours.
Equipment screening: To minimize noise and visual impacts, outdoor equipment must be
enclosed or screened from public view.
Studies: Acoustical impact studies are often required for new facilities to demonstrate
compliance with local noise limits.
Water consumption
Many data centers use large amounts of water for cooling to prevent their equipment from
overheating. This can stress local water supplies, and regulations have been developed to manage
this impact.
High usage: Some large data centers can consume millions of gallons of water per day,
equivalent to the usage of thousands of people.
Permit requirements: Jurisdictions may require water appropriation permits for large water
withdrawals and may scrutinize sustainable practices and water availability.
Cooling systems: Regulations may influence the type of cooling systems used. Evaporative
cooling uses significantly more water than closed-loop liquid cooling, which is a less water-
intensive alternative.
Air pollution
Backup generators, which are typically diesel-powered, can release air pollutants during regular
testing and power outages. This is a significant concern for air quality in areas frequented by the
public, such as parks.
Generator regulations: Ordinances often require backup generators to meet specific
emissions standards, such as the EPA's Tier 4 for new equipment.
Permits: Air quality permits may be required, with stricter regulations and potential
emissions reduction requirements in "non-attainment areas" that do not meet federal air
quality standards.
Testing limitations: Some ordinances restrict the frequency and duration of routine
generator testing.
Energy consumption and heat
Data centers are massive consumers of electricity and can also generate considerable waste heat.
This raises environmental concerns related to energy grids and localized heating.
Grid strain: The high energy demand of data centers can place a unique strain on local
electrical grids. Some regulations prevent utilities from passing the cost of grid upgrades
onto other consumers.
Renewable energy requirements: Some states require data centers to use a portion of their
energy from renewable sources.
Waste heat: Environmental regulations may include requirements for reusing waste heat.
Land use and zoning
Local zoning ordinances are a primary tool for regulating where data centers can be built and how
they interact with surrounding areas, including parks.
Setbacks and buffers: Ordinances often mandate setbacks from residential properties and
environmentally sensitive areas. They may also require landscaping, screening, and visual
buffers to minimize the center's visibility.
Dedicated zones: Some localities have created specific overlay districts to direct data center
development to areas with suitable infrastructure and away from sensitive locations.
Environmental impact statement: An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or similar
assessment may be required during the permitting process to formally review potential
impacts.
Aesthetics: Rules regarding building height and design can be imposed to help facilities
blend into their environment
.
From:Feanna Sobania
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data center concerns
Date:Monday, August 18, 2025 7:35:50 PM
Hello! I’m writing as a Monticello resident because I’m worried about the new data center
being planned for our city. I understand the appeal of new development, but I hope the city
will take a really close look at the impact this could have on our community.
We already have a nuclear plant here, which recently had a leak. That shook a lot of
people’s confidence in how big facilities like this affect our safety and environment. Adding
another large, resource-heavy operation feels foolish.
Some of the things I’m especially concerned about are:
-Water use: Data centers use a huge amount of water for cooling, and I worry this could
strain our local resources.
-Energy demand: They also need massive amounts of electricity which could stress the grid.
-Environmental impact: Warm water and other byproducts can affect local ecosystems.
-Community benefits: From what I understand, data centers don’t create many long-term
jobs compared to the amount of resources they use.
-Global impact: Data centers in general are going to be devastating to our already warming
earth.
I would love to see the city share a full environmental review before going forward with any
plans. Monticello is a great place to live, and I want to make sure growth here benefits the
people who call it home without putting too much strain on our natural resources.
Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns,
Feanna Sobania
From:Scott Nelson
To:Angela Schumann; Jennifer Schreiber; Development Services
Subject:Data Center Feedback
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 12:55:32 PM
Hello,
I am not sure if I will be able to attend the special session tonight, but I also wanted to voice
my concern for the proposed data center south of 85th and Hwy 25.
I am a resident in the Featherstone neighborhood and member of the
MCCI (Crunch Supply Co.). While I am already not a huge fan of the proposed industrial area
behind our neighborhood for the Stellis Health campus (Is that still planned? I haven't heard
anything in a while), I think adding in a data center is going too far for such a residential area
of the city that would essentially set a hard boundary in the sand for future city expansion and
create headaches for the residents in the area.
The electrical grid is already way more unstable than any other city I have lived in and we
have all new power lines running to our house. Adding in the tremendous electrical load so
close by could cause us more problems and affect our ability to be comfortable in our own
houses, especially in high heat times when the grid is stressed as we've seen a few outages
already this year. This problem would only get worse.
Additionally, I am concerned about the background noise that this would add. As it stands
now, I can walk out to my backyard and hear a single hwy 25 so clearly, it might as well be
right next to us. We can hear coyotes playing in the field some nights, and occasionally a little
music from Quarry Church makes its way over. If we added a 24/7 data center, our peace and
quiet would be turned into a white noise machine around the clock, drowning out the slow
moving pace we have come to love and enjoy about Monticello.
I also have some smaller concerns about the potential light pollution, as we already have far
too much of it from UMC and Camping World using far too many and far too bright lights to
light their flags, but that's another topic for another day.
Adding a data center along with all the utility demands that this type of business would bring
with it would negatively affect resale values in an already tough market, and so quickly after
the neighborhood was built. I think this could also affect the ability to sell the remaining
properties to be built in the Featherstone neighborhood's 7th addition in the future.
Overall, I am very against adding this kind of industrial and high demand business so close to
the city center. This type of project should be relegated much closer to the power plant and
river, as that would also benefit the data center by giving lots of sustainable options for them
to support their utility needs while lowering the impact of the neighboring residents.
I am not against adding a data center to Monticello, and I think it could be a great addition to
the city, but I think its location needs to be more thought out. I think there is plenty of room to
grow the residential neighborhood down Hwy 25. Adding a data center at that location would
be like setting the boundaries of the city so early in Monticello's growth.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter,
Scott Nelson
From:Harlan Hamson
To:Lloyd Hilgart; Angela Schumann
Subject:Data Center- Problems
Date:Sunday, August 24, 2025 11:44:19 AM
People oppose data centers due to their
high consumption of energy and water
, leading to concerns about strain on local resources and potential increases in utility
costs. Additional concerns include noise pollution, negative impacts on local land use
and property values, the generation of air pollution from backup diesel generators,
and a perceived lack of significant long-term economic benefits or permanent jobs for
the local community, according to Data Center Knowledge, Data Center Frontier, and
Hivenet.
Here's a breakdown of the main reasons for opposition:
High Energy Consumption:
Data centers require vast amounts of electricity to operate, which can strain local power grids,
potentially leading to increased costs for all customers.
Water Usage:
Many data centers consume significant quantities of water for cooling, which can be a concern in
water-scarce regions, impacting available water for residents.
Environmental Impact:
Backup diesel generators, often used in data centers, release emissions that can negatively affect
local air quality.
Noise Pollution:
The constant operation of equipment and backup systems can generate noise that is disruptive to
nearby communities.
Impact on Local Resources:
Data centers can consume large amounts of land and put pressure on local infrastructure,
potentially leading to changes in land use and increased demands on local utilities.
Limited Economic Benefits:
While data centers may create jobs during construction, they often generate few long-term,
permanent jobs for the local community, and the tax revenue generated may not be a fair trade for
the strain on resources, according to Data Center Frontier and Hivenet.
Lack of Transparency:
Developers and Big Tech firms sometimes use non-disclosure agreements, which can prevent
communities from fully understanding the scope and impact of a proposed data center, leading to
a perception of secrecy and a lack of community input.
Property Value Concerns:
The large size and potential changes in land use associated with data centers can lead to
concerns about their impact on local property values.
AI
Get Outlook for iOS
From:Lisa Murphy
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data center workshop
Date:Monday, September 22, 2025 11:18:05 AM
Dear Monticello City Council Member:
As you are currently attempting to set parameters should a data center wish to build in Monticello,
here are some of my thoughts:
1. Data Centers should have the same buffer zone as the nuclear plant, including trees
2. Data Centers should be required to have a closed coolant system similar to a nuclear plant
3. Decibel levels should be at or below 55 dB at property line and into neighborhoods
4. The center should be required to pay for any and all infrastructure changes or upgrades.
5. Data Centers typically only employ 50 or less people while their footprint is huge. Most of
these employees being non- technical people.
Should Monticello allow data centers to be constructed, there is a real risk of aquifer depletion.
Should that happen, surrounding lakes and rivers would be impacted and could be depleted,
along with the possibility of sink holes.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and planning. I sincerely hope we never have one of
these monstrosities in our town.
Lisa Murphy
Monticello
Sent from my iPad
From:
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data Center Zoning Ordinance
Date:Monday, September 1, 2025 3:47:49 PM
Planning and Zoning Board, & City of Monticello Council Members;
We are writing to express our opposition for any consideration of a Data Center.
We have lived in this community our entire life and have raised family in Monticello. I served on
the Monticello Parks Board and East Bridge Garden group for many years. I have volunteered my
time to help make this Community beautiful. I feel a Data Center would decrease new growth and
tourism to our beautiful Community.
There are several disturbing facts I have found with regard to the impact a Data Center would
have on our Community.
1. Electrical needs:
Data centers are among the most energy-intensive building types, consuming up to 50 times more
energy per floor space than typical commercial buildings.
Small data centers can require 1–5 megawatts (MW) of power, while hyperscale facilities can
demand over 100 MW. A single large center can use as much electricity annually as 350,000 to
400,000 electric cars.
Grid strain and costs: Clusters of data centers can strain local power grids, potentially
contributing to higher electricity rates for local residents and increasing the risk of outages
during peak demand.
Backup power: Facilities rely on massive backup generator systems, often powered by
diesel, to ensure continuous operation. These generators produce significant noise and air
pollution, including particulate matter and nitrogen oxides, which can harm nearby communities.
2. Water sources and impacts on aquifers:
Intensive water consumption: A large data center can consume millions of gallons of water
per day, with consumption projected to increase alongside AI processing.- WHERE WILL THIS
COME FROM?
Water sources: Data centers typically source water from municipal utilities, relying on local
freshwater resources. Some also use non-potable or recycled water, while others draw directly
from aquifers.- AGAIN, WHERE WILL THIS COME FROM?OUR LAKES IN THE AREA,
BERTRAM? HOW WILL THIS AFFECT RESIDENTIAL WELL WATER PRESSURE AND
RURAL WATER SOURCES?
Strain on local supply: data centers puts a severe strain on local water supplies, depleting
aquifers and potentially diverting resources from agriculture and resident use.
Environmental effects: The discharge of warmed water from cooling systems can raise the
temperature of local water bodies, potentially disrupting aquatic ecosystems.
3. Property Values
Potential decrease: A negative impact on property values can occur if the facility is located very
close to homes, particularly if its operations result in significant noise, air pollution, or light
pollution. Visual impacts from the building and associated infrastructure, like transmission lines,
can also depress property values.
Higher property taxes: In some cases, increasing land values for data center development can
raise assessed property taxes for surrounding landowners, potentially pricing out long-term
residents.
Potential tax shifts: Some communities and state regulators express concern that residents and
small businesses may end up subsidizing data center development through higher property taxes
or increased energy costs.
4. Construction Traffic
Highway 25 and Country Rd 37 are already seeing an increased amount of traffic. Highway 25 into
downtown Monticello is CONGESTED every day of the week. Construction truck traffic from building of
the Data Center
Is going to increase our traffic greatly.
Thank you,
Janine & Bruce Kopff
From:Rylie Averill
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data center
Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 12:40:38 PM
Regarding the ordinance change for the data center. I have done a lot of research about the
approach the technology companies have been taking for installing these campuses. They push
this on anyone and everyone. The testimonies of the residents surrounding these data centers
are never good. The ordinance was put in place in 2020 to prevent builds exactly like this.
This build is not sustainable. Monticello needs tangible resources like access to food and clean
water. There is no reason we should be importing as much food from California as we do.
California is not stable. The land being looked at is considered land of great importance to
Minnesotas food supply under the United States Department of Agriculture. By placing the
data center on an area of great importance in sustaining the biodiversity of this area. This area
is crucial for pollinators, and general wild life that contribute to the healthy function of
agriculture. We can not jeopardize the nuclear power plant not having the water it needs to
cool. The Colorado river dried up. Why would anyone assume that there is zero risk for the
same occurring to the Mississippi River. The drinking water is already contaminated by the
nuclear power plant leak, and somehow they are not being held accountable, or fixing it. How
are we going to hold these people accountable when it is already so apparent that they
disregard all of the safety measures communities have put in place prior. There is a systematic
approach of weakening communities occurring. Our congress and government is currently
polluted with people who do not put america first. Anyone would be a fool to be naive enough
to trust big companies in a time like this. This topic will not be pushed under the rug. There is
no other option but to say no, for the safety, security, and strength of our community.
From:Christa Duggan
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data Center
Date:Sunday, August 24, 2025 5:38:56 PM
Hi Angela,
I live in Monticello and I’m writing in regard's to the proposed data center that is possibly
coming to Monticello.
It not a good idea. I realize the city would love it because of the taxes it could bring. It requires
re-zoning to have it there. That land could be better put to use by more housing or even other
businesses that don’t have the environmental impacts the data center could cause.
Data centers use an immense amount of water, they put a huge strain on power grids and are
not great for the environment in general. Not to mention the wildlife and other environmental
impacts it could have. It’s just not a great idea. Monticello doesn’t need that.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Christa Duggan
From:Mary Egan
To:Development Services
Subject:Data Center
Date:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 6:58:13 PM
I would like the planning commission to consider if a data center will be detrimental to
existing community members both in home values near the site as well as noise impacts. Also
please perform due diligence investigating impacts to water tables and how surrounding farms
may be impacted for irrigation. Last impact to homeowners who rely on well water for their
homes.
Appreciate your attention to this matter
Mary Egan
From:bgreteman
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data center
Date:Tuesday, August 26, 2025 1:44:13 PM
Hello,
I am a resident of Monticello. I am strongly opposed to the proposed data center in Monticello
for a number of reasons. I am particularly opposed to the proposed location in a semi-rural
location adjacent to the Bertram Lakes park. This park and nature area is a treasure for
Monticello and Wright County. Placing this data center anywhere close to this area would
ruin the natural beauty of this area.
The negatives far outweigh the positives for this center with the increased traffic, water and
power usage and the scarring of the land in this area.
You may notice that the AI titans are not building these in their backyards. Please don't let
Monticello become a victim of these centers for a few tax dollars generated by this facility.
Thank you,
Brian Greteman
Monticello
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
From:Beth Heck
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data Center
Date:Friday, August 22, 2025 1:34:35 PM
I am against the Data Center. I have researched and read about the environmental impacts. I can’t see where the
claimed financial gains for the city outweighs the costs to our environment and the surrounding area. It’s not
something we need to grow as a community. Destroying our natural environment and stressing our natural
resources, which are not unlimited just isn’t worth it.
I really hope you listen to the people of this community and do not allow this Data Center to go forward.
Beth Heck, , Monticello
From:fred hoiles
To:Development Services
Subject:Data center
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 5:03:57 PM
Dear Monticello Gov,
I’m writing to express my strong opposition to the construction of any data centers in
Monticello—both the one proposed near my home and any future projects. While I
understand these facilities are often framed as economic opportunities, the negative
impacts to our community far outweigh any potential benefits.
⸻
Why I Oppose Data Centers in Monticello
1. Enormous Energy Consumption
Data centers require massive amounts of electricity to operate and cool their
equipment. This puts pressure on our local power grid and can drive up costs for
residents without delivering proportional community benefit.
2. Heavy Water Usage & Environmental Strain
Many data centers consume millions of gallons of water each year for cooling. That kind
of demand could strain our local water supply and impact groundwater levels—
something Monticello should be protecting, not depleting.
3. Minimal Long-Term Job Creation
For their size, data centers create surprisingly few permanent jobs once operational.
This means the long-term return to the community is minimal compared to the
infrastructure and environmental costs.
4. Noise, Heat, and Industrial Impact
The constant hum of cooling systems, heat emissions, and the industrial look of these
facilities change the character of surrounding neighborhoods and could harm property
values.
5. Loss of Land for Better Development
Once large tracts of land are used for single-purpose industrial facilities, we lose
opportunities for projects that could bring more jobs, tax revenue, and community value
—without the environmental toll.
6. Why push out local farms for little value in the community?! Growth is going to
happen, that I understand, but to push growth to just help corporations and hurt the
community you serve makes no sense.
⸻
My Request
I urge the City to reject all data center proposals in Monticello, regardless of location.
Instead, we should focus on development that:
• Creates sustainable, long-term economic growth
• Produces meaningful numbers of local jobs
• Protects our environmental resources
• Enhances the quality of life for residents
I care deeply about Monticello’s growth, but I believe data centers are not the right path
forward for our city—whether two blocks from my house or on the other side of town.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
From:Lysa Holmstrom
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data center
Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 10:21:48 AM
Please do not approve this! While I support growing our community, this company doesn't
care about our resources since they are not local people. It's not healthy for our water and
electrical supplies period.
I don't support this, I don't want it in my backyard.
Concerned property owner
From:Gwen&Wayne Johnson
To:Development Services
Subject:Data center
Date:Thursday, August 28, 2025 1:24:48 PM
I wanted to voice my support concerning the data center issue.
It appears the city council is moving forward with due diligence as it should.
--I believe a data center would be a great opportunity for our area.
Thank you
Wayne and Gwen Johnson
From:amberkoch919
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data center
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 5:05:16 PM
Dear Monticello Gov,
I’m writing to express my strong opposition to the construction of any data centers in Monticello—both the
one proposed near my home and any future projects. While I understand these facilities are often framed as
economic opportunities, the negative impacts to our community far outweigh any potential benefits.
Why I Oppose Data Centers in Monticello
1. Enormous Energy Consumption
Data centers require massive amounts of electricity to operate and cool their equipment. This puts pressure
on our local power grid and can drive up costs for residents without delivering proportional community
benefit.
2. Heavy Water Usage & Environmental Strain
Many data centers consume millions of gallons of water each year for cooling. That kind of demand could
strain our local water supply and impact groundwater levels—something Monticello should be protecting,
not depleting.
3. Minimal Long-Term Job Creation
For their size, data centers create surprisingly few permanent jobs once operational. This means the long-
term return to the community is minimal compared to the infrastructure and environmental costs.
4. Noise, Heat, and Industrial Impact
The constant hum of cooling systems, heat emissions, and the industrial look of these facilities change the
character of surrounding neighborhoods and could harm property values.
5. Loss of Land for Better Development
Once large tracts of land are used for single-purpose industrial facilities, we lose opportunities for projects
that could bring more jobs, tax revenue, and community value—without the environmental toll.
My Request
I urge the City to reject all data center proposals in Monticello, regardless of location. Instead, we should
focus on development that:
• Creates sustainable, long-term economic growth
• Produces meaningful numbers of local jobs
• Protects our environmental resources
• Enhances the quality of life for residents
Angela, I care deeply about Monticello’s growth, but I believe data centers are not the right path forward for
our city—whether two blocks from my house or on the other side of town.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Amber
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
From:Eloise Lee
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data Center
Date:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 4:29:13 PM
Living in a neighborhood not far from where the Data center is trying to be built- I vote NO. This is
"country" to us- farm fields nearby . The farm land near us is home to wildlife and waterfowl- why change
that ? From my understanding, this could affect our power and our water supply eventually ...we all have
wells. I voiced an opinion earlier on Facebook and was confronted by someone with no respect
whatsoever...if this person is involved with the "Data Center" itself-Monticello does not need him or his
business here. Monticello is growing....lets make sure its in a positive direction.
From:Sara Lyrenmann
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data Center
Date:Monday, August 25, 2025 3:55:28 PM
Hello,
I am a Monticello community member and am writing to give my comments on the proposed data center. I am
concerned with the negative effects that this data center would have on our community, especially extreme water
and energy usage. I believe this would negatively impact Monticello residents with decreased water pressure, higher
energy costs and impact on our aquifers.
I urge you to take into consideration your community members’ viewpoints on this crucial matter.
Thank you,
Sara Lyrenmann
From:Lisa Murphy
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data center
Date:Saturday, August 30, 2025 4:02:06 PM
Do I want an AI data center in your backyard? NO
Monticello Tech LLC is owned by Monticelloam LCC. The co-founder of Monticelloam LLC is Johnathan Litt
who is the Assistant Treasurer Black Rock Monticello Debt Real Estate Investment Trust.
This report is spotty, and over looks many environmental factors that are unique to our location, and our farming
practices. This scope is covering 546 acres of land (only 10acres of this is currently paved) everything else is water
sources, and farmland (the vast majority of this land is considered 'prime farm land', or 'farmland of state wide
importance'. There are 8 wetlands in this area of study which are crucial for endangered species like the monarch,
and the western regal fritillary butterfly and the whooping crane. There are also bald eagles in this area that are
protected until MBTA and the Golden Eagle Protection Act. This build is not in compliance with Wright County
Northeast Quadrant Land Use Plan of 2007 nor City of Monticello 2040 comprehension Plan of 2020; it is appalling
that Kimley Horn half heartedly attempts to justify it. Data Centers need significant amounts of water. There has
been alot of flooding occurring in the United States. We already have a nuclear power plant to keep cool. It is NOT
a good idea to place a data center in Monticello MN.
PLEASE, DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN HERE.
Sent from my iPad
From:Mary Beth Noll
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data Center
Date:Saturday, August 30, 2025 7:31:36 PM
I oppose building a data center in the currently proposed section. This is precisely the
area in which population growth is anticipated. This is one major reason to oppose
the construction of a data center, and there are so many reasons!
"Without decisive action, the unchecked expansion of data centers will exacerbate an
emerging energy crisis, increase pollution and impose unbearable energy costs on
residents. Policymakers should focus on tipping the scales towards environmental
sustainability and public well-being instead of rubber-stamping data centers in the
name of more revenue. This report serves as both a warning and a call to action—we
must manage data center growth before it is too late."
Thank you.
Mary Beth Noll
Monticello, MN 55362
From:Joseph Perrault
To:Angela Schumann
Cc:Kip Christianson; Charlotte Gabler; Lloyd Hilgart; Tracy Hinz; Lee Martie; Development Services; Darek.Vetsch
Subject:data center
Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 2:54:10 PM
Dear Monticello City Council Members and Planning Commissioners,
This letter is written with concern for the proposed amendment of the city code and zoning ordinance that would
create land for development of two data centers in the city of Monticello. My address is on Oak Ridge Drive, a few
miles from the proposed data site.
I have significant concerns for the placement of data centers in my city, especially so close to the homes of 2 of my
daughters and their families. These include: extreme water usage, massive land development, a decrease in property
values, a decrease in our natural resources, higher energy costs, increased taxes (especially to local small businesses
that truly keep our country running), and a small number of jobs that will most certainly be replaced by Artificial
Intelligence (AI) in the near future.
As members of the City Planning Commission, you have a huge responsibility. Do you truly know the impact this
will have on the quality of life of Monticello’s residents? Who will pay for the increased water usage and waste
management? What about water pressure? Who will regulate this usage by the data center? Would the waste water
treatment plant need to be expanded to accommodate the data center? If so, who would pay for it? I am not okay
with paying higher taxes in order for the data center to use the CITIZEN’S resources for waste management, water
and energy.
The idea that these data centers would offer high paying jobs for many people is poorly researched. The amount of
people they would employ does not offset the high cost that our residents will have to sacrifice in decreased
resources like water and energy. I understand the jobs it will create in the building of the data centers, but what
then? The employees of these data center companies will also not likely live near the data center, possibly not even
in Monticello. Therefore, the theory that this will bring many high paying jobs is not to be considered as a positive
impact on our city. Also, these employees will surely be replaced by AI in the near future. It is a well known fact by
anyone who currently works in any kind of AI engineering or research.
Regarding property taxes, I also do not believe this will increase the property value of homes. Most of the people I
talk to would NOT WANT TO LIVE NEAR a data center and the people I know who currently live near one, do
not like it.
I urge you to think of the long term effects on our beautiful city. With no one to hold these large companies
accountable, in the future, I believe the company will always win. Once our city lets them build, we, the citizens of
Monticello, will have no say on what happens with our taxes and natural resources. Please take your time on making
this extremely impactful decision. We do not need to let these big companies/data centers be built in our city.
Sincerely,
Kelly Perrault
From:Angel Petitta
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data Center
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 11:47:02 AM
Hello,
I have very strong concerns over the proposed data center being built. It does not appear that
thorough review was done on the environmental impacts and the resources this will require.
There are many protected wild life in these areas that would be impacted as well and I think
more time needs to be dedicated to researching and understanding these impacts as well as
informing residents of the effects to local farmland, water designation, and potential strain on
our power plant. I oppose the rezoning that is being proposed to accomplish this. Other local
families are concerned as well and will be spreading awareness.
I appreciate your attention to this matter.
Thank you,
Angelique Petitta
From:Paula Zychowski
To:Angela Schumann; Jim Thares; Tyler Bevier; kio.christianson@monticellomn.gov;
charlott.gabler@monticellomn.gov; tracy.heinz@monticellomn.gov; Lee Martie; lloyd.hilgert@monticellomn.go
Subject:Data Center
Date:Monday, September 1, 2025 5:06:27 PM
I’m To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the construction of any data centers in
Monticello regardless of location.
The following reasons are why I strongly oppose any data centers in Monticello.
-Enormous Energy Consumption
-Heavy Water Usage and Environmental Strain
-Minimal Long-Term Job Creation
-Noise and Light Pollution
-Security Risk - physical and cyber
- LOSS OF HOME VALUE!!! - NOBODY WANTS TO LIVE BY ONE!!!
The reasons why I am opposed to it far outweigh any tax benefits that would come with a data
center.
I did try to keep an open mind by looking up videos of citizens in other cities now living near
a data center and positive out comes of it - I did not find ANY and quite the opposite. I heard
a lot of devastating results to their quality of life having data centers in their communities.
Lawsuits against some cities, claiming lack of transparency from the city and even some of
the companies cutting a deal with the city before the citizens had a chance voice their opinion
or vote!! I am very thankful and trust that this will not be the case with our city council
members.
I am wondering…
1. Will there be a meeting so people are able to voice their opinions as to whether or not we
would even want a data center here? This feedback could be valuable information when
making zoning decisions.
2. Would it be possible that the zoning requirements could be so restrictive, focusing on
protecting our community and the environment, that it would prevent data centers from
building here?
3. If the city is approached by a company that wants to build a data center here, will the
community be given the opportunity to vote for or against it?
Once again, I urge the city to reject all data center proposals and focus on preserving what
makes Monticello such a great place to live and why it attracts people to the area….our
schools, safety, scenic walking and biking trails, vast recreational opportunities, the beautiful
Mississippi River, Bertram, and Lake Maria State Park to name a few. Monticello offers
small town charm with the convenience of shopping and restaurants, which is the reason our
family moved back to this area 10 years ago.
Thank you for your time, I look forward to hearing from you.
Paula Zychowski
From:Jeanne Yohn
To:Angela Schumann; Tyler Bevier; Development Services
Subject:Data Centers Objection
Date:Saturday, August 23, 2025 8:44:08 PM
I’ve recently learned about the possibility of data centers near our home. We want to submit
our objection to this project. Here are our concerns:
Data Centers are a huge drain on water and electricity for their source of power. We are
concerned that this demand will deplete our local resources, potentially raising prices
for our own power needs.
Data Centers are loud. The area under discussion is largely rural but with housing
nearby the site. In addition, the noise will cause problems for the wildlife and livestock
in the area.
Data Centers are bright. This also negatively impacts the housing around the area.
All of these things are not only going to impact the residents quality of life, it will
reduce our home values.
Overall, please know that we strongly object to the locations considered. If you disregard the
concerns of the public and move forward over our objections, we would ask you to do one
thing: REQUIRE THEM TO USE SOLAR PANELS TO PRODUCE 100% OF THEIR
POWER NEEDED.
Respectfully,
Jeanne and Alan Yohn
From:
To:Development Services
Subject:Data centers
Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 7:58:18 PM
Please do not allow a data centers to be built in Monticello.
They are bad for property values. They are super noisy. They increase electric rates for residential customers. Also
they use a lot of water. We cannot afford to allow any data centers to be built in Monticello!
Please vote NO!
Connie Carlson
Monticello, MN
Sent from my iPhone
From:Alexander Coady
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data centers.
Date:Monday, September 1, 2025 9:44:42 AM
Greeting Angela,
I'm emailing you because recently I found out that there are not one, but two data centers
trying to be built in my home town, and I have some concerns.
To start off with, on the off chance that I wasn't clear, I do not support the approval, nor the
construction of these projects. Now, onto the concerns.
First off, I in general dont like data centers as a base concept, they take up a lot of space, the
use a lot of electricity. As well as water and I feel this increase of demand on both ends will
result in a further increase in pricing for the general populace in monticello, which is not a
prospect that particularly interests me. (There have also been reports and interviews of CEO's
literally saying that those costs would be primarily onto the locals, so I've little doubt that
subsidizing the citizens of monticello is part of the game plan)
They generally look ugly if aesthetics were a concern, and I dont support what they do,
harvesting data to sell and push ads to a population that generally doesn't want them.
Furthermore, I have a hard time seeing the benefits to our community, as I feel the people
operating and maintaining the project would most likely NOT be locals. In fact I can almost
guarantee thlife. 90%-99% won't be, as I have not met a single person in the field in my life.
In short, the prospect of these projects seem like a lot of long term consequences for very little
short term gain that doesn't have enough visible nor probable long term benefits to the
population of the city you serve.
From:Bonita Stromberg
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data park
Date:Monday, August 18, 2025 7:15:14 PM
Absolutely not in favor of this. Not sure that it is in Monticello’s best interests.
Bonnie Stromberg
Sent from my iPhone
From:Nick Frattalone
To:Angela Schumann
Cc:Luke Appert/USA
Subject:DCPUD
Date:Wednesday, August 20, 2025 6:46:59 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Good Morning Angela,
Great job at the meeting last night.
I just wanted to follow up in writing with the comments I have on the DCPUD:
1. Minimum FAR – This seems adequate on a normal development but extremely massive on a
larger scale lot. If we used this as a minimum on a 550 acre site, the building footprint would
need to be a minimum of 5.95 million square feet. Not sure the city would want that kind of
density and/or if a developer would even want to agree to it.
2. Landscape Buffer: Currently states “buffers” are required all along the perimeter of the site.
We would like to propose a further setback along non-residential/non-civic areas that would
be exempt from these buffers. Say, 300-400’?
3. Timeline for performance of phased projects of 3 years. With technology ever changing, this
could provide unintentional “rushed” development and should be removed or changed to at
least 5 years.
4. Electricity supply “study”. Requesting this to be removed as it is not the applicant’s
responsibility.
5. Fiscal supply study. This is very vague and could mean different things to different parties.
Again, with technology ever changing, it would be difficult for a developer to get fine detail
on this and then have to be held accountable to those figures 3-5 years later.
6. Substations should be exempt from design standards. I am not 100% certain but I do believe
the substations are directed by the power supplier (X-cel) and I am not sure the developer can
guarantee meeting the same standards as the proposed Data Center. It may make sense to
create another set of standards for the substation that pertains to things such as max heights,
screening, fencing, min lot areas, max impervious area, minimum FAT, etc.
7. Height of structures. Most data centers have internal communication towers that can be up
to 85’ in height and would exceed the current 65’ height restriction and could possible be
listed under the current prohibited use section.
I look forward to future discussions on these matters. Thanks and have a great day!
Nick Frattalone
Chief Executive Officer
3205 Spruce Street St. Paul, MN 55117
P: 651.484.0448 | C: 651.283.6627
From:Harlan Hamson
To:Development Services
Subject:Do do this proposed development of an approximately 550-acre technology campus by Monticello Tech LLC..
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 8:37:47 PM
Do do this proposed development of an approximately 550-acre technology campus by
Monticello Tech LLC.. You will completely wreck the city of Monticello.
From:Ted
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Don"t approve the data center
Date:Sunday, August 24, 2025 5:15:00 PM
Hello,
My name is Theodore Keith and I live at , Monticello, MN 55362. I ask you to vote against a data center coming to Monticello.
Here are the reasons why:
Environmental and resource consumption
High energy usage: Data centers are extremely energy-intensive, consuming up to 50 times more power per square foot than a typical office building.
Globally, data centers account for about 1% of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. The AI boom is expected to accelerate this demand
dramatically, with some forecasts projecting global data center electricity consumption to more than double by 2030.
Strain on the power grid: This soaring energy demand, particularly from AI-optimized centers, can overwhelm existing power grids and delay the
shutdown of older, fossil fuel-based power plants. This can also drive up electricity costs for local residential and commercial customers.
Excessive water consumption: Large data centers can consume between 1 million and 5 million gallons of water daily, primarily for cooling servers. This
places a major strain on local water resources, especially in areas with limited or stressed water supplies.
E-waste generation: The rapid upgrade cycle for hardware, driven by technological advancements, creates large amounts of electronic waste, which can
release toxic materials into the environment if not disposed of properly.
Backup generator emissions: Many facilities rely on large, diesel-powered backup generators to ensure 24/7 uptime. Regular testing of these generators
releases pollutants like nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter, which degrades local air quality and poses health risks.
Local socioeconomic impacts
Limited permanent jobs: While data center construction creates short-term work, the operational phase is highly automated and requires very few
permanent employees. This means the long-term economic benefits to the local community in terms of job creation are minimal.
Tax incentives and revenue questions: Developers often receive substantial tax incentives and abatements to build in a community. This reduces the
overall tax revenue for the locality, and critics argue the incentives rarely provide a tangible economic lift that justifies the costs.
Exclusionary development: Data center deals are frequently brokered in secret, with local governments approving large-scale, "by-right" zoning for
facilities with minimal public engagement. This lack of transparency can leave residents feeling excluded from decisions that directly impact their
community.
Infrastructure costs shifted to taxpayers: Upgrades required for roads, utilities, and power transmission to support data centers are often subsidized by or
shifted to local taxpayers.
Community and quality of life issues
Noise pollution: Cooling fans, generators, and transformers at data centers create a constant, low-frequency humming sound that can disrupt residents'
quality of life, especially in rural or suburban areas. The noise from backup generator testing is also disruptive.
Aesthetic concerns: The windowless, industrial-style warehouses of data centers are often seen as eyesores that clash with surrounding architectural
aesthetics, particularly in suburban or rural settings.
Land use and property value: Data centers consume large parcels of land, replacing open spaces, farmland, or potential residential areas. While some
argue they can increase property values, concerns remain about their impact on the character and future development of a community.
Wildlife disturbance: Noise emissions from data centers can disrupt local wildlife, altering animal behavior and migration patterns.
Again I urge you to vote against the data center coming to Monticello.
Thank you for reading my email, I urge you to do the right thing and vote against the data center coming to Monticello,
Theodore Keith.
Resources:
https://www.datacenterfrontier.com/site-selection/article/55307719/when-communities-push-back-navigating-data-center-opposition
https://www.staxengineering.com/stax-hub/the-environmental-impact-of-data-
centers/#:~:text=Data%20center%20emissions%20are%20caused,40%25%20of%20their%20electricity%20usage.
https://www.techtarget.com/searchdatacenter/feature/How-the-rise-in-AI-impacts-data-centers-and-the-
environment#:~:text=their%20energy%20footprint.-
,AI%20must%20process%20vast%20volumes%20of%20data%20and%20conduct%20complex,complex%20and%20demand%20more%20energy.
https://www.brushwoodmedianetwork.com/national/poll-american-voters-dont-want-data-centers-built-in-their-
communities/#:~:text=The%20data%20centers%20are%20used,a%20large%20amount%20of%20energy.
https://greenehurlocker.com/recent-developments-at-the-intersection-of-data-centers-and-
energy/#:~:text=Recent%20Developments%20at%20the%20Intersection%20of%20Data,are%20putting%20pressure%20on%20the%20energy%20system.
https://www.datacenterwatch.org/report#:~:text=While%20there%20is%20bipartisan%20opposition,to%20have%20a%20partisan%20lean.
From:
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Featherstone - Please Listen
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 9:42:55 AM
Dear Angela,
I’m writing as a concerned resident and parent in featherstone regarding the proposed data
center planned for the area just outside our community. While I understand the importance of
economic development and technological infrastructure, I have serious concerns about the
potential impact this project will have on our neighborhood especially for families with
children.
Our community is home to many small children who regularly play outdoors and walk or bike
in the area. The increased traffic from construction vehicles and ongoing operations poses
significant safety risks. Heavy truck traffic and commuter vehicles will also add to congestion
on our local roads, which are not designed for such high-volume industrial use.
Additionally, data centers are known to generate considerable noise from cooling systems and
backup generators, which could disturb the quiet character of our neighborhood both day and
night. Air pollution from increased traffic, as well as the potential environmental footprint of
such a large facility, raises further concerns for the health and well-being of our residents.
Beyond immediate safety and quality-of-life issues, I’m also concerned about the long-term
effects on property values, the strain on local infrastructure, and the precedent it sets for future
industrial development so close to residential areas.
I respectfully urge you and the planning department to carefully evaluate alternative locations
that would not place an industrial-scale facility in such close proximity to family
neighborhoods. Our community’s safety, environment, and quality of life should remain a top
priority in development decisions.
Thank you for your time, and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns
further.
Allison Lansing
2025
From:Ashley Andersen
To:Development Services
Subject:Feedback on the new data center
Date:Wednesday, August 20, 2025 1:28:08 PM
I would like to share my opinion on the new data center proposed for Monticello MN.
Unfortunately I was not able to attend the public hearing on August 19.
As many others have stated, I have concerns over the large amount of resources a data center
will require. The amount of water and power required to run these plants is astonishing and
wasteful. This is a concern not just for our community, but for the whole concept of data
centers. Why would the city and its leaders choose to bring a large facility into our community
that will take such a large draw of our water and power? Is this really worth it for the tax or
financial incentives? Are we only looking at revenue and not the quality of life for our
community members?
Not only would the data center be wasteful, it will cover acres of farmland. If the farmland
must be developed, more housing seems like it would be a better choice for our community
than this use of the land. Residential neighborhoods still allow green space, trees, ponds, etc.
Residential areas allow local wildlife to still live in the area. A data center will turn open space
into a field of ugly concrete buildings and cement parking lots. Wildlife will be displaced or
lost altogether. It will be unsightly and invasive.
Please consider the voices of community members during this time of public comment. It
sounds like there are more negatives than positives for our community if this data center were
to be built.
Thank you,
Ashley Andersen
Monticello, MN
From:
To:Angela Schumann
Cc:Rachel Leonard; Lloyd Hilgart; Development Services
Subject:Further Comments with questions
Date:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 1:32:41 AM
Attachments:Review of Planning Commission August 19th.pdf
Importance:High
Angela,
Please review and answer the questions in the attached review document.
Please include this document in the stack you have for both the Planning Meeting tonight and
the Development meeting for the 3rd.
Very best,
Scott Harper
Monticello, MN 55362
From:Rachel Leonard
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:FW: Data Center concerns
Date:Monday, September 22, 2025 9:51:04 AM
Rachel Leonard
City Administrator
763-271-3275
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lynn Black
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 7:06 PM
To: Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Data Center concerns
As a member of Monticello township, I have the following concerns about the potential land use change for a data
center is allowed near hwy 25, 85th st, and Edmonson Ave.
1. The amount of housing near by or was planned to be across Edmonson to the East. How this center will affect
lifestyles, health, and if people will not move to the area???
2. The future park plans (2040) around the ponds south and across Edmonson. How will this change?
3. The effects on wildlife. On a daily basis I see all sorts of wildlife near or on the ponds.
4. As one who lives on the pond and sees water levels go up and down, I’m afraid this data center will affect the
water level. Drought years I have see fish freeze out in the spring. Will the center diminish these beautiful ponds?
5. Articles read indicate well water issues near by centers. We have a well across the street. I’m concerned we would
need to dig another well, especially if city water is not available to those in township in near future.
6. Noise from the center.
7. Overall long term effects to environment, health of citizens. And effect on the community.
If I have more things that come up, I will hopefully get them to you before future meeting.
Lynn Black
Monticello, MN 55362
Sent from my iPhone
From:Jennifer Schreiber
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:FW: Data centers
Date:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 7:58:46 AM
Sorry.
From: Teia Strand
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2025 2:15 PM
To: Jennifer Schreiber <Jennifer.Schreiber@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Data centers
I do not support the city putting in data centers.
From:Development Services
To:Angela Schumann
Cc:Jennifer Schreiber
Subject:FW: Monticello Tech LLC Data center
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 7:54:06 AM
AUAR Comment.
From: Kara Thornton
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 8:53 PM
To: Development Services <Community.Development@MonticelloMN.gov>; Angela Schumann
<Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>; Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>;
Lloyd Hilgart <Lloyd.Hilgart@MonticelloMN.gov>; Tracy Hinz <Tracy.Hinz@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lee
Martie <Lee.Martie@MonticelloMN.gov>; Kip Christianson <Kip.Christianson@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Monticello Tech LLC Data center
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to voice my very strong opposition to any zoning or land use amendments
that will encourage or allow the development of any data center in Monticello.
These technology campuses have been shown to use massive amounts of water and
electricity, the cost of which is often shouldered by residents. There is concern about
ground water contamination, noise pollution, light pollution, elimination of farm and
potential residential property, and reduction of property values.
Monticello is a growing community with so much potential. Please do not let the
supposed financial incentives of allowing a data center into our city ruin that potential!
Sincerely,
Kara Thornton
Monticello, MN 55362
From:Development Services
To:Angela Schumann
Cc:Jennifer Schreiber
Subject:FW: Opposition to Data Center
Date:Monday, August 18, 2025 9:21:41 AM
AUAR Comment
From: Monica Vosmek
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 3:29 PM
To: Development Services <Community.Development@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Fw: Opposition to Data Center
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Monica Vosmek
To: angela.schumann@MonticelloMN.gov <angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 at 10:53:09 AM CDT
Subject: Opposition to Data Center
Good morning Angela.
I am writing in opposition of the Data Center being built directly across from
Featherstone neighborhood.
With the current construction detours, we have already seen an increase in traffic that
has negatively impacted our neighborhood to the point of several neighbors placing
signs to slow down as our neighborhood has many, many children. There are several
home daycares that frequently walk the trails along the road. For our family, we have
a child with Autism and fear that the Data Center will bring additional traffic dangers.
The Data Center will also disrupt our quiet neighborhood with the loud noises it will
bring. Extra pollution is another concern.
We hope that Monticello will keep this area residential and NOT commercial.
KEEP OUR AREA SAFE FOR OUR CHILDREN.
Thank you,
Monica Primeau
Featherstone Neighborhood
From:Rachel Leonard
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:FW: Opposition to data centers
Date:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:17:43 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Please see below for public comment on the zoning ordinance.
Rachel Leonard
City Administrator
763-271-3275
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act
and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Wendy Suddard
Sent: Monday, September 1, 2025 4:32 PM
To: Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Opposition to data centers
Dear Rachel,
I am concerned about the new amendment to the city code and zoning
ordinance that would create a special land use overlay zone specifically for the
placement of data centers. I am opposed to land use by data centers. One of
them would be very close to my house and the other would be very close to
Bertram Chain of Lakes of which I am a Friend of Bertram.
Wendy Suddard-Bangsund
From:Harlan Hamson
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration
Date:Wednesday, August 20, 2025 9:44:52 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Why doesn't the city of Monticello put Data Center on the ballot for this November. Let he
people of the city decide if the Data Center should be built here.
From: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 4:47 PM
To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Cc: Anne Mueller <Anne.Mueller@MonticelloMN.gov>; Tyler Bevier
<Tyler.Bevier@MonticelloMN.gov>; Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration
Thank you for emailing your comments related to the consideration of data center
development in the community.
Your comments will be forwarded to the Monticello Planning Commission for their
consideration as part of this evening’s public hearing on the draft zoning ordinance
regulating data centers. The data center ordinance being discussed at Planning
Commission is not specific to a particular data center project. The ordinance would set
the requirements for any data center development in the city. The report and draft
ordinance for the August 19th, 2025 item can be found here.
An Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Scoping Document has also been
prepared as related to development of an approximately 546 acre area south of
85th Street NE. More information can be found at Environmental Reviews | Monticello,
MN. Your comments will also be included in the public comment documentation for the
AUAR Scoping Document. If you would like to make additional comment specific to the
AUAR Scoping Document, the comment period is open until September 4, 2025. If you
do not wish for your prior email to be included in the AUAR document, please email me
that you do not wish for your comment to be included in the AUAR Scoping Document
comments.
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
Development Services
763-271-3224
From:Harlan Hamson
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration
Date:Friday, August 22, 2025 10:35:26 AM
In general, Omaha, Nebraska is a popular location for data centers due to factors like reliable
and affordable electricity, open land, and a robust fiber optic network.
However, some challenges and concerns are associated with the growth of data centers in
Omaha and elsewhere:
Environmental Impact: Data centers are energy and water-intensive, consuming significant
electricity and water for operation and cooling. This can put a strain on local resources and
raise concerns about the environmental footprint of these facilities. For example, the Omaha
Public Power District has faced increased demand and delayed the shutdown of a coal plant
due to data center expansion, particularly Google's investments in the area.
Grid Reliability: The increasing demand from data centers can impact the stability and
reliability of the electrical grid. There have been concerns raised about the potential for data
center behavior to contribute to cascading power outages, according to NERC reports.
Infrastructure Demands: Building and maintaining data centers requires substantial
infrastructure, including power, cooling, and fiber optics. Keeping up with the rapid growth in
demand for these resources presents challenges for utilities and communities.
Local Concerns: Residents and communities may have concerns about the environmental
impact, noise levels, and potential strain on local resources posed by data center
development.
Outages: While many data centers prioritize reliability and redundancy to prevent downtime,
outages can still occur due to power issues, equipment failures, or even software updates.
These outages can affect various services and businesses, as seen in a global IT outage that
impacted Nebraska residents.
Despite these challenges, data centers play a crucial role in supporting the digital economy
and provide significant benefits, such as job creation and the provision of essential services.
Ultimately, the development and operation of data centers in Omaha involve a balancing act
between the benefits they offer and the need to address the associated environmental and
infrastructure concerns.
From: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 9:44 PM
To: Harlan Hamson
Subject: Automatic reply: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration
Thank you for your email. I am currently out of office, returning on Monday, August 25th, 2025. If you needimmediate assistance, please call our front desk at 763-295-2711.
From:Harlan Hamson
To:Angela Schumann; Lloyd Hilgart
Subject:Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration
Date:Saturday, August 23, 2025 4:11:38 PM
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1301648375032057
From: Harlan Hamson
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 9:02 PM
To: Angela Schumann <angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov>
Subject: Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration
Here's a post from a friend who is fighting the same battle in another state. Might be worth
looking into if this would be true here as well.
"Getting ready for our likely last shot at stopping this data center within eyesight of our house.
The list of reasons this is a bad idea is very long, but the latest I just learned is that the legal
language includes a free pass for destroying the local wells and water table. If everyone living
in the area suddenly loses water, as has happened with other data centers, they have no legal
liabilities.
The city wants this for tax revenue. Which is why they're offering fifty years of zero taxes to
the data center.
From: Harlan Hamson
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 10:35 AM
To: Angela Schumann <angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov>
Subject: Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration
In general, Omaha, Nebraska is a popular location for data centers due to factors like reliable
and affordable electricity, open land, and a robust fiber optic network.
However, some challenges and concerns are associated with the growth of data centers in
Omaha and elsewhere:
Environmental Impact: Data centers are energy and water-intensive, consuming significant
electricity and water for operation and cooling. This can put a strain on local resources and
raise concerns about the environmental footprint of these facilities. For example, the Omaha
Public Power District has faced increased demand and delayed the shutdown of a coal plant
due to data center expansion, particularly Google's investments in the area.
Grid Reliability: The increasing demand from data centers can impact the stability and
reliability of the electrical grid. There have been concerns raised about the potential for data
center behavior to contribute to cascading power outages, according to NERC reports.
Infrastructure Demands: Building and maintaining data centers requires substantial
infrastructure, including power, cooling, and fiber optics. Keeping up with the rapid growth in
demand for these resources presents challenges for utilities and communities.
Local Concerns: Residents and communities may have concerns about the environmental
impact, noise levels, and potential strain on local resources posed by data center
development.
Outages: While many data centers prioritize reliability and redundancy to prevent downtime,
outages can still occur due to power issues, equipment failures, or even software updates.
These outages can affect various services and businesses, as seen in a global IT outage that
impacted Nebraska residents.
Despite these challenges, data centers play a crucial role in supporting the digital economy
and provide significant benefits, such as job creation and the provision of essential services.
Ultimately, the development and operation of data centers in Omaha involve a balancing act
between the benefits they offer and the need to address the associated environmental and
infrastructure concerns.
From: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 9:44 PM
To: Harlan Hamson
Subject: Automatic reply: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration
Thank you for your email. I am currently out of office, returning on Monday, August 25th, 2025. If you needimmediate assistance, please call our front desk at 763-295-2711.
From:Harlan Hamson
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration
Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 10:43:02 AM
I would guarantee you that if this was put to a vote or straw poll, not many people would be
for having Data Center built here. Especially if they knew the bad ramification on the city of
Monticello.
From: Harlan Hamson
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2025 4:11 PM
To: Angela Schumann <angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov>; lloyd.hilgart@monticellomn.gov
<lloyd.hilgart@monticellomn.gov>
Subject: Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1301648375032057
From: Harlan Hamson
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 9:02 PM
To: Angela Schumann <angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov>
Subject: Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration
Here's a post from a friend who is fighting the same battle in another state. Might be worth
looking into if this would be true here as well.
"Getting ready for our likely last shot at stopping this data center within eyesight of our house.
The list of reasons this is a bad idea is very long, but the latest I just learned is that the legal
language includes a free pass for destroying the local wells and water table. If everyone living
in the area suddenly loses water, as has happened with other data centers, they have no legal
liabilities.
The city wants this for tax revenue. Which is why they're offering fifty years of zero taxes to
the data center.
From: Harlan Hamson
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 10:35 AM
To: Angela Schumann <angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov>
Subject: Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration
In general, Omaha, Nebraska is a popular location for data centers due to factors like reliable
and affordable electricity, open land, and a robust fiber optic network.
However, some challenges and concerns are associated with the growth of data centers in
Omaha and elsewhere:
Environmental Impact: Data centers are energy and water-intensive, consuming significant
electricity and water for operation and cooling. This can put a strain on local resources and
raise concerns about the environmental footprint of these facilities. For example, the Omaha
Public Power District has faced increased demand and delayed the shutdown of a coal plant
due to data center expansion, particularly Google's investments in the area.
Grid Reliability: The increasing demand from data centers can impact the stability and
reliability of the electrical grid. There have been concerns raised about the potential for data
center behavior to contribute to cascading power outages, according to NERC reports.
Infrastructure Demands: Building and maintaining data centers requires substantial
infrastructure, including power, cooling, and fiber optics. Keeping up with the rapid growth in
demand for these resources presents challenges for utilities and communities.
Local Concerns: Residents and communities may have concerns about the environmental
impact, noise levels, and potential strain on local resources posed by data center
development.
Outages: While many data centers prioritize reliability and redundancy to prevent downtime,
outages can still occur due to power issues, equipment failures, or even software updates.
These outages can affect various services and businesses, as seen in a global IT outage that
impacted Nebraska residents.
Despite these challenges, data centers play a crucial role in supporting the digital economy
and provide significant benefits, such as job creation and the provision of essential services.
Ultimately, the development and operation of data centers in Omaha involve a balancing act
between the benefits they offer and the need to address the associated environmental and
infrastructure concerns.
From: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 9:44 PM
To: Harlan Hamson
Subject: Automatic reply: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration
Thank you for your email. I am currently out of office, returning on Monday, August 25th, 2025. If you needimmediate assistance, please call our front desk at 763-295-2711.
From:lisa Keenan
To:Development Services
Subject:Fwd: Data Center
Date:Monday, August 18, 2025 1:05:36 PM
Monticello Planning Commission,
Please see below and links. I will be at the meeting tomorrow evening but wanted to send this as
information beforehand. I will referencing it if given an opportunity to speak.
From CEDS website (Community & Environmental Defense Services) – When data centers are
restricted to industrial sites, they are frequently considered light industrial, as opposed to heavy
industrial. However, a case can be made that data centers are more heavy than light industrial. A
widely accepted definition of light industrial are those uses where impacts do not extend beyond the
site boundary. Given the noise, air pollution and other data center impacts can extend into nearby
residential areas and beyond, they should be classed as heavy industrial.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/02/11/water-guzzling-data-centers-spark-worries-for-minnesotas-
groundwater
https://youtu.be/JflFFqbZ1X8?si=UUs9gXYHnxRYrtLh
Regards,
Lisa Keenan
Monticello, MN 55362
From:Jessica Kinney
To:Development Services; Charlotte Gabler; Tracy Hinz; Lee Martie; Kip Christianson; Rachel Leonard
Subject:Fwd: Opposition to Proposed Data Center Development
Date:Monday, September 8, 2025 10:41:53 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jessica Kinney
Date: Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 10:33 PM
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Data Center Development
To: <Lloyd.hilgart@monticellomn.gov>
I am writing to respectfully express my concern regarding the consideration of a data center
development in Monticello. While I recognize the need to encourage economic growth and
technological advancement, I urge the city to carefully weigh the potential long-term impacts
such a facility could have on our community and environment.
Data centers are known to be extremely resource-intensive, particularly with water and energy
usage. At a time when sustainable water management is critical, the significant demand for
cooling such facilities poses a serious risk to our local water supply. In addition, the
environmental footprint of data centers—ranging from increased carbon emissions to potential
strain on surrounding ecosystems—could undermine Monticello’s commitment to
environmental stewardship.
Noise pollution is another pressing issue. The constant operation of cooling and backup
systems can impact the quality of life for nearby residents, affecting health, well-being, and
property values. This is not a short-term inconvenience but a lasting change to the character of
our community.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the City of Monticello not move forward with
approving a data center in our community. I urge you instead to consider alternative
opportunities for development that align with sustainability goals, protect natural resources,
and enhance the quality of life for residents.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your ongoing commitment to serving the
best interests of Monticello’s citizens.
Sincerely,
Jessica Kinney
, Monticello, MN 55362
From:lisa Keenan
To:Development Services
Subject:Fwd: Sept 2 Planning Commision Meeting Lisa Keenan
Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 5:15:49 PM
Attachments:Sept 2 Planning Commision Meeting Lisa Keenan.docx
Hello,
Attached is the document I read from at the Sept 2nd meeting and was requested toward the
end of the meeting. I am also including links to the pages or documents I pulled the data from.
If any of the links don't work please let me know and I will try again. I would also like to
point out the JLARC has a section that states "Data centers provide positive economic benefits
to Virginia's economy, mostly during their initial construction".
datacenter - Community & Environmental Defense Services
Board of Supervisors Approves New Data Center Zoning Ordinance Amendment | News
Center
DataCenterGuidelinesComprehensivePlanAmendment.Adopted.6.10.25.pdf
Microsoft Word - O2516
JLARC | Data Centers in Virginia
Monticello has been a great community we have been happy to be a part of for the past 27 years. A data
center is simply not what Monticello needs.
Thank you for your time,
Lisa Keenan
From:Leandra Iverson
To:Development Services
Subject:Monticello Data Center Concerns
Date:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 4:07:44 PM
Dear City Planning Commissioners,
This letter is written with concern for the proposed amendment of the city code and
zoning ordinance that would create land for development of two data centers in the city of
Monticello. I am a citizen of Monticello Township. My address is . My
home would be very close to the land that would be used for the 85th Street and Highway
25 data center.
I have significant concerns for the placement of data centers in my city, especially
so close to my home. These include: extreme water usage, massive land development, a
decrease in property values, a decrease in our natural resources, higher energy costs,
increased taxes (especially to local small businesses that truly keep our country running),
and a small number of jobs that will most certainly be replaced by Artificial Intelligence (AI)
in the near future.
As members of the City Planning Commission, you have a huge responsibility. Do
you truly know the impact this will have on the quality of life of Monticello’s residents? Who
will pay for the increased water usage and waste management? What about water
pressure? Who will regulate this usage by the data center? Would the waste water
treatment plant need to be expanded to accommodate the data center? If so, who would
pay for it? I am not okay with paying higher taxes in order for the data center to use the
CITIZEN’S resources for waste management, water and energy.
We already have regular blackouts in the township, where we are informed by internet
companies of the planned or unplanned power outage before Xcel or the City. This is after
the power has already been out for hours and these blackouts are extremely frustrating as
a citizen. I fear that this would only be made worse with the building of even one of these
data centers due to their high energy needs. What if this happens on a cold winter night?
What about all the beef that I purchase from local farms in my freezer? These are major
concerns that I have for the safety of our people and my own family.
The idea that these data centers would offer high paying jobs for many people is poorly
researched. The amount of people they would employ does not offset the high cost that our
residents will have to sacrifice in decreased resources like water and energy. I understand
the jobs it will create in the building of the data centers, but what then? The employees of
these data center companies will also not likely live near the data center, possibly not even
in Monticello. Therefore, the theory that this will bring many high paying jobs is not to be
considered as a positive impact on our city. Also, these employees will surely be replaced
by AI in the near future. It is a well known fact by anyone who currently works in any kind of
AI engineering or research.
Regarding property taxes, I also do not believe this will increase the property value of
homes. Most of the people I talk to would NOT WANT TO LIVE NEAR a data center and
the people I know who currently live near one, do not like it. How does this increase
property value? I am also very worried about the homes and farms currently on Davidson
and Edmonson. What will happen to these families? Will they be forced to move? How will
this impact their homes and ways of life?
I urge you to think of the long term effects on our beautiful city. With no one to hold
these large companies accountable, in the future, I believe the company will always win.
Once our city lets them build, we, the citizens of Monticello, will have no say on what
happens with our taxes and natural resources. Please take your time on making this
extremely impactful decision. We do not need to let these big companies/data centers be
built in our city.
Sincerely,
Jeremy and Leandra Iverson
From:Callie Hendrickson
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Monticello Data Center Development
Date:Monday, August 11, 2025 9:38:25 PM
To Whom It May Concern:
Please do not follow through with plans to build the data center without doing due diligence in
researching how data centers have affected communities after being built and running. The
water supply necessary for data centers is more than many areas can handle. I hope the city
actually looks into this, and doesn't just follow through with plans if water things "pass" on
paper. I'm also not interested in it due to noise, environmental impact, and the amount of
resources (land) it takes up. Please consider all comments underneath your Facebook update as
well, as of August 11, 2025.
Thank you.
Callie Hendrickson
Monticello, MN 55362
From:Adam Felix
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Monticello data center.
Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 12:06:12 PM
Please, please do not build a freaking data center in my backyard. You are absolutely going to
destroy my quality of life. I urge you go live next to one for a month before approving. My
uncle lived 3 miles from one out of state and you could hear it plain as day. This is wrong and
inappropriate for the area. Please think before looking at dollar bill signs. My electricity is
high enough as we speak.
Adam
From:Teresa Dongoski
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Monticello Data center
Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 12:29:47 PM
I beg of you, please rethink this, especially in that area. It will cause such a negative impact on
the surrounding homes (like mine) with traffic, noise, construction (which, can you guys give
it a freaking break for a little bit in town? we have been under construction now for it seems
like Covid started) That is far too much and us as citizens have had enough.
We moved here in 2018 for the smallish town atmosphere, light property taxes, and cheaper
utilities, and now you (not you personally!) are trying to make us into something else.
There are plenty of places that are not nearly as close to town. In our area, there are 1000's of
acres of land that I'm sure some farmer would love to sell as the out in the middle of nowhere.
Instead of throwing this monstrosity against our beautiful neighborhoods.
Thank you for your time. I know my opinions do not mean anything, but I appreciate the ear.
Thank you!
Teresa Dongoski
From:Nicole Puckett
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Monticello Data Center
Date:Thursday, August 21, 2025 6:43:07 AM
Hello Angela,
My name is Nicole, I am a resident of Big Lake. I live here with my family, my husband
and our two children. We've lived here for the last 6 years and had made the decision to
move here to step out of the large cities. We wanted a slower life away from Big Tech.
The plans of bringing a Data Center to Monticello is extremely concerning as it threatens
everything from the land, the Earth to the inhabitants in the area, animals and humans
alike. I know i am not alone in this, the Data Center simply shouldn't be built.
I know many have felt the energies shift recently, we are on our way to a new healthy new
Earth. These Data Centers are taking steps backwards. The Earth needs us now more
than ever to help her heal. Please help us stop these centers from being built.
https://www.staxengineering.com/stax-hub/the-environmental-impact-of-data-centers/
https://www.dataversity.net/data-centers-and-the-climate-crisis-a-problem-hiding-in-
plain-sight/
I appreciate your time and attention on this!
Thanks,
Nicole
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android
From:Matthew Schwinghammer
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Monticello Data Center
Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 11:31:57 AM
Hello Angela,
I’d like to formally document my opposition to the proposed Monticello data center off 85th
Street and Highway 25.
Countless news articles show how data centers destroy the peace and tranquility of a
community and have negative environmental impacts to the land/water.
Despite Monticello Tech LLC’s proposal, the data center will not add the number of jobs the
company is pitching and will actually be a deterrent for new residence who plan on moving to
Monticello.
When making a decision on the proposed development, I ask that you look at what is best for
our residents, and build a community you would be proud to have your kids to live in.
Thank you,
Matt Schwinghammer
From:JOSH NEISCH
To:Development Services
Subject:Monticello proposed data centers
Date:Friday, September 5, 2025 9:42:17 AM
I am strongly against the proposed data centers in Monticello. Please do not allow
them.
Josh Neisch
Monticello MN 55362
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
From:Jonathan Jones
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Monticello Tech LLC Data Center Concerns
Date:Monday, August 18, 2025 7:42:30 PM
Good Evening Ms. Schumann,
I have lived in Monticello for about 10 years, and a homeowner here for 6. I cannot stress
how much the approval of this Data Center would take this great town towards a dark future.
Data Centers are a concrete tumor on resources. They require more more energy than all of
the residential communities, create waste in our water systems, and providing no services or
jobs for those who live here. If the consideration for this approval is based on the
monetary gains from taxes on the land, why drive Monticello to a soulless husk of
concrete and metal, when we could be using that same land for homes, enterprises with
transparent practices that actually bring jobs into the city, or for projects that provide
beautification and continue to draw people here?
I cannot, in good faith, believe that a previously unknown company with no tangible ability to
show its care and investment back into the community would act in a way that would provide
equal benefit to Monticello as well as itself. We can't simply believe that any company, let
alone an LLC, that uses the name Monticello in its name is home grown. It's been shown that
Monticello Tech LLC is connected to another LLC with the name Monticello used loosely in
its name that also has no contributing presence.
Monticello Tech LLC's Data Center proposal will only bring harm to our community, and I
hope that you consider my thoughts and those of others as well. Thank you for your time.
- Jon Jones
From:Gwen&Wayne Johnson
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Planning Commission on Ordinance for Data Center
Date:Tuesday, August 26, 2025 5:17:35 PM
I want to thank the Planning Commission and the city staff for their work in creating an
ordinance on the requirements for a Data Center. The work is a tremendous effort and it is a
progressive step in evaluating the needs of the city and business partners as they receive
requests for Data Centers. This is taking a thoughtful and necessary approach for the city.
While we do not know all the steps and work required for evaluating a Data Center, I do
believe that this is the future of the United States, not just in Monticello. We need to be ready
for new development and new ways of thinking as data drives everything that we touch in our
lives today. This will not go away, and the need will only continue to grow. Because of this, I
support your work, your diligence. I also support the next steps of the AUAR to conduct
necessary research for a Data Center.
My concern is the lack of knowledge by the many people that have put information online and
in the meetings. I hear more and more incorrect information being passed around all the time,
and in today's "data" transfer on social media, it only reinforces the need for a Data Center!
Thank you for your work,
--
Gwen Johnson
From:Cutsforth, Scott M
To:Angela Schumann
Cc:Scott Cutsforth
Subject:Proposed Data Center - Comment Period
Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 1:40:42 PM
Hello Angela,
As being someone that will be living fairly close to the proposed Data Center project (Hunters
Crossing), I do have a few concerns. I have spoken with a few of my neighbors and they are
already not in favor of this project (Concerns are below). They feel like this comment period is
moot as the petition to connect 87th Ave into the new neighborhood from Hunters Crossing
basically did not matter and that the city council will do what it want anyways.
Potential Cons
Electricity – Will they have their own power line?
Will the increase in demand for this data center raise our electric bills?
Water – I know these take a lot of water, how will it get water?
Will they drill their own well
Does the water used in cooling get treated and pumped back into the
ground?
If it comes from the city
Will this increase our water bills
Is the new water treatment plant able to process all this water?
Noise – I was at the meeting when they asked for the rezoning
What are all the ways noise pollution will be reduced?
I like that Hunters Crossing is very quiet from extra noise.
Potential Pros
What type of revenue would this bring to the city in the form of taxes?
Property
Is the city considering giving a number of years in tax breaks
Additonal Sales tax
Feel free to respond with other benefits the city council believes would be beneficial to the
residents of Monticello.
Best Regards,
Scott Cutsforth
This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or
proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity
to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended
recipient or intended recipient’s authorized agent, the reader is hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.
From:Felicia Olson
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Proposed Data Center
Date:Monday, August 25, 2025 3:03:52 PM
Ms. Schumann,
My daughter and I own a home at
Monticello, MN 55362. One of the proposed Data Center
sites would be directly across from our backyard which
backs to 85th.
We just bought our home and spent a great deal of our
Savings to buy it. We truly would be devastated by a
decrease in our property values and increases in our utility
bills. We would like to express that placing a business that
large across from a neighborhood filled with families, pets
and so many people working to build relationships with each
other as neighbors is not the best idea. Most of us bought
our homes because it was a nice neighborhood and quiet and
family friendly. We, personally, don't want to have lights
shining in our house or specifically in the bedrooms on the
back of the house. We don't want to be caught up in traffic
trying to get places. We don't want to hear noise that isn't
part of a neighborhood. We don't want to pay higher Utilities
or have our water pressure lower.
We hope that you will consider the lives of the people in the
neighborhood and locate another place for this large Tech
Campus.
Thank you,
Felicia K. Olson
Danielle M. Olson
Monticello, MN 55362
From:Bernard Lang
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Proposed Development of local acreage
Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 12:02:52 PM
Hello,
My name is Bernard Lang,
I'm a husband, father, and local resident of Monticello, I love Monticello and love where I
live. I live just blocks away from the proposed development area. One of the reasons
Monticello drew me in was the vast area of farmland and nature. The local lakes, like Pelican
lake and others, the parks, and the wild life. I moved here to raise a family and be proud of my
city.
The recent proposal of land development poses several major issues, and facts, that I will
stand by to oppose any further development of a Data Center.
Wild life is being pushed further and further out of its natural habitat, I see birds of all kinds
living and prospering in that area. Geese roost there before flying to the Mississippi or Pelican
lake. Deer and other mammals feed off that field. Along with the animals, the plants and trees
are healthy. Overall the environment is already prospering. Flattening out that land and
building a structure, takes that completely away from those things. Adding a massive structure
there takes healthy ground water from those animals and that habitat.
As for the people, the same facts hold true. Our land WE pay to live around will be taken
away. Our water sources and habitat will be forever changed. Adding this on top of a Nuclear
Plant, I receive emergency protocol every year for. I'm sure I would be receiving something of
the same. The electrical grid would be put under more pressure.
Now we also have noise, traffic, construction, and I'll be honest a total eyesore, getting
installed a peaceful place of land I get to drive by every day.
I drive through Monticello for hours per day. There are vacant buildings and spaces scattered
across the area. Why not utilize those first for maybe a small data center or light industrial?
Before tilling up land and ruining the habitat for creatures and people. I would consider
contacting local business real estate agents and seeing what is already on the table. I watched a
friend who small business trying to survive, the private owned cost of the new building drove
to close. New building space, now vacant, and a professional adult looking for work.
This proposal of land use goes right up to local farms, homes, water sources for wildlife, and
wild life management areas. All of those would be permanently changed. We already have so
much construction that is taking longer than expected, and creating a hassle for every resident
and visitor of Monticello. Let's take care of what we have first!
Please consider the visual, electrical stress, construction hazards and inconvenience, ground
water hazard, nature, along with every econimic challenge, and the especially people and
community you represent, to be a voice for our concerns.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this,
Bernard
From:Jennifer Schreiber
To:aharwood@wsbeng.com
Cc:Angela Schumann
Subject:Public Comment - Data Center
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 11:45:23 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Comment Below.
Jennifer Schreiber
City Clerk
763-271-3204
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
From: Kelly Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 9:53 AM
To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject:
Angela,
I’m writing as a concerned resident and parent in featherstone regarding the proposed
data center planned for the area just outside our community. While I understand the
importance of economic development and technological infrastructure, I have serious
concerns about the potential impact this project will have on our neighborhood
especially for families with children.
Our community is home to many small children who regularly play outdoors and walk or
bike in the area. The increased traffic from construction vehicles and ongoing operations
poses significant safety risks. Heavy truck traffic and commuter vehicles will also add to
congestion on our local roads, which are not designed for such high-volume industrial
use.
Additionally, data centers are known to generate considerable noise from cooling
systems and backup generators, which could disturb the quiet character of our
neighborhood both day and night. Air pollution from increased traffic, as well as the
potential environmental footprint of such a large facility, raises further concerns for the
health and well-being of our residents.
Beyond immediate safety and quality-of-life issues, I’m also concerned about the long-
term effects on property values, the strain on local infrastructure, and the precedent it
sets for future industrial development so close to residential areas.
I respectfully urge you and the planning department to carefully evaluate alternative
locations that would not place an industrial-scale facility in such close proximity to
family neighborhoods. Our community’s safety, environment, and quality of life should
remain a top priority in development decisions.
Thank you for your time, and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns
further.
Kelly Johnson
From:Jennifer Schreiber
To:aharwood@wsbeng.com
Cc:Angela Schumann
Subject:Public Comment - Monticello Data Center
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 11:41:58 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Please see comment below.
Jennifer Schreiber
City Clerk
763-271-3204
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
From: Kelsey Hamel
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 8:29 AM
To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Data Center Near Featherstone
Dear Angela,
I’m writing as a concerned resident and parent in featherstone regarding the proposed data
center planned for the area just outside our community. While I understand the importance of
economic development and technological infrastructure, I have serious concerns about the
potential impact this project will have on our neighborhood especially for families with
children.
Our community is home to many small children who regularly play outdoors and walk or bike
in the area. The increased traffic from construction vehicles and ongoing operations poses
significant safety risks. Heavy truck traffic and commuter vehicles will also add to congestion
on our local roads, which are not designed for such high-volume industrial use.
Additionally, data centers are known to generate considerable noise from cooling systems and
backup generators, which could disturb the quiet character of our neighborhood both day and
night. Air pollution from increased traffic, as well as the potential environmental footprint of
such a large facility, raises further concerns for the health and well-being of our residents.
Beyond immediate safety and quality-of-life issues, I’m also concerned about the long-term
effects on property values, the strain on local infrastructure, and the precedent it sets for future
industrial development so close to residential areas.
I respectfully urge you and the planning department to carefully evaluate alternative locations
that would not place an industrial-scale facility in such close proximity to family
neighborhoods. Our community’s safety, environment, and quality of life should remain a top
priority in development decisions.
Thank you for your time, and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns
further.
Kelsey Hamel
From:Jennifer Schreiber
To:aharwood@wsbeng.com
Cc:Angela Schumann
Subject:Public Comment - Monticello Data Center
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 11:43:03 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Additional comment.
Jennifer Schreiber
City Clerk
763-271-3204
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
From: Joe Kraft
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 11:03 AM
To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Opposition to Data Center Development in Monticello
Hi Angela,
I’m writing to express my strong opposition to the construction of any data
centers in Monticello—both the one proposed near my home and any future
projects. While I understand these facilities are often framed as economic
opportunities, the negative impacts to our community far outweigh any
potential benefits.
Why I Oppose Data Centers in Monticello
1. Enormous Energy Consumption
Data centers require massive amounts of electricity to operate and cool
their equipment. This puts pressure on our local power grid and can
drive up costs for residents without delivering proportional community
benefit.
2. Heavy Water Usage & Environmental Strain
Many data centers consume millions of gallons of water each year for
cooling. That kind of demand could strain our local water supply and
impact groundwater levels—something Monticello should be
protecting, not depleting.
3. Minimal Long-Term Job Creation
For their size, data centers create surprisingly few permanent jobs
once operational. This means the long-term return to the community is
minimal compared to the infrastructure and environmental costs.
4. Noise, Heat, and Industrial Impact
The constant hum of cooling systems, heat emissions, and the
industrial look of these facilities change the character of surrounding
neighborhoods and could harm property values.
5. Loss of Land for Better Development
Once large tracts of land are used for single-purpose industrial
facilities, we lose opportunities for projects that could bring more jobs,
tax revenue, and community value—without the environmental toll.
My Request
I urge the City to reject all data center proposals in Monticello, regardless
of location. Instead, we should focus on development that:
Creates sustainable, long-term economic growth
Produces meaningful numbers of local jobs
Protects our environmental resources
Enhances the quality of life for residents
Angela, I care deeply about Monticello’s growth, but I believe data centers
are not the right path forward for our city—whether two blocks from my
house or on the other side of town.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Joe Kraft
From:Jennifer Schreiber
To:Alison Harwood
Cc:Angela Schumann
Subject:Public Comment - Monticello Data Center
Date:Thursday, August 14, 2025 6:24:59 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Good morning.
Jennifer Schreiber
City Clerk
763-271-3204
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
From: shawn
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 1:08 PM
To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Opposition to data center
Dear Angela,
I’m writing as a concerned resident and parent in the ESTABLISHED Featherstone neighborhood
regarding the proposed data center planned for the area just outside our community. While I
understand the importance of economic development and technological infrastructure, I have serious
concerns about the potential impact this project will have on our neighborhood especially for
families with children.
Our community is home to many small children who regularly play outdoors and walk or bike in the
area. The increased traffic from construction vehicles and ongoing operations poses significant
safety risks. Heavy truck traffic and commuter vehicles will also add to congestion on our local
roads, which are not designed for such high-volume industrial use.
Additionally, data centers are known to generate considerable noise from cooling systems and
backup generators, which could disturb the quiet character of our neighborhood both day and night.
Air pollution from increased traffic, as well as the potential environmental footprint of such a large
facility, raises further concerns for the health and well-being of our residents.
Beyond immediate safety and quality-of-life issues, I’m also concerned about the long-term effects
on property values, the strain on local infrastructure, and the precedent it sets for future industrial
development so close to residential areas.
Our neighborhood (Featherstone) has been expanding and is scheduled to be expanded further to
Hwy 25 I believe. I have seen the plans. We did not buy our homes 10+ years ago with plans for a
data center RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. There is farmland there now.
If a data center were to be built on 550 acres, where are any new houses going to be built in town?
Monticello will soon run out of land. Then what to expand the tax base? When we moved to
Monticello in 2015, there were literally 3 homes for sale in Monticello at the time. THREE.
Thankfully there has been new construction since then and there continues to be. But if Monticello
runs out of land for homes, the town is going to slowly die.
I respectfully urge you and the planning department to carefully evaluate alternative locations that
would not place an industrial-scale facility in such close proximity to family neighborhoods. Our
community’s safety, environment, and quality of life should remain a top priority in development
decisions.
Thank you for your time, and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns further.
Thanks, Shawn
From:Jennifer Schreiber
To:Alison Harwood
Cc:Angela Schumann
Subject:Public Comment - Monticello Data Center
Date:Thursday, August 14, 2025 6:31:59 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Jennifer Schreiber
City Clerk
763-271-3204
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
From: Q Turner
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 6:50 PM
To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject:
Angela-
As a concerned parent and resident in Featherstone; I am writing to express my strong
opposition to the construction of the data center planned for the area adjacent to our
community. I understand the importance of economic development and these facilities
are often framed as "economic opportunities"; the impacts to our community far
outweigh any potential benefits.
Our community is home to young children who regularly play outside and walk and bike
our sidewalks. Increased traffic, noise from cooling systems, pollution and the
significant environmental footprint that such a large facility would create would
negatively impact our neighborhood and the young families that call this area home.
Not only am I concerned about the mine as well as my neighbors quality of life, I am also
concerned about the long-term impact on property values, the strain on local
infrastructure, and the precedent it sets for future industrial development so close to
residential areas.
I urge the city to reject this data center plan and look for an alternative placement away
from residential areas. Our communities safety, environment and quality of life should
be of utmost importance and a priority in development decisions.
Thank you,
Niquish Turner
-Featherstone Resident-
From:candace
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Public Comment on AUAR – Draft Order for the City of Monticello Industrial Development Alternative Urban
Areawide Review (AUAR) As the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU),
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 12:20:48 PM
Dear Ms. Schumann,
I am submitting this comment regarding the proposed AUAR for the Monticello Tech
development.
Water Cooling Restriction
Given the known, extremely high water use associated with traditional data center cooling
systems, I strongly urge the City of Monticello to include a zoning restriction that prohibits
water-based cooling for data centers within the technology campus.
Large-scale data centers can consume millions of gallons of water daily, placing unsustainable
pressure on municipal wells, aquifers, and nearby wetlands. This is particularly concerning
given:
The project area’s location in a wellhead protection zone and Drinking Water Supply
Management Area.
The presence of wetlands and impaired waters near the site.
Minnesota’s increasing vulnerability to drought cycles and groundwater stress.
Preferred Alternatives
Modern data centers do not need to rely on water cooling. The City should require developers
to adopt more sustainable and resilient cooling methods, including:
Closed-loop liquid or immersion cooling (sealed systems with minimal water use).
Air or free cooling, which is viable in Minnesota’s climate much of the year.
Use of reclaimed/greywater if absolutely necessary, rather than potable municipal
supply.
Request for Action
To safeguard Monticello’s long-term water security and ensure compatibility with community
needs, the AUAR and subsequent zoning ordinances should explicitly:
Ban water-based cooling systems for data centers.
Require developers to demonstrate sustainable cooling technologies as part of site plan
approval.
Set enforceable caps on water consumption for all tech campus tenants.
By putting this standard in place now, the City can welcome economic development while
also protecting residents, farms, and ecosystems from avoidable water stress.
Thank you for considering this request.
Respectfully,
Candace Seidl
Buffalo MN 55313
From:Barb Gaddo
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Public Comment on the Monticello Tech LLC Technology Campus AUAR
Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 11:31:44 AM
Ms. Schumann,
I have heard about the AUAR for a proposed data center and would like to share my concern
as a resident of Monticello. I have lived at , Monticello since October 2024.
My residential neighborhood is next to the proposed site of the data center. Given the
proximity of this development to my home, I am very concerned about the potential impact
on my neighborhood.
As you consider the potential impact of this project on our community, I ask that you strongly
weigh the impact of the residents in the immediate area:
Visual impact — A very large building would visually dominate and not complement the
adjacent residential area. This could impact property values.
Noise impact - The noise from data center generators and equipment would be disrputive to
the adjacent residential area. This could impact property values.
Water/Waste Water/Treatment Facility - The amount of water required for a data center is
extremely high and could severely impact all city residents, not only in terms of
supply/demand but potentially additional cost each of us would incur for additional city
infrastructure.
Electricity/Power Grid - The amount of electricity required to operate a data center is
extremely high and could severely impact all city residents, not only in terms of
supply/demand and power outages (which already occur on a regular basis) but potentially
cause higher electric costs passed on to residents by Xcel.
The proposed site would be a much better fit for residential land use or mixed use that
provides a buffer or transition to commercial or industrial use further outside the proposed
site.
Thank you,
Barb Gaddo
Monticello, MN 55362
From:Gabe & Hannah Graveldinger
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Public comment on the proposed data center
Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 8:06:01 AM
Hello,
I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposal for a data center to be built in Monticello Township. Such a thing would be a
horrible waste of space! It would not serve the residents of Monticello area nor will it contribute to the health,
beauty and culture of our area.
Please REJECT this proposal and seek a use for the area that will profit many, not minimal, interests.
Thank you,
Hannah Graveldinger
Davern Ave, Monticello
From:Jennifer Schreiber
To:aharwood@wsbeng.com
Cc:Angela Schumann
Subject:Public Comments - Draft Scoping Document
Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 9:47:35 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Alison,
Another comment on AUAR Scoping Document for Monticello.
Jennifer Schreiber
City Clerk
763-271-3204
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
From: Peg Jensen
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 5:47 PM
To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Data Center
The city should do a full EIS not just an AUAR these centers cause noise pollution, water
pollution and air pollution. They use massive amounts of our water and electricity driving
cost up for everyone else! I am totally against this proposal for a data Center. Can't you
guys find a nice manufacturing company to build there instead? You know providing jobs
for people not machines?
Get Outlook for Android
subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Tina Forster
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 9:18 PM
To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject:
Hello Charlotte,
My name is Tina Forster and have been a Monticello resident for 22 years.
You were my daughter’s Girl Scout troop leader.
I am against the data center for a plethora of reasons. First of all, nobody
wants data centers in their community. Nobody! The environmental
damage, electric usage, and the water waste are just a few of the
environmental abuses citizens will face. The tax payers will be saddled with
the bills and anything promised economically is NOT worth it. These large
scale data centers are not meant to be placed in residential areas, by
churches, daycares, schools and houses.
Energy-
One data center uses as much electricity as 80,000 homes. The citizens of
Monticello will end up paying rates for their electricity beyond our wildest
dreams. We already have Black rock trying to purchase Excel and privatize
our electrical grid. The billionaires are buying up all they can including the
town of Monticello.
Water-This is another way citizens in Monticello will literally pay the price.
Not only will we need to expand our water treatment facility, but the tax
payers will foot the bill. A data center could consume up to 110 millions of
gallons of water per a year which is equivalent to 1,000 households. This is
a threat to the Midwest’s precious resource which is water.
Economic-proponents of the data center are convinced that 1000’s of job
opportunities will be brought to Monticello when actually they bring only 20-
50 jobs. They need someone to clean and keep the lights on. The company
does not use local electrical crews or data specialists. Most of these
positions are contracted out. These companies are largely tax exempt
Pollution-The related emissions from the diesel generators release matter
and nitrogen dioxide impacting the air quality causing respiratory problems
in humans.
I can’t help but feel completely sold out by our elected officials in Monticello.
I’ve been studying other Minnesota towns that are fighting data centers:
Farmington, Rosemount, Mankato, Becker, Hampton, Hermantown etc. The
pattern of late public awareness is exactly what is a hallmark of data center
planning and that’s exactly what is happening to Monticello. There is a
shadowy billionaire company masquerading as a local Monticello business
which we have discovered is Black rock.
I hope the Monticello City Council members did not sign NDA’s like
Farmington’s city officials. I discovered that the project in Farmington had
been in the planning phase for 1 1/2 years or longer before the public was
notified.
Word is getting out and 95% of citizens will not be pro-data Center in their
town.
Anyone that is looking out for the best interests of Monticello citizens and its
resources would not be pro-data center. The tax rewards to not equate to
the environmental damage and high bills that Monticello residents will be left
with.
Thank you,
Tina Forster
subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Anna Hennes
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 6:14 AM
To: Kip Christianson <Kip.Christianson@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lloyd Hilgart
<Lloyd.Hilgart@MonticelloMN.gov>; Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>; Tracy
Hinz <Tracy.Hinz@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lee Martie <Lee.Martie@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Concerns with potential Data Center
My name is Anna Hennes, and I live on Eisele Ave just down the road from the proposed data
center site. I have concerns about the data center being proposed/company that is requesting
new zoning so they can build the data center. I don't feel it will benefit the city of Monticello
and in the long run it will hurt Monticello. We already frequently lose power in my
neighborhood, how can our city support such a large building that requires lots of electricity?
Please vote against the data center/request for rezoning.
Thank you!
Anna Hennes
From: ryan buboltz
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2025 12:11 AM
To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Data Center Application
> My name is Ryan Buboltz and I live in Monticello, MN. I have concerns about a data center being
proposed/company that is requesting new zoning so they can build a data center. It will not benefit
the city of Monticello nor future residents of this great town. The only parties who will benefit are
the energy supplier and the owner of the data center. This is a huge decision and the wrong decision
will leave a legacy nobody wants their name tied to. I trust you will follow the communities
convictions and values by voting against the data center/request for rezoning.
>
> Thank You,
>
> Ryan Buboltz
> Sent from my iPhone
From:Rachel Leonard
To:Jennifer Schreiber
Cc:Angela Schumann
Subject:RE: Data Center Concerns
Date:Monday, September 8, 2025 9:08:35 AM
Attachments:image001.png
You can go ahead and send to them. I’d like them to have time to read before the council
meeting tonight.
Rachel Leonard
City Administrator
763-271-3275
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act
and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Jennifer Schreiber <Jennifer.Schreiber@MonticelloMN.gov>
Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 8:24 AM
To: Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov>
Cc: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: FW: Data Center Concerns
Hi Rachel,
Do you want me to forward to CC or do you want to? Wasn’t sure if you had other items to send out.
From: Trina Hedquist
Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2025 11:48 AM
To: Jennifer Schreiber <Jennifer.Schreiber@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Data Center Concerns
Hello, Council Members
I am writing to say Monticello does not need a data center. It will harm our air, water,
noise, home values, our health and so much more. Please see my below questions. This
is so alarming. It also seems we have a paid person invading messaging boards and
Facebook groups that is trying to convince the community our concerns are unfounded.
Research and communities that have a data center say otherwise. This is a huge issue
and I really hope our elected officials haven’t been paid to push this through. Many
communities who faced this same scenario the city council holding hearings was just a
formality. Even when communities said no on an overwhelming level the city councils
pushed it through anyway as they were paid to do so. I really hope that is not already the
situation here. I think a situation of this magnitude should go to the people to vote on.
Please hear our voices and put the community first. Thank you for taking time to read
this and my below prepared remarks. I was sick the day of the meeting.
Sincerely,
Trina Hedquist
Community Questions for City Council Regarding
Proposed Data Center
Good evening, Council Members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I come
as a
concerned resident regarding the proposed data center. While I understand the
potential for
economic development, I am deeply worried about the strain this facility could place on
our
community’s resources, especially our water supply, our electrical grid, and the peace
of our
neighborhoods. Data centers are notorious for high water consumption, massive
electricity
demands, and constant noise from cooling systems and generators. These impacts, if
not
managed properly, could directly affect the daily lives of residents, our local
environment, and
even our long-term costs of living. With that in mind, I respectfully ask:
Water Usage
• How much water will the proposed data center require daily, and where will that water
come from?
• Has an independent environmental impact study been conducted on long-term water
use?
• What safeguards will be in place to prevent water shortages for residents during
droughts
or peak usage periods?
• Will the company commit to public transparency on monthly water consumption?
Electricity & Energy
• How much electricity will the facility consume compared to our city’s current
residential and
business usage?
• Will this require new power plants, substations, or infrastructure upgrade, and who
pays
for those costs?
• Has the company committed to renewable energy, or will this increase fossil fuel
dependency in our area?
• Could the added demand on the grid raise local energy prices for residents?
Noise & Environmental Impact
• What is the expected noise level from cooling systems and backup generators, and
how
will it be mitigated?
• Has an environmental impact assessment been conducted for air, noise, and light
pollution?
• How close will the data center be to residential neighborhoods, schools, or parks?
Community & Accountability
• What long-term benefits (jobs, tax revenue, infrastructure improvements) will this bring
to
residents versus costs and risks?
• How many permanent jobs will actually be created, and are they accessible to local
residents?
• Will the company commit to a community benefits agreement ensuring protections for
residents?
• If negative impacts (like water shortages or noise issues) arise, who will be held
accountable and how will they be addressed?
From: Leandra Iverson
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 4:01 PM
To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Data Center Concerns
Dear Charlotte Gabler,
This letter is written with concern for the proposed amendment of the city code and
zoning ordinance that would create land for development of two data centers in the city of
Monticello. I am a citizen of Monticello Township. My address is . My
home would be very close to the land that would be used for the 85th Street and Highway
25 data center.
I have significant concerns for the placement of data centers in my city, especially
so close to my home. These include: extreme water usage, massive land development, a
decrease in property values, a decrease in our natural resources, higher energy costs,
increased taxes (especially to local small businesses that truly keep our country running),
and a small number of jobs that will most certainly be replaced by Artificial Intelligence (AI)
in the near future.
As a Council Member of this city, you have a huge responsibility. Do you truly know
the impact this will have on the quality of life of Monticello’s residents? Who will pay for the
increased water usage and waste management? What about water pressure? Who will
regulate this usage by the data center? Would the waste water treatment plant need to be
expanded to accommodate the data center? If so, who would pay for it? I am not okay with
paying higher taxes in order for the data center to use the CITIZEN’S resources for waste
management, water and energy.
We already have regular blackouts in the township, where we are informed by internet
companies of the planned or unplanned power outage before Xcel or the City. This is after
the power has already been out for hours and these blackouts are extremely frustrating as
a citizen. I fear that this would only be made worse with the building of even one of these
data centers due to their high energy needs. What if this happens on a cold winter night?
What about all the beef that I purchase from local farms in my freezer? These are major
concerns that I have for the safety of our people and my own family.
The idea that these data centers would offer high paying jobs for many people is poorly
researched. The amount of people they would employ does not offset the high cost that our
residents will have to sacrifice in decreased resources like water and energy. I understand
the jobs it will create in the building of the data centers, but what then? The employees of
these data center companies will also not likely live near the data center, possibly not even
in Monticello. Therefore, the theory that this will bring many high paying jobs is not to be
considered as a positive impact on our city. Also, these employees will surely be replaced
by AI in the near future. It is a well known fact by anyone who currently works in any kind of
AI engineering or research.
Regarding property taxes, I also do not believe this will increase the property value of
homes. Most of the people I talk to would NOT WANT TO LIVE NEAR a data center and
the people I know who currently live near one, do not like it. How does this increase
property value? I am also very worried about the homes and farms currently on Davidson
and Edmonson. What will happen to these families? Will they be forced to move? How will
this impact their homes and ways of life?
I urge you to think of the long term effects on our beautiful city. With no one to hold these
large companies accountable, in the future, I believe the company will always win. Once
our city lets them build, we, the citizens of Monticello, will have no say on what happens
with our taxes and natural resources. Please take your time on making this extremely
impactful decision. We do not need to let these big companies/data centers be built in our
city.
Sincerely,
Jeremy and Leandra Iverson
From:Charlotte Gabler
To:Lisa Murphy
Cc:Angela Schumann; Rachel Leonard
Subject:Re: Data center workshop
Date:Monday, September 22, 2025 4:10:09 PM
Good Afternoon Lisa-
Thank you for the email. Your comments below are appreciated and are items the group
can discuss Wednesday night during the workshop on the ordinance/zoning.
I hope you can join us in listening to the discussions starting at 5pm on Wednesday Sept
24th. If you cannot attend until later, there is a 7pm informal Q&A after the workshop.
505 Walnut Street-in the Mississippi Room.
Charlotte
Thank you and have a productive day!
Charlotte Gabler
Monticello City Council Member
Term Expires Dec 31st, 2026
Pronouns: she, her, hers
NOTICE: Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is
subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Lisa Murphy
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2025 11:18 AM
To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Data center workshop
Dear Monticello City Council Member:
As you are currently attempting to set parameters should a data center wish to build in Monticello,
here are some of my thoughts:
1. Data Centers should have the same buffer zone as the nuclear plant, including trees
2. Data Centers should be required to have a closed coolant system similar to a nuclear plant
3. Decibel levels should be at or below 55 dB at property line and into neighborhoods
4. The center should be required to pay for any and all infrastructure changes or upgrades.
5. Data Centers typically only employ 50 or less people while their footprint is huge. Most of
these employees being non- technical people.
Should Monticello allow data centers to be constructed, there is a real risk of aquifer depletion.
Should that happen, surrounding lakes and rivers would be impacted and could be depleted,
along with the possibility of sink holes.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and planning. I sincerely hope we never have one of
these monstrosities in our town.
Lisa Murphy
Monticello
Sent from my iPad
From:Lisa Murphy
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Re: Data center
Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 8:06:56 AM
Also:
they use on average 528,355 gallons per DAY, average 50 employees. Water reclamation is any where from 22% to 50%. If aquifers are depleted, wells fail,
rivers and lakes dry up and can cause sink holes. Prolonged depletion can PERMANENTLY damage the aquifers ability to hold water leading to irreversible
loss of water resource impacting EVERYTHING that depends on it. There is SIGNIFICANT noise from cooling towers and HVAC which can leave a
significant impact on residents nearby.
Sent from my iPad
> On Sep 2, 2025, at 3:50 PM, Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@monticellomn.gov> wrote:
>
> Thank you for emailing your comments related to the consideration of data center development in the community.
>
> Your comments will be forwarded to the Monticello Planning Commission for their consideration as part of this evening’s public hearing on the draft zoning
ordinance regulating data centers. The data center ordinance being discussed at Planning Commission is not specific to a particular data center project. The
ordinance would set the requirements for any data center development in the city. The report and draft ordinance item can be found on the City's website.
>
> An Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Scoping Document has also been prepared as related to development of an approximately 546 acre area
south of 85th Street NE. More information can be found at Environmental Reviews | Monticello, MN. Your comments will also be included in the public
comment documentation for the AUAR Scoping Document. If you would like to make additional comment specific to the AUAR Scoping Document, the
comment period is open until September 4, 2025. If you do not wish for your prior email to be included in the AUAR document, please email me that you do
not wish for your comment to be included in the AUAR Scoping Document comments.
>
> Angela Schumann
> Community Development Director
> Development Services
> 763-271-3224
> 505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
>
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fMonticelloMN.gov&c=E,1,IGCJ28G5xcmKfa2NXkMIGf4vis0EUpGkZWeBPQCdld9WVPeqLtijwCcZ3_G2FrahLbbgw_Ufr3QbTFtoPibdi-
Y0vtWXqO4W9qsnVfNnt01abBIMl2tpQJ8,&typo=1 | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
> Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and may be
disclosed to third parties.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa Murphy
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2025 4:02 PM
> To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
> Subject: Data center
>
>
> Do I want an AI data center in your backyard? NO
>
>
> Monticello Tech LLC is owned by Monticelloam LCC. The co-founder of Monticelloam LLC is Johnathan Litt who is the Assistant Treasurer Black Rock
Monticello Debt Real Estate Investment Trust.
>
> This report is spotty, and over looks many environmental factors that are unique to our location, and our farming practices. This scope is covering 546 acres of
land (only 10acres of this is currently paved) everything else is water sources, and farmland (the vast majority of this land is considered 'prime farm land', or
'farmland of state wide importance'. There are 8 wetlands in this area of study which are crucial for endangered species like the monarch, and the western regal
fritillary butterfly and the whooping crane. There are also bald eagles in this area that are protected until MBTA and the Golden Eagle Protection Act. This build
is not in compliance with Wright County Northeast Quadrant Land Use Plan of 2007 nor City of Monticello 2040 comprehension Plan of 2020; it is appalling
that Kimley Horn half heartedly attempts to justify it. Data Centers need significant amounts of water. There has been alot of flooding occurring in the United
States. We already have a nuclear power plant to keep cool. It is NOT a good idea to place a data center in Monticello MN.
>
> PLEASE, DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN HERE.
> Sent from my iPad
From:Charlotte Gabler
To:Mike Beck
Cc:Angela Schumann; Rachel Leonard
Subject:Re: Data Centers
Date:Friday, November 21, 2025 11:07:51 AM
Attachments:stpp-data-centers-2025.pdf
Good Morning-
Thank your the email. I have included on this message City Administrator Rachel Leonard
and Community Development Director Angela Schumann.
I appreciate the information and will be reading through.
Thank you,
Charlotte
On Nov 21, 2025, at 10:59 AM, Mike Beck <beckmb@live.com> wrote:
Mayor Hilgart and members of the Monticello City Council,
With due respect we urge you to not even consider any data center in or even
near the City of Monticello. The impact of any gain in tax revenue will not be
even close to negative impact to the Monticello and its residents.
Look at the University of Michigan study from July of this year. It is attached.
Even if you do not wish to read the entire document, read page three.
Individuals and corporations are shopping to find gullible cities to offer them tax
incentives that do not return the promised economic benefits do not deliver on
their promises.
Any data center will lower the quality of life for the residents of Monticello.
Respectfully,
Rebecca and Michael Beck
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
From:Alexander Coady
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Re: Data centers.
Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 4:16:08 PM
Attachments:image001.png
I was under the impression that therthis a public draft meeting on Thursday in relation to the
data centers that i am protesting against.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@monticellomn.gov>
Date: Wed, Sep 3, 2025, 4:13 PM
Subject: RE: Data centers.
To: Alexander Coady
My apologies, what meeting are you referring to?
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
Development Services
763-271-3224
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act
and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Alexander Coady
Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 3:20 PM
To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Re: Data centers.
Hey Angela, quick question. When is the draft meeting tomorrow?
On Tue, Sep 2, 2025, 3:47 PM Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@monticellomn.gov>
wrote:
Thank you for emailing your comments related to the consideration of data center
development in the community.
Your comments will be forwarded to the Monticello Planning Commission for their
consideration as part of this evening’s public hearing on the draft zoning ordinance
regulating data centers. The data center ordinance being discussed at Planning Commission
is not specific to a particular data center project. The ordinance would set the requirements
for any data center development in the city. The report and draft ordinance item can be
found here.
An Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Scoping Document has also been
prepared as related to development of an approximately 546 acre area south of 85th Street
NE. More information can be found at Environmental Reviews | Monticello, MN. Your
comments will also be included in the public comment documentation for the AUAR
Scoping Document. If you would like to make additional comment specific to the AUAR
Scoping Document, the comment period is open until September 4, 2025. If you do not
wish for your prior email to be included in the AUAR document, please email me that you
do not wish for your comment to be included in the AUAR Scoping Document comments.
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
Development Services
763-271-3224
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Alexander Coady
Sent: Monday, September 1, 2025 9:44 AM
To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Data centers.
Greeting Angela,
I'm emailing you because recently I found out that there are not one, but two data centers
trying to be built in my home town, and I have some concerns.
To start off with, on the off chance that I wasn't clear, I do not support the approval, nor the
construction of these projects. Now, onto the concerns.
First off, I in general dont like data centers as a base concept, they take up a lot of space, the
use a lot of electricity. As well as water and I feel this increase of demand on both ends will
result in a further increase in pricing for the general populace in monticello, which is not a
prospect that particularly interests me. (There have also been reports and interviews of
CEO's literally saying that those costs would be primarily onto the locals, so I've little doubt
that subsidizing the citizens of monticello is part of the game plan)
They generally look ugly if aesthetics were a concern, and I dont support what they do,
harvesting data to sell and push ads to a population that generally doesn't want them.
Furthermore, I have a hard time seeing the benefits to our community, as I feel the people
operating and maintaining the project would most likely NOT be locals. In fact I can almost
guarantee thlife. 90%-99% won't be, as I have not met a single person in the field in my life.
In short, the prospect of these projects seem like a lot of long term consequences for very
little short term gain that doesn't have enough visible nor probable long term benefits to the
population of the city you serve.
Thank you and have a productive day!
Charlotte Gabler
Monticello City Council Member
Term Expires Dec 31st, 2026
Pronouns: she, her, hers
NOTICE: Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is
subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Erica Stonestreet
Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2025 1:34 PM
To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Data centers
Hi Charlotte,
I'm late to this party, but I know the Planning Commission is considering amendments to the relevant
ordinances to possibly allow a data center to be built in Monticello. I'm not sure what they decided
after their meeting this week, and whether the City Council gets involved at some point, but I recently
read this article on living near data centers and thought it was a useful take on the pros and cons, and
I'm hoping if we go ahead we can put in requirements to reduce noise and require green energy use,
and some of the other suggestions for making it liveable.
Does p. 5 of this proposal imply that wind and solar would be prohibited entirely, or does "commercial"
mean they can't sell the power? I would prefer that sustainable energy sources be allowed, so that any
data center could generate a lot of its own power.
Thanks!
Erica
(she/her)
Personal web site:
Substack: Humaning is Hard, but Philosophy Can Help
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
It has always seemed strange to me that in our endless discussions about education so little stress is
laid on the pleasure of becoming an educated person, the enormous interest it adds to life. To be able
to be caught up into the world of thought -- that is to be educated.
Edith Hamilton
From:
To:Lloyd Hilgart
Cc:Rachel Leonard; Angela Schumann
Subject:RE: In the interests of time...
Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 2:49:46 PM
Importance:High
All,
For clarification of why the cursory sound level of the Elk River DC not meeting the required
sound levels matters…
It is an example of why even a small DC with (6) cooling fans cannot meet the requirements of
the Minnesota Sound Regulations in 7030.0040 and thus a larger facility with far more cooling
fans and generation devices will have absolutely no reasonable hope of operating within the
boundaries set forth.
7030.0030 NOISE CONTROL REQUIREMENT.
No person may violate the standards established in part 7030.0040, unless exempted by
Minnesota Statutes, section 116.07, subdivision 2a. Any municipality having authority to
regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures within its jurisdiction to prevent the
establishment of land use activities listed in noise area classification (NAC) 1, 2, or 3 in
any location where the standards established in part 7030.0040 will be violated
immediately upon establishment of the land use.
Given that there is more than a reasonable doubt and virtually a certainty that any such
proposed facility is not going to be reasonable to assume that neither the construction period,
commissioning period, or the resulting facility operations will be able to meet the noise level
standards. Any potential site cannot have any proximity to a residence whatsoever and
permits cannot be issued.
If it does, the liability for failing to properly protect the citizens of Monticello per the
requirements of 730.0040 will fall squarely on the shoulders of the city of Monticello.
The remark last night about the need to consider 7 generations of descendants should not be
lost on any of us.
These projects should not be done next to residential areas and open city walkways and parks.
Regards,
Scott Harper
Monticello, MN 55362
From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:59 PM
To: 'Lloyd.hilgart@MonticelloMN.gov' <Lloyd.hilgart@MonticelloMN.gov>
Cc: 'Rachel Leonard' <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov>; 'Angela Schumann'
<Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: In the interests of time...
Importance: High
Mayor Hilgart,
Perhaps it would be a good idea to stop this madness sooner rather than later.
How about having Fratalone cut me a check for the $850,000 I have into this house and
another $150,000 for the inconvenience and uproar that they are about to cause as well as an
NDA if they think they need it.
You might think that I am not serious about this… I am.
Most of anyone I know here is planning on packing up and moving elsewhere now anyway.
Scott Harper
From:Luke Appert/USA
To:Rachel Leonard; Angela Schumann; Tyler Bevier
Cc:Nick Frattalone
Subject:RE: Monticello Data Center Ordinance Comments - Requested Conversation
Date:Friday, August 15, 2025 12:33:09 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image004.png
All,
Below are preliminary comments that we would like to share after reviewing the
proposed data center ordinance (DCPUD). We may have additional comments as well
as we further analyze the proposed language but we wanted to get these out to you as
soon as possible given that the initial planning commission meeting is next week. Thank
you for your consideration of the below. Happy to discuss in greater detail as well.
Under Ordinance Components
10. DCPUD Rezoning and Development Stage Submittal
-“Fiscal Benefits Statement” needs to be more specific as to what you are asking for.
We feel at the time of rezoning, this may be difficult to provide since the fiscal benefits
may not be fully known.
15. Site Plan Review
-Is this section stating that only administrative review is required for site plan review
applications at a later date assuming full compliance with DCPUD standards. Meaning
that it will not need to go back in front of council or planning commission? Maybe make
this section a bit more clear.
16. Timeline for performance
-we recommend striking the line “It incorporates a limit on the time that can elapse
between phases, suggested to be a maximum of 3 years”. Or will need this further
defined or modified. It is likely that phasing could be longer than 3 year periods. We also
don’t know what phasing actually means so this section needs some work. I think we
are all on the same page but need to define it further.
153.045 Industrial Base Zoning Districts
-(d) we recommend striking this all together. Everything listed in (d) is out of the
developments control. The would be for Xcel only.
Accessory uses.
-Private communication towers need to be added. The development will likely have a
few communication towers that will not be over 80 feet in height.
Prohibited uses.
-(a) add language for the use of primary data hall buildings.
-(e) Is this referring to Bit Coin and those types of data mining? If so that is fine to
prohibit but would need to re word it and define it.
District performance standards
-(b) this section needs a lot of discussion and reworking. Where is the FAR calculated
from. We certainly will not hit the density standards if all the acreage is in the
calculation. I think we are all on the same page but need to adjust some of the language
or better understand the calculations.
-2nd (c) we would request that if mechanical equipment is within 400’ from property line
and adjacent to residential or civic uses then it shall be fully screen. If outside that
setback or not adjacent to civic or residential we would ask that it not be fully screened.
-2nd (d) we would request that it is struck and replace with ….A landscaping buffer shall
be installed where the DCPUD is adjacent to residential or civic uses and where
principal structures, mechanical yards, or parking circulation is within 200’ of the
property line. The landscaping buffer shall be installed and maintained for the duration
of facility operation per the applicable planting requirements of this chapter.
-2nd (e) add Architectural steel to the list
-2nd (i) add that sub stations may be placed on a separate lot within the DCPUD
2nd (i) we would ask that item d be struck
Timelines for performance
Would like the timing of commitment of phasing to be removed. If it can’t be removed,
we would ask that 3 years goes to 5 years.
Luke Appert
Executive Director
Brokerage Services
Please visit our team website www.landmnwi.com
Mobile: +1 651 315 6641
luke.appert@cushwake.com
3500 American Blvd W, Suite 200
Bloomington, MN 55431 | USA
cushmanwakefield.com
From: Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov>
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2025 3:45 PM
From:Angela Schumann
To:Jennifer Schreiber
Subject:RE: Notes for tonight"s planning commission meeting
Date:Tuesday, August 5, 2025 12:38:00 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Could you please let Mr. Harper know that the data center ordinance public hearing is on
8/19? While he is welcome to attend this evening’s meeting, the data center ordinance
and hearing is not on the agenda.
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
Development Services
763-271-3224
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act
and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Jennifer Schreiber <Jennifer.Schreiber@MonticelloMN.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 12:37 PM
To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: FW: Notes for tonight's planning commission meeting
FYI~
From:
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 12:01 PM
To: Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov>
Cc: Jennifer Schreiber <Jennifer.Schreiber@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Notes for tonight's planning commission meeting
Rachel and Jennifer,
I have been thinking about the requirements for the new zoning regulations and wanted to
suggest a few things.
We can consider a noise clause that might read like this:
“Noise reduction efforts are required to meet Minnesota Rules Ch. 7030 in its entirety and
the noise standards set forth in these regulations is hereby adopted in full without
amendment. Any new development or subsequent design changes to an existing
development shall meet this standard without exception. Any violation of these
standards will be subject to cease and desist orders and fines until such time as the
system can operate within the requirements of Minnesota Rules Ch. 7030. In no case will
systems in violation of Minnesota Rules Ch. 7030 be allowed to operate and the Grantee
of the operational permit shall take notice that the acceptance of the permit is
acceptance of these conditions. Grantee accepts all potential consequences civil and /
or criminal based on the severity of the nature of the violation and dose so at its own
peril. Grantee also will not transfer any facility without appraising the new owner(s) that
they also have the same responsibility to the City of Monticello as provided above and in
Minnesota Rules Ch. 7030 and this shall be incorporated into any contract conveying
interest, ownership or operating agreement with any new parties in perpetuity.”
As it pertains to water usage, cooling tower plumes, and public health and safety, there is a
type of cooling tower that operates on the adiabatic principle. I have attached a copy of a
presentation that discusses this in general and also a link below.
Adiabatic cooling would
Reduce water usage significantly thus reducing any municipal water supply investment
and operating costs for city or well water. (60 to 90% reduction overall)
Reduce sewer water requirements by not requiring that the tower purge water be
discharged to the municipal waste water system. (There is no purge requirement for
these systems.)
Address Legionella concerns (No cooling tower tank or recycle required)
Not require water tower chemicals that would become airborne and provide localized
contamination issues (Once through design
Reduce or eliminate cooling plumes (Aesthetically better overall, greatly reduced
chance of ice fog on roads, driveways and other properties.)
Please specifically note Pages 41, 44 and 45 for your review.
It could be written into the permitting process in a form similar to this:
“In the interests of water conservation, public health and wellness (Legionella, Sound
Level, Airborne Chemical Discharge, etc.) as well as public safety related matters such as
ice fog or vapor plumes, the grantee shall only be permitted to use cooling equipment of
the Adiabatic Type without substitution or deviation. Failure to comply will require that
the violating system shall be immediately shut down by Grantee, removed and replaced
with an Adiabatic system without exception. Adiabatic systems shall be sized at a
minimum of 95% ASRAE requirement for Monticello, MN”
Scott Harper
https://coolingbestpractices.com/system-assessments/water-savings/how-adiabatic-
technology-delivers-performance-savings-and
From: Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:21 PM
To:
Cc: Jennifer Schreiber <Jennifer.Schreiber@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: RE: City Council Meeting on Monday, July 28
Thank you – yes, the meeting starts at 6:30 p.m.
Are you planning to bring copies of the document you attached to the meeting to distribute?
Rachel Leonard
City Administrator
763-271-3275
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act
and may be disclosed to third parties.
From:
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 3:06 PM
To: Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov>
Cc: Jennifer Schreiber <Jennifer.Schreiber@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: RE: City Council Meeting on Monday, July 28
Importance: High
Rachael and Jennifer,
Specifically in relation to tonight’s meeting.
Starts at 6:30?
Scott Harper
From: Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:55 AM
To:
Subject: City Council Meeting on Monday, July 28
Hello Mr. Harper,
I’m glad we had the opportunity to connect over the phone this morning. As discussed, I’ve
attached the City Council agenda for tonight, and here is a link to agenda reports. The report
and draft scoping document for the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) are included in
item 4B.
If you’d like to speak about data center development generally, you can utilize the section of
the agenda called Citizen Comments. That’s one of the first items on the agenda and allows
public comment on anything that’s not formally on the agenda. The mayor will announce the
item and ask anyone who would like to speak to come to the podium. Speakers are given 3
minutes, but time may go longer if there are questions from the Council.
If you’d like to speak specifically about aspects of the environmental review, the most
appropriate time would be when they reach that item on the agenda. There will be summary
explanation from staff followed by questions and discussion by Council. At that point, they will
often ask if there are members of the public who would like to speak. It’s not a formal public
hearing, but the Council appreciates input from community members.
As you likely already know, the meetings start at 6:30 p.m. and take place in the Mississippi
Room at the Monticello Community Center, 505 Walnut Street.
Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any follow up questions!
Rachel Leonard
City Administrator
763-271-3275
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act
and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Wendy Suddard
Sent: Monday, September 1, 2025 4:27 PM
To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Opposition to data centers
Dear Charlotte,
I am concerned about the new amendment to the city code and zoning
ordinance that would create a special land use overlay zone specifically for the
placement of data centers. I am opposed to land use by data centers. One of
them would be very close to my house and the other would be very close to
Bertram Chain of Lakes of which I am a Friend of Bertram.
Wendy Suddard-Bangsund
Thank you and have a productive day!
Charlotte Gabler
Monticello City Council Member
Term Expires Dec 31st, 2026
Pronouns: she, her, hers
NOTICE: Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is
subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: bil keenan
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2025 11:44 AM
To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Fw: Proposed data center
--
Hello,
My name is Bil Keenan and I live at , Monticello.
Monticello is a great place to live and has good track record of attracting people to
Monticello either to live or have a business. Who would want to spend $400,000-
500,000 to live in a town with a data center? What company would want to compete
for electric and water against this? Frattalone Companies and Cushman Wakefield
do not live in this community and do not care if this hurts this community. They are
here for one reason. To make millions off the backs of the residents of Monticello,
It is your obligation to the people that voted you in to do what is best for Monticello
and not just what will dig Monticello out of a financial hole.
I ask you to vote against a data center coming to Monticello. Here are the reasons
why:
Environmental and resource consumption
High energy usage: Data centers are extremely energy-intensive, consuming up to 50
times more power per square foot than a typical office building. Globally, data centers
account for about 1% of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. The AI boom is
expected to accelerate this demand dramatically, with some forecasts projecting
global data center electricity consumption to more than double by 2030.
Strain on the power grid: This soaring energy demand, particularly from AI-optimized
centers, can overwhelm existing power grids and delay the shutdown of older, fossil
fuel-based power plants. This can also drive up electricity costs for local residential
and commercial customers.
Excessive water consumption: Large data centers can consume between 1 million
and 5 million gallons of water daily, primarily for cooling servers. This places a major
strain on local water resources, especially in areas with limited or stressed water
supplies.
E-waste generation: The rapid upgrade cycle for hardware, driven by technological
advancements, creates large amounts of electronic waste, which can release toxic
materials into the environment if not disposed of properly.
Backup generator emissions: Many facilities rely on large, diesel-powered backup
generators to ensure 24/7 uptime. Regular testing of these generators releases
pollutants like nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter, which degrades local air
quality and poses health risks.
Local socioeconomic impacts
Limited permanent jobs: While data center construction creates short-term work, the
operational phase is highly automated and requires very few permanent employees.
This means the long-term economic benefits to the local community in terms of job
creation are minimal.
Tax incentives and revenue questions: Developers often receive substantial tax
incentives and abatements to build in a community. This reduces the overall tax
revenue for the locality, and critics argue the incentives rarely provide a tangible
economic lift that justifies the costs.
Exclusionary development: Data center deals are frequently brokered in secret, with
local governments approving large-scale, "by-right" zoning for facilities with minimal
public engagement. This lack of transparency can leave residents feeling excluded
from decisions that directly impact their community.
Infrastructure costs shifted to taxpayers: Upgrades required for roads, utilities, and
power transmission to support data centers are often subsidized by or shifted to local
taxpayers.
Community and quality of life issues
Noise pollution: Cooling fans, generators, and transformers at data centers create a
constant, low-frequency humming sound that can disrupt residents' quality of life,
especially in rural or suburban areas. The noise from backup generator testing is also
disruptive.
Aesthetic concerns: The windowless, industrial-style warehouses of data centers are
often seen as eyesores that clash with surrounding architectural aesthetics,
particularly in suburban or rural settings.
Land use and property value: Data centers consume large parcels of land, replacing
open spaces, farmland, or potential residential areas. While some argue they can
increase property values, concerns remain about their impact on the character and
future development of a community.
Wildlife disturbance: Noise emissions from data centers can disrupt local wildlife,
altering animal behavior and migration patterns.
Again I urge you to vote against the data center coming to Monticello.
Thank you for reading my email, I urge you to do the right thing and vote against the
data center coming to Monticello,
Monticello is a great place to live and has good track record of attracting people to
Monticello either to live or have a business. Who would want to spend the
$400,000-500,000 to live in a town with a data center? What company would want to
compete for electric and water against this? Frattalone Companies and Cushman
Wakefield do not live in this community and do not care if this hurts this community.
They are here for one reason. To make millions off the backs of the residents of
Monticello, It is your obligation to the people that voted you in to what is best for
Monticello and not just what will dig Monticello out of a financial hole.
subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
From:
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 3:17 PM
To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Proposed Data Center
Hello Ms. Council Member Gabler,
My name is Sarah Scribner and I live off n Monticello. I ask you to
vote against a data center coming to Monticello. Here are the reasons why:
Environmental and resource consumption
High energy usage: Data centers are extremely energy-intensive, consuming up
to 50 times more power per square foot than a typical office building. Globally,
data centers account for about 1% of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions.
The AI boom is expected to accelerate this demand dramatically, with some
forecasts projecting global data center electricity consumption to more than
double by 2030.
Strain on the power grid: This soaring energy demand, particularly from AI-
optimized centers, can overwhelm existing power grids and delay the shutdown
of older, fossil fuel-based power plants. This can also drive up electricity costs
for local residential and commercial customers.
Excessive water consumption: Large data centers can consume between 1 million
and 5 million gallons of water daily, primarily for cooling servers. This places a
major strain on local water resources, especially in areas with limited or stressed
water supplies.
E-waste generation: The rapid upgrade cycle for hardware, driven by
technological advancements, creates large amounts of electronic waste, which
can release toxic materials into the environment if not disposed of properly.
Backup generator emissions: Many facilities rely on large, diesel-powered backup
generators to ensure 24/7 uptime. Regular testing of these generators releases
pollutants like nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter, which degrades local
air quality and poses health risks.
Local socioeconomic impacts
Limited permanent jobs: While data center construction creates short-term
work, the operational phase is highly automated and requires very few permanent
employees. This means the long-term economic benefits to the local community in
terms of job creation are minimal.
Tax incentives and revenue questions: Developers often receive substantial tax
incentives and abatements to build in a community. This reduces the overall tax
revenue for the locality, and critics argue the incentives rarely provide a tangible
economic lift that justifies the costs.
Exclusionary development: Data center deals are frequently brokered in secret,
with local governments approving large-scale, "by-right" zoning for facilities with
minimal public engagement. This lack of transparency can leave residents feeling
excluded from decisions that directly impact their community.
Infrastructure costs shifted to taxpayers: Upgrades required for roads,
utilities, and power transmission to support data centers are often subsidized by
or shifted to local
taxpayers.
Community and quality of life issues
Noise pollution: Cooling fans, generators, and transformers at data centers
create a constant, low-frequency humming sound that can disrupt residents'
quality of life, especially in rural or suburban areas. The noise from backup
generator testing is also disruptive.
Aesthetic concerns: The windowless, industrial-style warehouses of data centers
are often seen as eyesores that clash with surrounding architectural aesthetics,
particularly in suburban or rural settings.
Land use and property value: Data centers consume large parcels of land,
replacing open spaces, farmland, or potential residential areas. While some argue
they can increase property values, concerns remain about their impact on the
character and future development of a community.
Wildlife disturbance: Noise emissions from data centers can disrupt local
wildlife, altering animal behavior and migration patterns.
Again, I urge you to vote against the data center proposed to come to
Monticello.
Thank you for reading my email, I urge you to do the right thing and vote against
the data center proposed to come to Monticello,
Sarah Scribner
From:Derrick Zychowski
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Re: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration
Date:Wednesday, August 20, 2025 12:26:35 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Thank your for your response. You are welcome to use my comments in the document. I
know the meeting tonight was to establish guidelines in the event that someone was interested
in building a data center in Monticello. It sounded like we had someone inquire about
building one on the proposed site. I attended the majority of the meeting but had to leave
before it was over for a prior commitment. What are the next steps in the process? I know
there is another meeting 9/2. Who makes the final decision on weather we have the right
zoning rules? When is that decision made? The only benefit I heard about the potential data
center was it would increase the tax base. Isn't there other ways to increase the tax base
without putting the residents of Monticello at risk? It didn't sound like many residents that
attended the meeting had any interest in a data center at the proposed site. Do you have any
thoughts on how it would be the residents of Monticello?
On Tue, Aug 19, 2025, 4:47 PM Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@monticellomn.gov>
wrote:
Thank you for emailing your comments related to the consideration of data center
development in the community.
Your comments will be forwarded to the Monticello Planning Commission for their
consideration as part of this evening’s public hearing on the draft zoning ordinance
regulating data centers. The data center ordinance being discussed at Planning Commission
is not specific to a particular data center project. The ordinance would set the requirements
for any data center development in the city. The report and draft ordinance for the August
19th, 2025 item can be found here.
An Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Scoping Document has also been prepared
as related to development of an approximately 546 acre area south of 85th Street NE. More
information can be found at Environmental Reviews | Monticello, MN. Your comments will
also be included in the public comment documentation for the AUAR Scoping Document.
If you would like to make additional comment specific to the AUAR Scoping Document, the
comment period is open until September 4, 2025. If you do not wish for your prior email to
be included in the AUAR document, please email me that you do not wish for your
comment to be included in the AUAR Scoping Document comments.
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
From: Harlan Hamson
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 7:52 PM
To: Lloyd Hilgart <Lloyd.Hilgart@MonticelloMN.gov>; Charlotte Gabler
<Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>; Tracy Hinz <Tracy.Hinz@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lee Martie
<Lee.Martie@MonticelloMN.gov>; Kip Christianson <Kip.Christianson@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: SAY NO TO THE DATA CENTER
My name is Harlan Hamson, I live in Monticello, MN . I have concerns about a data center
being proposed/company that is requesting new zoning so they can build a data center. I don't
feel it will benefit the city of Monticello and in the long run it will hurt Monticello . Please vote
against the data center/request for rezoning.
Thank you for taking your time,
Harlan Hamson
From: Harlan Hamson
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 11:44 AM
To: lloyd.hilgart@monticellomn.gov <lloyd.hilgart@monticellomn.gov>;
angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov <angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov>
Subject: Data Center- Problems
People oppose data centers due to their
high consumption of energy and water
, leading to concerns about strain on local resources and potential increases in utility
costs. Additional concerns include noise pollution, negative impacts on local land use
and property values, the generation of air pollution from backup diesel generators,
and a perceived lack of significant long-term economic benefits or permanent jobs for
the local community, according to Data Center Knowledge, Data Center Frontier, and
Hivenet.
Here's a breakdown of the main reasons for opposition:
High Energy Consumption:
Data centers require vast amounts of electricity to operate, which can strain local power grids,
potentially leading to increased costs for all customers.
Water Usage:
Many data centers consume significant quantities of water for cooling, which can be a concern in
water-scarce regions, impacting available water for residents.
Environmental Impact:
Backup diesel generators, often used in data centers, release emissions that can negatively affect
local air quality.
Noise Pollution:
The constant operation of equipment and backup systems can generate noise that is disruptive to
nearby communities.
Impact on Local Resources:
Data centers can consume large amounts of land and put pressure on local infrastructure,
potentially leading to changes in land use and increased demands on local utilities.
Limited Economic Benefits:
While data centers may create jobs during construction, they often generate few long-term,
permanent jobs for the local community, and the tax revenue generated may not be a fair trade for
the strain on resources, according to Data Center Frontier and Hivenet.
Lack of Transparency:
Developers and Big Tech firms sometimes use non-disclosure agreements, which can prevent
communities from fully understanding the scope and impact of a proposed data center, leading to
a perception of secrecy and a lack of community input.
Property Value Concerns:
The large size and potential changes in land use associated with data centers can lead to
concerns about their impact on local property values.
AI
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Kate Brown
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 1:38 PM
To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Vote NO to data center
My name is Katherine Brown, I live in Monticello, MN . I have concerns about a data
center being proposed/company that is requesting new zoning so they can build a data
center. I don't feel it will benefit the city of Monticello and in the long run it will hurt
Monticello . Please vote against the data center/request for rezoning.
Thank you for taking your time,
Katherine Brown
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
Review of Planning Commission August 19th, 2025
Special Meeting
Item 1. This meeting did not appear on the official city website calendar. Every other
meeting function of the city is in this location.
– Is the Planning Commission going to extend the Data Center Comment Period
to compensate for the error? - Yes or No -
- Further to public notice… Is the Planning Commission aware that the home
development and home builder communities are only recently coming to
understand their potential issues with property value loss, Most people
contacted at any of these entities do not have any knowledge about the
proposed data center including the agents selling homes. – Yes or No –
- If these developers slow or stop their activities all together because of the
uncertainty and ambiguity of the project, is the city prepared to lose those
potential homes and the jobs and tax base that they represent? – Yes or No-
Item 2. Per ANALYSIS / Context / 3, “Monticello’s supply of industrial land is limited by
service considerations, including high-capacity road access, sanitary sewer and water
capacity, and land use compatibility.”
- Would the Planning Commission permit this type of industry directly adjacent
to a public school? – Yes or No –
- Would the Planning Commission permit this type of industry directly adjacent
to a pre-existing high density residential neighborhood where those same
students study and sleep? – Is this considered compatible? Yes or No –
Item 3. The Planning Commission was asked and warned several times by multiple people
at the August 19th meeting to consider the potential legal liability of creating a firm
framework with parameters that a declared zoning ordinance would create. Such an
ordinance would effectively eliminate the ability of the city to ever have the ability to say no
to any application without facing significant and expensive litigation from multibillion dollar
entities.
- Has legal been consulted in this regard? – Yes or No –
Item 4. The Planning Commission was asked and warned several times by multiple people
at the August 19th meeting to consider the potential legal liability to the city from its own
residents. The damage to property values could produce situations where the resident may
lose significant amounts of property value and equity as a direct result of the actions of the
city.
This could be measured by an inability to refinance at a lower interest rate or not being able
to access equity that formerly existed for any reason at all. (i.e. medical expenses,
education expenses or remodeling costs, etc.) In the extreme, if the resident wished to
relocate due to internal or external circumstances, the possibility that the loss of equity
might be large enough that they could not divest themselves of the property because the
debt owed is more than the current deflated value of the property.
Whatever the reason might be, the possibility of the resident being forced to pursue action
against a municipality that made “informed decisions” about the potential damages to
their citizens with little or no regard to the domino effects that those decisions created is a
very real one. If even one of those actions becomes successful, this liability alone could
result in millions of dollars of loss to the city.
- Was legal consulted about the potential for civil liability from affected citizens?
– Yes or No –
- Was legal consulted about the possibility of personal liability (reference the
term of art “Piercing the Veil”) and what that might mean to members of the city
government that may have (willfully or not, knowingly or not) crossed a legal
boundary in the pursuit of a project that might result in a civil or even criminal
action? – Yes or No –
- The city was specifically asked to provide an impact study regarding the
potential for impact to home and property values. Is this study moving forward?
– Yes or No –
- These projects are becoming more well known. The specter of the potential
issues of living next door to a major construction project for 3 years and
following it up with a permanent or semi-permanent facility that will most likely
have issues that will make the neighborhoods undesirable is already
manifesting. The damage is already being done. Is the city going to immediately
revalue the property surrounding this potential project at 50% of current rates?
– Yes or No -
Item 5. Per ANALYSIS / Context / 7 and 8
“7. The City’s primary goals for industrial development include both employment and tax
base. Data Centers can meet the tax base goal. However, they are typically more limited
with regard to employment – especially employment density.”
“8. Data Centers remain a relatively new land use in many communities, and studied
impacts remain to be fully comprehended.”
- Is the Planning Commission aware of the growing “Gig Economy” where people
work from home or other locations and do not normally have to go to a brick and
mortar facility to work? – Yes or No-
- Is the Planning Commission aware of how many jobs are actually being done
within the residential areas of Monticello? – Yes or No -
- Is the Planning Commission prepared to trade homeowner taxes and hundreds
of high paying stay at home jobs that require no extra infrastructure for millions
of dollars of overhead to support the same number of workers who may not
even live within the city limits of Monticello? – Yes or No –
- Item 8 is stating that studies are needed to firmly comprehend the impacts. Is
the commission going to commission the studies that its own document says
are needed? – Yes or No –
Item 6. Errors and Omissions are a fact of life. There are several glaring issues within this
document alone. The online version for instance, has (2) complete copies of the MPCA
Sound Level Document.
- Are the growing amount of errors such as missing postings,
mislabeled items, duplicate submissions and so forth an
indication that the city’s staff is moving too quickly and
needs more time to properly review and address all areas of
concern without so many errors? – Yes or No –
Item 7. Examples of Data Centers
- Waco Street, Elk River MN – Is the Planning Commission aware that recent
measurements of the sound levels at this facility were recently recorded at 3-4
dBA above the limits established by the MPCA guidelines? – Yes or No –
- Waco Street, Elk River MN – Is the Planning Commission aware that there are
only (6) small cooling towers at this facility and not the dozens of larger units
that would be required for a much larger installation? – Yes or No –
- The photos provided are not clearly labeled and in some cases mislabeled
completely.
- 3482 S 11th Street and 1430 Veterans Memorial Drive are the same facility
- The facility located on White Crane Road has its photo in place of 1430 Veterans
Drive.
- Most every example has a distinctive absence of high density single family
housing in close proximity.
- The State of IA is prominent in the examples. IA is strongly considering
completely reevaluating their sound level rules. MN is significantly more
stringent.
- As a cursory estimate, the 1430 Veterans Memorial Highway facility has
approximately:
33 each 5’ fans
144 each of 4’ fans
193 each of 3’ fans
28 each of 8' fans on open cooling towers
4 each of 12’ fans on open cooling towers
- Total of 633 Industrial Cooling Fans and 32 Cooling Towers
- There may also be as many as 56 generators
- Has anyone in the Planning Commission been looking at
the possibilities of Legionella or other bacteria getting into
one of the many cooling towers and causing significant
health issues or death? – Yes or No -
Number of Sources Per MPCA Document
Item 8. Technological Advancements are a nature of industrial development and design.
There is a constant change and improvement in the available technologies. The Planning
council has been made aware of adiabatic cooling which would reduce the water
consumption by about 60 to 90%. Google, Meta and other large Data Center Operators
have been looking into 12-mile-deep geothermal technologies that in some cases do not
use water at all. Mandating this type of technology would greatly benefit the city by
reducing the size and scope of the utilities involved. A facility could be placed anywhere on
earth and not be required to have proximity to electrical, water or sewer utilities.
- Is the Planning Council going to require such technology to be used to
absolutely minimize the burden placed on the city and its taxpayers for ever
larger infrastructure? – Yes or No –
Item 9. Water Wells at this time have a total capacity of just over 10 Million Gallons per day.
(MGPD) The Firm Capacity is adjusted for redundancy and other factors as a measure of
safety margin. The Monticello Water Treatment Feasibility Study shows that is about 6.2
MGPD.
Demand is listed as being an average of 1.4 MGPD and a peak of 3.06 MGPD in 2019. At
that time, the projection for 2025 was 1.81 MGPD and 4.53 MGPD respectively.
Peak demand was determined to be 6.19 MGPD in 2045 and new wells would be needed at
this point at the latest.
- Does the added drawdown of the normal aquifer water level bring water in any
amount from the area of the tritium leak at the Monticello Nuclear Plant by
creating a gravity flow from the 40’ depth of the known Tritium level to the
slightly deeper 100 to 200’ deep city wells?
- Does that same drawdown pull water away from other sites such as farmsteads
and rural houses with their own wells?
- What is the difference in cost to the city to accommodate millions of gallons of
water each day through the wells and the new water plant that needs to be built
in any case to deal with the magnesium issues?
Item 10. How many Non Disclosure agreements (NDA) or Memorandum Of
Understanding (MOA) or any other types of agreements does the city currently have
with any and all data center developers and development companies?
Conclusion:
The city has admitted in writing that they need more time to do more studies to better
understand the data center issue in its entirety. Not to do so would be an egregious rush to
judgement for some unknown reason(s) and is certainly not within the requirements of
7030.0030.
We should as a community find no reason to subject each other to the known or unknown
perils that this industry brings.
There may be a place for a data center somewhere around Monticello, but that place is not
next door to high density population areas.
Scott Harper
Monticello, MM
From:Russ Hendrickson
To:Development Services
Subject:Rezoning.
Date:Monday, September 1, 2025 3:57:42 PM
My name is Russ Hendrickson, 8153 Davidson Ave NE, Monticello, MN 55362 Township.
I would like you to vote NO on the proposal for a large data center across the street. I don't
think that would be advantageous for any one. We are opposed to it.
Respectfully
Russ and Sandy Hendrickson.
I am opposed to a data center in Monticello. My hope is you would all vote to turn down the
data center ordinance. However, if the DCPUD is approved I hope at a minimum you create
stricter regulations. The DCPUD draft lists setbacks of 100’ from the property lines and
200’ from any residential property lines.
The Community Environmental Defense Services website suggests the following as part
of the zoning ordinance.
• To minimize noise impacts diesel generators should be in heavily sound-proofed enclosures,
• Data center buildings should be at least 300 feet from residential property lines,
• To prevent glare into nearby homes, data center lighting should conform to the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting from Dark Sky International,
• To reduce diesel pollution generators should be Tier 4 or possibly Tier 2 generators with selective catalytic reduction systems. NOTE – I have now spoken with someone who works at data centers with generators and they said we would not want Tier 2 generators for multiple reasons. Tier 4 is what is recommended.
Since Virginia has a large number of data centers I did some research on issues they
are having and ordinances they are implementing. or updating.
From JLARC : Joint Legislative Audit & Review in Virginia
The industrial scale of data centers makes them largely incompatible with
residential uses. One-third of data centers are currently located near residential
areas, and industry trends make future residential impacts more likely.
With a neighborhood across the road from the proposed sight this does not seem
like a wise choice.
Henrico County, Fairfax County and York County Virginia
Two have setbacks of at least 300' from residential areas and 1 has 500'.
• They require Noise Studies: Pre- and post-construction noise studies must be
submitted to ensure compliance with the Noise Ordinance.
York County, VI
• . (3) An acoustic barrier (e.g., an exterior solid or louvered wall
containing soundproofing materials) shall surround all exterior
mechanical equipment. Such acoustic barrier must be shown on the
approved site plan and shall be maintained on the premises of the
Data Center for the operational life of the facility.
They all have restrictions on how often, time of day and how long the diesel generators can
be tested
The timeline is listed in the draft as 3 years, Mr Frattalone is asking for a minimum of 5
years. That would be 5 years of construction noise and traffic congestion.
He also asked if perhaps there should be a different set of standards for the substation. If
this happens I would hope they are strict standards as no one wants to see an ugly
substation on a daily basis or hear the buzzing from their yard.
In addition to noise, water and electricity usage is a big concern.
We recently asked a friend of ours who is an environmental attorney if he had any
suggestions of questions to ask. He stated we should ask about the environmental review
regarding groundwater levels and quality in the surrounding area and who reviewed that
analysis. Then he stated WHEN that analysis comes to be wrong who will carry the liability
for the affected landowners? The city or the data center owner? He didn’t say IF, he stated
WHEN it's wrong. From my perspective that is a very telling statement of what he has seen.
From:Kelsey Hubred
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Stop the data center
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 1:01:21 PM
Dear Angela,
I’m writing as a concerned resident and parent in featherstone regarding the proposed data
center planned for the area just outside our community. While I understand the importance of
economic development and technological infrastructure, I have serious concerns about the
potential impact this project will have on our neighborhood especially for families with
children.
Our community is home to many small children who regularly play outdoors and walk or bike
in the area. The increased traffic from construction vehicles and ongoing operations poses
significant safety risks. Heavy truck traffic and commuter vehicles will also add to congestion
on our local roads, which are not designed for such high-volume industrial use.
Additionally, data centers are known to generate considerable noise from cooling systems and
backup generators, which could disturb the quiet character of our neighborhood both day and
night. Air pollution from increased traffic, as well as the potential environmental footprint of
such a large facility, raises further concerns for the health and well-being of our residents.
Beyond immediate safety and quality-of-life issues, I’m also concerned about the long-term
effects on property values, the strain on local infrastructure, and the precedent it sets for future
industrial development so close to residential areas.
I respectfully urge you and the planning department to carefully evaluate alternative locations
that would not place an industrial-scale facility in such close proximity to family
neighborhoods. Our community’s safety, environment, and quality of life should remain a top
priority in development decisions.
Thank you for your time, and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns
further.
K Hubred
From:James Statts
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Swans and wildlife
Date:Thursday, September 4, 2025 12:23:43 PM
Monticello is known for it’s Swans , hence sawn park where people come from all around to
feed the swans and snap pics of them … With that being said I drove by the land 25 and 106
and what did I see , 80-100 Swans sitting in that field raising their young as they have done for
20 some years , also on that field were about 100-150 geese that have been using the field .
Monticello decides to build there the Swans , Geese and other wildlife will find alternative
land to feed and raise their young . I have been in Monticello for 55 yrs and have seen a lot of
changes that have been made .. Building a Data Center that close to residential is just stupid of
the city to even think about it , should be a hard NO go find some other place . As you can tell
I don’t want it that close to where I live 4561 Cobblestone Court just down the road from
where it would be built .. I would think that our voices should make a difference but I feel that
in this case all the city council see is the dollar signs . In closing I would really hate to see the
Swans and Geese disappear because of a decision that was made by people we trust with our
town of Monticello . Thank you have a good day
From:Development Services
To:Jennifer Schreiber
Cc:Angela Schumann; Rachel Leonard
Subject:FW: Data Center Petition
Date:Monday, September 29, 2025 1:45:08 PM
Attachments:petition signatures jobs 490757201 20250924183540.csv
petition comments jobs 490757201 20250924183540.csv
FYI -
From: lisa Keenan
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 2:09 PM
To: Development Services <Community.Development@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lloyd Hilgart
<Lloyd.Hilgart@MonticelloMN.gov>; Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>; Tracy
Hinz <Tracy.Hinz@MonticelloMN.gov>; lee.martie@monticeloomn.gov; Kip Christianson
<Kip.Christianson@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Data Center Petition
Good afternoon,
Attached is the download of names from the No Data Center petition along with the list
of comments that were added by some. As of now there were 521 signatures.
The more research I do the worse I feel about the possibility of data centers coming to
Monticello. Not once during my research have I read an article or watched a video or
news report where a community thought it was great and everything worked out well.
NOT ONE TIME. Other than money coming in during construction and the tax
revenue after it's built there are no positives, only negatives. It simply doesn't seem like
a good use of land and other resources.
I implore you to not allow data centers in Monticello. There is no harm in putting a
moratorium for the next 3 to 5 years. Wait and see how the boom of data centers plays
out in other communities in MN and around the country. Watch and learn from what
happens. If they turn out to be so wonderful then take all the knowledge you have
gathered and create an ordinance to allow them then. If it turns out they aren't so great,
then the City of Monticello will have dodge the proverbial bullet.
Thank you for your time,
Lisa Keenan
Name City State Postal CodeCountry Commente Comment
Alicia Meyer Meyer Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025 "We all know the environmental impact and the health impact this will have on all of Monticello, MN. VOTE NO!"
Charles cornellier Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025 "We don’t need this"
Roger Bovee Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025 "Data centers should incorporate their own power generation with solar and wind to offset their draw. They should also be built in remote areas."
Beth Heck Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025 "We do not need the strain on our resources or economy this will bring."
Myra Van Horn Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025 "No DATA CENTER !!!!"
Jake Olinske Monticello MN 55056 United States 9/12/2025
"Monticello is a city that prides itself on its natural resources. Whether its the rivers and lakes that our iconic swans call home or the monarch butterflies that habitate
the milkweed that flourishes our trails. Monticello has made so much progress in beautifying it's downtown and making it a safer place to live while decreasing our
carbon footprint. City council approving this would be the equivalent of them individually spitting in the face if every citizen that calls this city home. No amount of
jobs or tax benefits a facility like this creates is worth the health affects and ecological impacts data centers are proven to create."
Name City State Postal CodeCountry Signed On
Lisa Keenan Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Emily Keenan Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Kim Cleaves Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Candace Seidl Buffalo MN 55313 United States 9/5/2025
Stephanie Pula Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Mia Chelberg Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Naomi Lundgren Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Russ Hendrickson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Tyler B KC Metro MO 64030 United States 9/5/2025
Nancy Kopff Minneapolis MN 55422 United States 9/5/2025
Jamie Barthman Minneapolis MN 55414 United States 9/5/2025
Elizabeth Kiphuth Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Theodore Keith Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Andrea Holker Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Faith Kopff Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Corinne Lozinski Monticello MN 55352 United States 9/5/2025
Harlan Hamson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Sommer Kopff Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Lily Keenan Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Sarah Scribner Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Lance Armor HI United States 9/5/2025
Mikey Sanchez Mcallen TX 78501 United States 9/5/2025
Jackie Fallon Clear Lake MN 55319 United States 9/5/2025
Colleen Oslund Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Cortney Happe Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Denise Holland Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Bil Keenan Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Julie Hell.an Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Ryan Malburg Maple Lake MN 55358 United States 9/5/2025
Peggy Safar Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/5/2025
Laurel Budesky Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Wendy Pillatzki Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Mark Budesky Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Eric Forster Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Tina Forster Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Brian Kopff Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Cody Hamson Woodbury MN 55125 United States 9/6/2025
Mary Beth Noll Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Gage Bares Minneapolis MN 55407 United States 9/6/2025
Ash-Leigh Vagle Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Herbert Bray Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Scott Tierney Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Sarah Burnard Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Sandy Rousslang Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Katie Meyer Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Jennifer Gomez Minneapolis MN 55408 United States 9/6/2025
Allen Rimmer Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
karen christopherson monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Kristie Blek Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Cassie Zarbok Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Rory Cofield Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
re Quigley Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Roanne Euerle Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Sherry Evans Big Lake MN 55309 United States 9/6/2025
Laura Mitchell Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Tony Rowan Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Shawn Towle Minneapolis MN 55422 United States 9/6/2025
Kevin Converse Minneapolis MN 55408 United States 9/6/2025
Kayla Schermer Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Tyler Bey Monticello MN 55025 United States 9/6/2025
Cameron Prodoehl Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Bruce Vogt Minneapolis MN 55411 United States 9/6/2025
Brittni Parrish Minneapolis MN 55407 United States 9/6/2025
Patty Anderson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Morimoto Tammy Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Mitchell Dietz Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Janice Holthaus Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
ROBERT STEIN Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Jennifer Kelly Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Rachel Hassler Monticello MN 56302 United States 9/6/2025
Sarah Marjanen Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Linda Loeks Buffalo MN 55313 United States 9/6/2025
Tina Hall Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Rob Alward Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Tyler Zarbok Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Joe Kraft Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Emma Knops Minneapolis MN 55472 United States 9/6/2025
Al witschen Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Haley Ostwald Saint Paul MN 55106 United States 9/6/2025
Alison Laulainen Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Cassandra Libby Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Kate Dietel Minneapolis MN 55448 United States 9/6/2025
Kris Williams Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Jayme Burnard Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Julie South Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Jennifer Wenzler Moticello MN 56362 United States 9/6/2025
Jaden DeChaine Minneapolis MN 55418 United States 9/6/2025
Brittany Myers Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Reece Bregenzer Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Hannah Payne Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Alana Pearson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Savannah Hemann Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Hailey Rogers Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Paula Zychowski Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Brenda Anderson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Logan Olson Minneapolis MN 55429 United States 9/6/2025
Tanner Rollag Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Shawn Sobania Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Guillermo Rivas Owatonna MN 55060 United States 9/6/2025
Kimberly Dorf Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
David Skoblik Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Michelle Phillips Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Maggie Buchmann Saint Paul MN 55116 United States 9/6/2025
Kyle Myers Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
LINDA LUTZKE Maple Lake MN 55358 United States 9/6/2025
Lisa Vanbeck Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Chrissy Zachman Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Jacklyn Rassmussen Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Sawyer Kopff Minneapolis MN 55404 United States 9/6/2025
S. Hoiles Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Taylor Hess Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
janine Kopff Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Amber Hoiles Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Julie LaRoque Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Stephen Meyers Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Rachael Gallagher Becker MN 55308 United States 9/6/2025
Devin J Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Britni Reyes Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Chelsea McClain Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Melanie Barthelmes Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Eloise Lee Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Alyssa Twerberg Big Lake MN 55309 United States 9/6/2025
Polly Augustson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Logan Holan Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Melissa Harrington Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Rachel Weiss Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Susana Muñoz Madrid 28019 Spain 9/6/2025
Benjamin Pupeza Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Christopher Kelly Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Kelsey H Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Sara Johnson Big Lake MN 55309 United States 9/6/2025
Jason andreasen Buffalo MN 55313 United States 9/6/2025
Shellie Grunwald Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Alicia Meyer Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Rita Pettit Cokato MN 55321 United States 9/6/2025
David Fricke Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Jennifer Quinn Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Beth Oelkers Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Shane Sieben Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Courtney Bellefeuille Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Mike Zawatzke Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Karen Mason Minneapolis MN 55447 United States 9/6/2025
Travis Grunwald Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Amy Schwartz Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
sharese sabatino Saint Paul MN 55106 United States 9/6/2025
April Schmidt Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Nikki Shutrop Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Jessica Stutzman Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Tyler Jassmann Otsego MN 55330 United States 9/6/2025
Kelly Carter Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Sally Berthiaume Minneapolis MN 55403 United States 9/6/2025
Robbie Carter Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Erin Jones Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Rio Anderson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Kasey Pupeza Elk River MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Shannon Henning Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Cynthia Olson Big Lake MN 55309 United States 9/6/2025
Feanna Sobania Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Daniel Snodgrass Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Brandon Fessenden Monticello MN 56352 United States 9/6/2025
Abbey Tiemann Annandale MN 55302 United States 9/6/2025
Jodi Menke Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Jeff Menke Minneapolis MN 55406 United States 9/6/2025
Luke Groff Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Kris Brandjord Big Lake MN 55309 United States 9/6/2025
Amber Solem Minneapolis MN 55428 United States 9/6/2025
Kelseg Stangler Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Dionne Dickinson Minneapolis MN 55472 United States 9/6/2025
Bonnie (Whaley) Stromberg Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Katherine Christianson Becker MN 55308 United States 9/6/2025
Cassandra Arnold Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Colleen Schnappauf Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Chuck cornellier Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Jered Frank Minneapolis MN 55416 United States 9/6/2025
Angela Thorseth Otsego MN 55309 United States 9/6/2025
Angie Pullen Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Nadine Anderson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Emma Wolters Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Shawn Oen Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Melissa Klang Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
John Warnke Elk River MN 55330 United States 9/6/2025
Jillian Payne Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Kelly Daniels Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Manda Miller Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Alison Noordmans Minneapolis MN 55472 United States 9/6/2025
mark Quigley Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Kelsey Stuart Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Roger Bovee Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Joann Maro Minneapolis MN 55419 United States 9/6/2025
Megan Simonson Loretto MN 55357 United States 9/6/2025
Barb Olson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Brittany Scheiller Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Deborah Kastner Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Jennifer Robb Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Deb Fisher Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Jesse Johnson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Jennifer Smith Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Kelsey Nelson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Amanda Aritt Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
David Voll Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Sara Youngs Lutsen MN 55612 United States 9/6/2025
Melissa Meyer Minneapolis MN 55413 United States 9/6/2025
Stacey Steinbach Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Kathryn Chubb Monticello MN 553362 United States 9/6/2025
Sara Carpenter Minneapolis MN 55408 United States 9/6/2025
Melissa Olson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Christine Youngs Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Suzanne Rosnow Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Madison Marquette Minneapolis MN 55418 United States 9/6/2025
Nate Youngs Minneapolis MN 55411 United States 9/6/2025
Brian Schnappauf Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Amber Youngs Maple Grove MN 55369 United States 9/6/2025
Wayne Buxengard Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Alicia Lee Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Connie Carlson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Isaac Youngs Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Julie Jelen Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
James Statts Minneapolis MN 55401 United States 9/6/2025
Alicia Monson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Matthew Roggemann Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Jack Whinnery Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Talyn Heinen Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Pam Ridpath Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Nancy Hageman-Ziesmer Becker MN 55308 United States 9/6/2025
David Bishop Big Lake MN 55309 United States 9/6/2025
Violet Forster Mokena IL 60448 United States 9/6/2025
Lizzie Ericson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Kamrie Frost Lakeville MN 55044 United States 9/6/2025
Kylie Brown Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Matthew Zierden Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Ken Miller Minneapolis MN 55445 United States 9/6/2025
Paula Adamski Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Lora Giacomino Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Dennis DuFrane Elk River MN 55330 United States 9/6/2025
Ros Arnold Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Eric Stuber Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Vera Paton Superior WI 54880 United States 9/6/2025
Morgan Bloss Big lake MN 55309 United States 9/6/2025
Brogan Murray Superior WI 54880 United States 9/6/2025
Melissa Schuster Elk River MN 55330 United States 9/6/2025
Tony Block Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Gavin Beach Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Raleigh Koritz St Paul MN 55114 United States 9/6/2025
Molly Williams Superior WI 54880 United States 9/6/2025
Cody Carlson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Carrin Bergerson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
kara nelson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Kati Leaf Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Carter Krippner Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Amy Robertson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Emily Carlson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Samantha Ryan Buffalo MN 55313 United States 9/6/2025
Kelly Bovee Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Kelsey Thomas Saint Michael MN 55376 United States 9/6/2025
Carrie Winter Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
lacey bueno Minneapolis MN 55423 United States 9/6/2025
Beth Metzger Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Joe Soucy Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Tamara Hamm Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Courtney Caspers Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
tanya muedeking Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Julie Mueller Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Dori Holland Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Elizabeth Purzner Big Lake MN 55309 United States 9/6/2025
Mike Pence Maple Grove MN 55369 United States 9/6/2025
Melissa Paulson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Cheryl Goudy Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Doug Gleason Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Abigail Goth Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Devin Marquette Elk River MN 55330 United States 9/6/2025
Travis Dickey Minneapolis MN 55421 United States 9/6/2025
Danielle Kunz Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Dorene Aleckson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Patrick Ridpath Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Brittany Harris Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Kara Thornton Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Caryn Buxengard Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
EllieAnn Kunz monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Dawn Metzger Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Destiny Puhl Minneapolis MN 55416 United States 9/6/2025
Greg Elfering Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Monica Primeau Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Angela Harstad Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Sandy Thune Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Kelly Johnson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/6/2025
Daniel Duggan Monticello MN 55363 United States 9/6/2025
Brittney LaFond Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Steve Sanchez Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Dan Mikes Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Judy Truax Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Debbie Lee Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Rhonda Harms Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Nicholas Bertram Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Deb Souer Minneapolis MN 55472 United States 9/7/2025
Amy Jackson Big Lake MN 55309 United States 9/7/2025
Katelynn Woytcke Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Kristen Stueven Willmar MN 56201 United States 9/7/2025
Renae Berning Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Elisabeth Gliddon Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Ken Souer Otsego MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Richard Vanbeck Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Robert Van horn Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Stephen Schramel Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Nita Vaughn Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Amy Mitchell Shakopee MN 55379 United States 9/7/2025
Kristina Simonson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Holly Neuman Saint Michael MN 55376 United States 9/7/2025
Sidney Luoma Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
LeAnn Dodge Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Jordan Cox Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Kathy Schmanski Cold Spring MN 56320 United States 9/7/2025
Amy Kupser Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Gary Sigurdson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Janine Holter Montrose MN 55363 United States 9/7/2025
Bren Good Minneapolis MN 55413 United States 9/7/2025
Beth Heck Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Amy LaVallee Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Diona Grimley Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Samantha Shelstad Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Amber Hauser Saint Francis MN 55070 United States 9/7/2025
Cheryl Mikkelson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Myranda Bomersine Saint Francis MN 55070 United States 9/7/2025
Jason Krick Minneapolis MN 55416 United States 9/7/2025
Kristy Kihn Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Brianna Smithling Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Jenn Skerbinc Minneapolis MN 55406 United States 9/7/2025
Myra Van Horn Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Kristin Sederstrom Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Diane Ruonavaara Barnum MN 55707 United States 9/7/2025
Eileen Anderson Minneapolis MN 55408 United States 9/7/2025
Aimee moore Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Brian Ruonavaara Minneapolis MN 55406 United States 9/7/2025
Crystal Bray-Cotten Minneapolis MN 55432 United States 9/7/2025
Deanne Suter Big Lake MN 55309 United States 9/7/2025
Scott Imdieke Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Greg Diller Onaway MI 49765 United States 9/7/2025
Marie Schultz Elk River MN 55330 United States 9/7/2025
Chad Sellner Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Hailey Wilson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Bobbie Anacker Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Katherine Ganzer-Brown Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Kyle Brown Minneapolis MN 55407 United States 9/7/2025
Jake Rigenhagen Waterville MN 56096 United States 9/7/2025
Jessie Powell Minneapolis MN 55422 United States 9/7/2025
Shari McNitt Buffalo MN 55313 United States 9/7/2025
Renee Pike Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Christopher Johnson Minneapolis MN 55472 United States 9/7/2025
Jon Inwood Brooklyn NY 11226 United States 9/7/2025
Anna Mann Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Annie Miles Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Jessica Kinney Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Melissa Elfstrom Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Jan Davis Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Emily Rose Lee Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Brian Schultz Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Mike Lenzen Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Jennifer Rowan Minneapolis MN 55423 United States 9/7/2025
Chelsie Borel Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Jonathan Jones Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Lysa Holmstrom Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Jone Schlangen Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Lynn Black Minneapolis MN 55435 United States 9/7/2025
Nicole Sieber Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Don Sieber Minneapolis MN 55472 United States 9/7/2025
Ann Leon Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Stacy Gleason Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Anderson Debbie Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Jessica Bad Heart Bull Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Chris Meyer Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Todd Elfstrom Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/7/2025
Cameron Kopff Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
Jason Axelberg Minneapolis MN 55408 United States 9/8/2025
Andrea Dubay Elk River MN 55330 United States 9/8/2025
Nicole Roberts Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
Deborah Forstie Big Lake MN 55309 United States 9/8/2025
Elena Kroska St. Cloud MN 56362 United States 9/8/2025
Kathleen Manke Monticello MN 55363 United States 9/8/2025
Amy Fimon Big Lake MN 55309 United States 9/8/2025
Samantha Seestrom Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
Jill Hoffman Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
Lisa Murphy Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
Alison Hendley Saint Joseph MN 94973 United States 9/8/2025
Allison Dupay Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
Michelle Adair Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
Jodi Arns Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
Kayla Severson Sauk Rapids MN 56379 United States 9/8/2025
Susan Hedtke Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
brooklyn kunz Albertville MN 55301 United States 9/8/2025
Cyndi S.Hutchinson MN 55350 United States 9/8/2025
Shannon Bye Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
Ruby Levanduski Big Lake MN 55309 United States 9/8/2025
Whitney Trattles Buffalo MN 55313 United States 9/8/2025
Mandy Gustafson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
Myron Yatckoske Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
Mary Jo Jepson Bemidji MN 56601 United States 9/8/2025
Anthony Barthel Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
Nicole Dahlheimer Minneapolis MN 55405 United States 9/8/2025
Penny Burt Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
Roxann Jorgensen Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
Deirdre Stocco Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
Michael Quinn Monticello MN us, 553625 United States 9/8/2025
Traci Woytcke Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
Jamie Lemon Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
DERRICK ZYCHOWSKI Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
Judy Hansen Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
Lesia Gerzema Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/8/2025
Patricia Zagaros Otsego MN 55301 United States 9/8/2025
Samantha Warner Princeton MN 55371 United States 9/8/2025
Debra Lovegren Minneapolis MN 55435 United States 9/8/2025
Christine Connors Minneapolis MN 55422 United States 9/8/2025
Connie beckers Elk River MN 55330 United States 9/8/2025
sheri rickard Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/9/2025
Cynthia Gross monticello MN 55362 United States 9/9/2025
Jeanine Mulheron Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/9/2025
Jami Vokaty Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/9/2025
Alexander Coady Minneapolis MN 55412 United States 9/9/2025
Kara Radke Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/9/2025
Chantelle Mitchell Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/9/2025
Alyssa Fligge Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/9/2025
Janet Garcia Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/9/2025
Chauntel McCabe Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/9/2025
Maria Murray Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/9/2025
Kari Howe Minneapolis MN 55422 United States 9/9/2025
Natalie Whatev Minneapolis MN 55113 United States 9/9/2025
Dana Swanson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/9/2025
Albi Largent Saint Paul MN 55104 United States 9/9/2025
Taylor Amundson Minneapolis MN 55422 United States 9/9/2025
Steven Anderson Saint Cloud MN 56301 United States 9/9/2025
Natalie K New York NY 10025 United States 9/9/2025
Bernard Lang Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/9/2025
Jennifer Roettger Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/9/2025
Carolyn Blomquist Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/9/2025
Lisa Zahn Maple Grove MN 553689 United States 9/9/2025
Kim Dunwiddie Becker MN 55308 United States 9/9/2025
Ashley Lang Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/9/2025
Tyler Nelson Hanover MN 55341 United States 9/9/2025
Denzel Linn Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/9/2025
Logan Linn Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/9/2025
Steve Hermanson Buffalo MN 55313 United States 9/9/2025
Hanna Hermanson Buffalo MN 55313 United States 9/9/2025
Susan Hermanson Buffalo MN 55313 United States 9/9/2025
Christian May Maple Lake MN 55358 United States 9/9/2025
Kaley Espinosa Big Lake MN 55309 United States 9/9/2025
Rae Modesitt Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/9/2025
iran gomez Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/10/2025
Carol McNaughton Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/10/2025
Megan Sanborn Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/10/2025
Faye Zigan Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/10/2025
Jill Gratrix Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/10/2025
Megan Jarvis Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/10/2025
Melanie Girouard Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/10/2025
Aliyah Rogers United States 9/10/2025
Antoinette McDonald Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/10/2025
Chase Friedemann Little Falls MN 56345 United States 9/10/2025
Lauren Windingstad Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/10/2025
Daniel Windingstad Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/10/2025
Dana Nelson Hanover MN 55341 United States 9/10/2025
Unknown .Saint paul MN 55130 United States 9/10/2025
Helene Woods Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/10/2025
Christa Duggan Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/10/2025
Janel Downer Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/11/2025
Susan Lundy Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/11/2025
Bonita Host Big Lake MN 55309 United States 9/11/2025
Jennifer Gooley Saint Paul MN 55114 United States 9/11/2025
Anja Vernick Otsego MN 55330 United States 9/11/2025
Erin Schoenecker Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/11/2025
Anna Lekander Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/11/2025
Shantel Folkerds Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/11/2025
Danielle Murdoff Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/11/2025
Mara Bryant Minneapolis MN 55422 United States 9/11/2025
Bonita Quast Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/11/2025
Thomas Savord Forest Lake MN 55025 United States 9/11/2025
Michelle Stein Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/11/2025
Sherie Melchert Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/11/2025
paislie haywood Saint Paul MN 55116 United States 9/12/2025
Jake Olinske Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/12/2025
sharon moore Saint Paul MN 55117 United States 9/12/2025
Richard Skaja Saint Cloud MN 56301 United States 9/12/2025
Dakota Howe Ham Lake MN 55304 United States 9/13/2025
jim Schmanski Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/13/2025
Peg Weiman Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/14/2025
Gary Weiman Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/14/2025
Michelle Macagnone Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/14/2025
Brenda Grose Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/14/2025
Jenna Waldrop Eagan MN 55123 United States 9/15/2025
Niquish Turner Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/16/2025
Feyre W Mound MN 55313 United States 9/16/2025
Austin Elliott Brainerd MN 56401 United States 9/16/2025
Sonia Smith Knightstown IN 46148 United States 9/16/2025
Jacqueline Bundy Long Beach CA 90802 United States 9/16/2025
Jody Kontz New Richland MN 56072 United States 9/16/2025
Morgan Baxter Knutson Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/17/2025
Felicia Olson Sherwood AR 72120 United States 9/18/2025
Issac Thomason Sauk Rapids MN 56379 United States 9/18/2025
Annie Walker Hermosa 57744 United States 9/18/2025
Chris Sodt Minneapolis 55407 United States 9/18/2025
Deborah Paulseth Minneapolis MN 55423 United States 9/18/2025
Emily Anderson Burnsville MN 55337 United States 9/18/2025
Thomas Grue Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/18/2025
Kimberly Silva StPaul MN 55117 United States 9/18/2025
Robin Breun Saint Michael MN 55376 United States 9/18/2025
Peggy Krier Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/19/2025
Sophia Gonzalez San Antonio TX 78210 United States 9/19/2025
Ryan Buboltz Big lake MN 55309 United States 9/19/2025
Melanie Stuber Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/19/2025
Amy Knefelkamp Hudson WI 54016 United States 9/19/2025
Barb Gaddo Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/19/2025
Connor Oslund Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/19/2025
Asher Biniek Minneapolis MN 56377 United States 9/20/2025
Antoinette Johnson Little Falls MN 56345 United States 9/20/2025
Truong Le Brooklyn Park MN 55445 United States 9/20/2025
Andrea Harrell MN 55128 United States 9/20/2025
Karen Hoag Foley MN 56329 United States 9/20/2025
Robert Oslund Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/21/2025
Weston Fonder Monticello MN 55362 United States 9/21/2025
Casandra Flagg Minneapolis MN 55421 United States 9/21/2025
Andrew Bradley MN 55014 United States 9/21/2025
Izzie Behl Madison WI 53704 United States 9/21/2025
Nita Ceron Monticello MN Monticello United States 9/23/2025
Cass Ahlgren Rice MN 56367 United States 9/23/2025
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/2025
1
2B. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance,
Section 153.048, Pointes at Cedar District to allow Public Warehousing as an Interim
Use Permit, and to establish required use standards, and consideration of an Interim
Use Permit for Public Warehousing, Temporary in the Pointes at Cedar (PCD) District.
Applicant: City of Monticello
Prepared by: Community
Development Director
Meeting Date:
12/02/2025
Council Date (pending
Commission action):
12/08/25
Additional Analysis by: Consulting City Planner, Community & Economic Development
Coordinator, Chief Building Official
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Consideration of amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section
153.048, Pointes at Cedar District to allow Public Warehousing as an Interim Use Permit
1. Motion to recommend adoption of Ordinance 8XX amending the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance, Section 153.048, Pointes at Cedar District to allow continuation of existing
Interim Use Permits under the Non-Conformity clause.
2. Motion to deny a recommendation for adoption of Ordinance 8XX amending the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Section 153.048, Pointes at Cedar District to allow
continuation of existing Interim Use Permits under the Non-Conformity clause.
3. Motion to postpone action on a recommendation of adoption of Ordinance No. 8XX.
Decision 2: Consideration of approval of an Interim Use Permit for Public Warehousing,
Temporary
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2025-40, recommending approval of an Interim Use
Permit for Public Warehousing, Temporary, in the western-most building at 1305
Edmonson Ave. NE, for a period not to exceed 5 years, or when the lease for such
storage terminates, whichever is sooner, subject to conditions in Exhibit Z and based on
findings in said resolution.
2. Motion to adopt Resolution PC-2025-40 recommending denial of an Interim Use Permit
for Public Warehousing, Temporary in the Pointes at Cedar (PCD) District based on
findings to be made by the Planning Commission and directing staff to prepare the
resolution and authorizing the Chair to execute said resolution.
3. Motion to postpone action on Resolution No. PC-2025-40.
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/2025
2
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Property: Legal Description: Lengthy – See City Hall
PID #: 155500142401
Planning Case Number: 2025-47
Request(s): Interim Use Permit (IUP) to rent a portion of an existing property
for the purpose of temporary storage of public works equipment.
Deadline for Decision: N/A
Land Use Designation: Commercial and Residential Flex
Zoning Designation: Pointes at Cedar District
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable: NA
Current Site Use: Industrial Services and Public Warehousing, Temporary
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Multi-family Residential
East: Industrial
South: Vacant, zoned Pointes at Cedar
West: Vacant, zoned Pointes at Cedar
Project Description: The City of Monticello is seeking to extend its current storage of
public works equipment in existing buildings within The Pointes at
Cedar District prior to authorization of construction of new public
works facilities at a new campus location. The timeline for the
construction of a new public works facility is as yet unknown.
To accommodate this temporary condition, two actions are
proposed: 1) amend The Pointes at Cedar (PCD) zoning ordinance
to authorize continuation of an IUP with adherence to application
and processing procedures of the ordinance, and 2) approve the
IUP for an extended 5-year term.
ANALYSIS
Text Amendment
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/2025
3
The City’s Public Works Department is seeking to extend an Interim Use Permit for the
temporary storage of equipment and materials on a temporary basis due to a lack of other
storage locations and pending construction of more permanent facilities.
The original Interim Use Permit was approved in November 2020 and was valid for a period of
five years. Public Works has continued the storage use and has requested to renew the IUP as
planning for the new public works facility continues.
The 2020 IUP for temporary public storage was approved under regulations applicable prior to
the adoption of The Pointes at Cedar District (PCD) in 2022.
The Pointes at Cedar District does not have a specific allowance for interim use permits, but
includes the following for non-conforming uses within the district:
C. Non-Conforming Uses
Within the PCD zoning district, development and uses preexist the adoption of the PCD. These
are considered legal non-conformities and may be continued under the requirements of the
applicable Zoning Ordinance sections regulating such uses and standards. Expansions or
intensifications of existing uses may be considered but shall be subject to the Process
Requirements of this Ordinance.
This clause in the PCD authorizes a process to continue pre-existing uses within the district.
To grant an extension of the requested Interim Use Permit, the only active IUP in the district,
the ordinance is proposed to be amended to clarify that the allowance includes continuation of
interim use permits subject to the same Process Requirements of the ordinance. The process
requirements would require a public hearing for development-stage permitting of the IUP,
which has also been called for as part of this application.
The proposed ordinance amendment language:
C. Non-Conforming Uses
Within the PCD zoning district, development and uses preexist the adoption of the PCD. These
are considered legal non-conformities and may be continued under the requirements of the
applicable Zoning Ordinance sections regulating such uses and standards. Expansions or
intensifications of existing uses, and including the extension or renewal of Interim Use Permits,
may be considered but shall be subject to the Process Requirements of this Ordinance.
With the above amendment, the concurrent application for IUP would be processed for
consideration of approval.
Interim Use Permit
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/2025
4
The City’s Public Works representatives describe the need for temporary storage at 1305
Edmonson as follows:
Due to the sale of two city-owned properties that were utilized for
storage for essential equipment and materials for the Public Works
Department to serve the citizens of Monticello the department is in need
of additional storage space. The farthest west structure located at 1305
Edmonson Avenue that is approximately 2500 square feet will be utilized
to store equipment and materials utilized by the department. It is
anticipated that this equipment will include mowers, plows, vehicles,
trailers, seasonal decorations, play structure materials and other
miscellaneous items. It is anticipated that this space will be used in a
passive manner with most equipment and materials being changed out
seasonally.
The subject property is shown in the aerial photo below, with the building used for storage
highlighted in red. Public Works staff has indicated that all storage would be indoors only.
Further, the applicant has clarified that this storage area is not intended to be accessed daily as
for use or staging of Public Works equipment.
The applicable ordinance requirements for the prior IUP approval were as follows:
(a) The use shall be allowed by Interim Use Permit, with a termination date of no later
than five (5) years from the date of approval.
(b) The interim use shall apply to public storage of equipment only, and shall not apply to
any private entity, either during or after the term of the permit.
(c) The use, if not allowed as a permitted principal use, may be a “Secondary Use” allowed
on the property, separate and unrelated to the principal use.
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/2025
5
(d) The use shall occupy indoor storage only, in one or more existing buildings, and shall
not include outdoor storage.
(e) The use shall otherwise meet all zoning and building code standards.
(f) The use shall not interfere with other permitted, conforming private uses of the
property, nor with the provision of public services to the property or the neighborhood
in which it is located.
(g) No signage shall be allowed identifying the use, other than permitted directional
signage on the property.
The proposed storage continues to comply with the prior IUP standards noted above and the
additional conditions assigned to the IUP at that time.
The interim use on the site is requested for another 5 years as specified in the conditions.
However, consistent with the prior IUP approval, staff have proposed additional criteria limiting
the IUP to the term of the lease or 5 years, whichever comes first. Storage beyond that date
would require a new public hearing and review.
The proposed use is temporary only and as such, an appropriate use of an Interim Use Permit.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommend approval of the PCD ordinance amendment and renewal of the IUP for a new
5-year term, subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z. The use is existing on-site and is expected to
terminate with completion of the construction of the new Public Works facility or the site lease,
fitting the temporary nature of an IUP.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution PC-2025-40
B. Ordinance No. XXX, DRAFT
C. Aerial Site Image
D. Applicant Narrative & Site Illustration
Z. Conditions of Approval
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/2025
6
EXHIBIT Z
Interim Use Permit for Public Warehousing, Temporary
1305 Edmonson Ave. NE
PID 155500142401
1. The use shall be allowed by Interim Use Permit, with a termination date of no later than five
(5) years from the date of approval, or the termination of the City’s lease for the property,
whichever comes first.
2. The interim use shall apply to public storage of equipment only, and shall not apply to any
private entity, either during or after the term of the permit.
3. The use shall occupy indoor storage only, in one or more existing buildings, and shall not
include outdoor storage.
4. The use shall not interfere with other permitted, conforming private uses of the property,
nor with the provision of public services to the property or the neighborhood in which it is
located.
5. No signage shall be allowed identifying the use, other than permitted directional signage on
the property.
6. The Interim Use Permit grants no additional rights to use the property for leased
warehousing/storage beyond the applicable zoning regulations for the property.
7. The City/tenant shall at all times maintain stored materials and equipment in accordance
with all applicable zoning, building, and fire codes, including the provisions of the zoning
ordinance authorizing the Interim Use Permit
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-040
1
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN INTERIM USE PERMIT
ALLOWING TEMPORARY PUBLIC WAREHOUSING AS A SECONDARY USE OF PROPERTY AT
1305 EDMONSON AVENUE NE IN THE
POINTES AT CEDAR ZONING DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request to occupy an accessory building for use as
Public Warehousing on a temporary basis; and
WHEREAS, the site is zoned The Pointes at Cedar, and is eligible for such use by Interim Use
Permit based on a companion amendment allowing extension of such Interim Use Permits
as a non-conformity with the district; and
WHEREAS, the proposed use and development are consistent with the existing land uses in
the area; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking to store public works equipment on a seasonal and low
volume basis; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided materials otherwise documenting compliance with
the terms of the applicable zoning regulations; and
WHEREAS, the uses will not create any unanticipated changes to the demand for public
services on or around the site; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 2nd, 2025 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff
report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings
of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1. The proposed uses are consistent with the amended language for non-
conformities within the Pointes at Cedar District.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-040
2
2. The proposed use is temporary in nature and will not impact existing and
future land uses in the area in which they are located.
3. The impacts of the improvements are those anticipated by the existing and
future land uses and are addressed through standard review and ordinances
as adopted.
4. The proposed use of the building meets the intent and requirements of the
applicable zoning regulations, subject to the regulations governing interim
uses in the district.
5. No impacts on public utilities or other services are foreseen as a result of the
proposed amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City
Council approves the renewal of the Interim Use Permit Public Warehousing, Temporary,
subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit Z as follows:
1. The use shall be allowed by Interim Use Permit, with a termination date of no later than
five (5) years from the date of approval, or the termination of the City’s lease for the
property, whichever comes first.
2. The interim use shall apply to public storage of equipment only, and shall not apply to
any private entity, either during or after the term of the permit.
3. The use shall occupy indoor storage only, in one or more existing buildings, and shall not
include outdoor storage.
4. The use shall not interfere with other permitted, conforming private uses of the
property, nor with the provision of public services to the property or the neighborhood
in which it is located.
5. No signage shall be allowed identifying the use, other than permitted directional signage
on the property.
6. The Interim Use Permit grants no additional rights to use the property for leased
warehousing/storage beyond the applicable zoning regulations for the property.
7. The City/tenant shall at all times maintain stored materials and equipment in
accordance with all applicable zoning, building, and fire codes, including the provisions
of the zoning ordinance authorizing the Interim Use Permit
ADOPTED this 2nd day of December, 2025 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-040
3
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By: __________________________________
Andrew Tapper, Chair
ATTEST:
___________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
ORDINANCE NO. 8XX
1
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XV OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE,
CHAPTER 153: ZONING, SECTION 153.048, POINTES AT CEDAR DISTRICT TO ALLOW PUBLIC
WAREHOUSING AS AN INTERIM USE PERMIT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section § 153.048 POINTES AT CEDAR DISTRICT, is hereby amended as follows:
C. Non-Conforming Uses
Within the PCD zoning district, development and uses preexist the adoption of
the PCD. These are considered legal non-conformities and may be continued
under the requirements of the applicable Zoning Ordinance sections regulating
such uses and standards. Expansions or intensifications of existing uses, and
including the extension or renewal of Interim Use Permits, may be considered but
shall be subject to the Process Requirements of this Ordinance.
Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the changes required by this Ordinance
as part of the Official Monticello City Code, Title XV, Zoning Ordinance, and to
renumber the tables and chapters accordingly as necessary to provide the
intended effect of this Ordinance. The City Clerk is further directed to make
necessary corrections to any internal citations that result from said renumbering
process, provided that such changes retain the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance as has been adopted.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage
and publication. The ordinance in its entirety and map shall be posted on the
City website after publication. Copies of the complete Ordinance and map are
available online and at Monticello City Hall for examination upon request.
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 8th day of December, 2025.
ORDINANCE NO. 8XX
2
__________________________________
Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jennifer Schreiber, City Clerk
AYES:
NAYS:
Consider Public Works Temporary Warehousing in the PCD
PID 155500142401; Lengthy Legal - Contact City Hall
Created by: City of Monticello
236 ft
Applicant Narrative and Illustration
1305 EDMONSON AVE NE Storage – Temporary Use
Due to the prior sale of two city-owned properties that were utilized for storage for essential
equipment and materials for the Public Works Department to serve the citizens of
Monticello the department is in need of additional storage space.
The furthest west structure located at 1305 Edmonson Avenue that is approximately 2500
square feet will be utilized to store equipment and materials utilized by the department. It
is anticipated that this equipment will include, mowers, plows, vehicles, trailers, seasonal
decorations, play structure materials and other miscellaneous items. It is anticipated that
this space will be used in a passive manner with most equipment and materials being
changed out seasonally.
Thanks,
Matt Leonard
Public Works Director/ City Engineer
City of Monticello
763-271-3271
www.ci.monticello.mn.us
Planning Commission Agenda: 12/02/2025
3A. Consideration of a recommendation of reappointment of Melissa Robeck to
the Planning Commission.
Prepared by: Community
Development Director
Meeting Date:
12/02/2025
Council Date
(pending
Commission action):
12/08/25
Additional Analysis by: NA
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend Commissioner Melissa Robeck for a three-year term to
the Planning Commission, effective January 1, 2026.
2. Motion of other.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Commission is asked to recommend appointment or action for expiring Commission
terms.
Commissioner Robeck’s term expires at the end of December 2025. Commissioner Robeck
has indicated a willingness to serve another three-year term. As such, the Commission is
asked to make a recommendation on the appointment to the City Council.
Current terms for the Commission are as follows.
Planning Commission Teri Lehner 3 yr 12/2026
(3-year staggered terms) Rob Stark 3 yr 12/2026
Andrew Tapper 3 yr 12/2027
Richard Kothenbeutel 3 yr 12/2027
Melissa Robeck 3 yr 12/2025
Kip Christianson Council liaison
Commission recommendations on appointments will be considered for ratification by the
City Council on December 8, 2025.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff defers to the Planning Commission on matters of appointment.
SUPPORTING DATA:
A. City Code - Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION
§ 32.001 NAME OF THE COMMISSION.
The name of the organization shall be the Monticello Planning Commission.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-1)
§ 32.002 AUTHORIZATION.
(A) The authorization for the establishment of this Commission is set forth under M.S. Ch. 462, Municipal Planning
Enabling Act, as it may be amended from time to time.
(B) The Planning Commission is hereby designated the planning agency of the city pursuant to the Municipal Planning
Act.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-2)
§ 32.003 MEMBERSHIP.
The Planning Commission shall consist of five members appointed by the City Council. All members shall be residents of
the city and shall have equal rights and privileges.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-3)
§ 32.004 TERM OF OFFICE.
(A) Appointments. All members shall be appointed for three-year terms ending on December 31 of a given year; however,
the term may be terminated earlier by the City Council. Terms shall be staggered so that no more than two members’ terms
shall expire in a given year. The terms are to commence on the day of appointment by Council. Every appointed member
shall, before entering upon the discharge of his or her duties, take an oath that he or she will faithfully discharge the duties
of office.
(B) Renewals. When an expiring member’s term is up, such member may be reappointed by Council with the effective
date of the new term beginning on the first day of the next year following the expiration.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-4)
§ 32.005 ATTENDANCE.
It is the City Council’s intention to encourage Planning Commission members to attend all Planning Commission meetings.
Should any Planning Commission member be absent for more than three meetings in a calendar year, that member may be
subject to replacement by the Council.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-5)
§ 32.006 VACANCY.
Any vacancy in the regular or at-large membership shall be filled by the City Council, and such appointee shall serve for
the unexpired term so filled.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-6)
§ 32.007 OFFICERS.
(A) Elections. The City Planning Commission shall elect at its January meeting from its membership a Chair, Vice Chair,
and a Secretary who shall serve for a term of one year and shall have powers as may be prescribed in the rules of the
Commission.
(B) Duties of Chair. The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Planning Commission and shall have the duties
normally conferred and parliamentary usage of such officers.
(C) Duties of Vice Chair. The Vice Chair shall act for the Chair in his or her absence.
(D) Duties of Secretary.
(1) A Secretary may be appointed who is not a member of the Planning Commission but can be employed as a
member of city staff.
(2) The Secretary shall keep the minutes and records of the Commission; and with the assistance of staff as is
available shall prepare the agenda of the regular and special meetings for Commission members, arrange proper and legal
notice of hearings when necessary, attend to correspondence of the Commission, and handle other duties as are normally
carried out by a Secretary.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-7)
§ 32.008 MEETINGS.
(A) The Planning Commission shall hold at least one regular meeting each month. This meeting shall be held on the first
Tuesday. Regular meeting times shall be established by the Commission and approved annually with the regular meeting
schedule of Council and Commission. Hearings shall be heard as soon thereafter as possible. The Planning Commission
shall adopt rules for the transaction of business and shall keep a record of its resolutions, transactions, and findings, which
record shall be a public record. The meeting shall be open to the general public.
(B) In the event of conflict for a regularly-scheduled meeting date, a majority at any meeting may change the date, time,
and location of the meeting.
(C) Special meetings may be called by the chair or two members of the Planning Commission together, as needed, and
shall be coordinated with city staff.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-8)
§ 32.009 QUORUM.
A majority of all voting Planning Commission members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-9)
§ 32.010 DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.
(A) The Commission has the powers and duties assigned to it under M.S. Ch. 462, Municipal Planning Enabling Act, as it
may be amended from time to time, by this code, and state law.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-10)
(B) The Planning Commission shall act as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for the Monticello zoning ordinance and
shall act according to procedures as established by the Monticello zoning ordinance.
§ 32.011 AMENDMENTS.
This subchapter may be amended as recommended by the majority vote of the existing membership of the Planning
Commission and only after majority vote of the City Council.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-11)
§ 32.012 COMPENSATION.
Compensation of members of the Commission shall be as set forth in city code for fee schedule.
(Prior Code, § 2-1-12) (Ord. 336, passed 11-22-1999; Ord. 337, passed 1-10-2011; Ord. 593, passed 3-10-2014; Ord. 607,
passed 1-26-2015)
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/25
1
4A. Community Development Director’s Report
Council Action on/related to Commission Recommendations
There were no land use applications for November Planning Commission consideration
and as such, no applications for decision by City Council for the November agendas.
Rental Connections – November
The bi-annual Rental Connections meeting was held on November 19th. Representative
multi-family property owners and managers heard a presentation by the Wright County
Sheriff’s Office on safety measures and recommendations for their sites. Parks, Arts &
Recreation Director Tom Pawelk also reviewed the Emerald Ash Borer tree removal and
replacement program. This was an important update as many of the multi-family
properties along 7th Street are impacted by EAB.
Reports from those in attendance indicate that several multi-family properties are
investing in site improvements and that occupancy rates remain strong at present. The
group will meet again in spring of 2026.
Downtown Rounds – November
On November 20th, Cocoa Maas hosted the fall Downtown Round event. The ice cream
and candy shop is located along Broadway. Representatives from several downtown
businesses heard information on existing and planned Downtown art projects and events
from MontiArts Director Erica Witzmann, and learned more about happenings at other
businesses, including the tentative opening of Homestyle Café (former Cornerstone Café)
in late December.
MOAA Update
The Monticello Orderly Annexation Board met on November 12th, 2025. The MOAA Board
reviewed two interim use permit (IUP) requests submitted by Schafer Contracting for the
proposed Broadway Plaza site. The first IUP proposed locating a concrete batch plant on
the site as part of the I-94 expansion project. The concrete batch plant use is temporary
only. The second IUP requested a land alteration permit for the grading of the Broadway
Plaza site. The grading activity allowed Schafer to deposit excess fill from the project
across the Broadway Plaza site, in accordance with their current site grading plan. Both
IUPs were approved by the board.
Downtown Planning Update
The EDA is considering an update to the 2017 Downtown Small Area Plan. The EDA’s
interest in updating the plan stems from redevelopment planning needed for the
publicly-owned portions of Block 34, as well as MnDOT’s proposed improvements along
TH25, outlined in a recent Corridor Visioning project. A project scope will be presented
during the January EDA meeting. For more information: Agenda - 09/24/2025
Planning Commission Agenda – 12/02/25
2
Project Update List
The project update list current through November 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
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
MN Sports Card Commercial East 7th Street |Union Crossings Conditional Use Permit for Retail 9/22/2025 Construction commenced
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
deadline