Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes - 09/02/2025MINUTES REGULAR MEETING — PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 2, 2025 — 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Chair Andrew Tapper, Vice -Chair Melissa Robeck, Rick Kothenbeutel, Teri Lehner, Rob Stark Council Liaison Present: Councilmember Kip Christianson Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Bob Ferguson, Tyler Bevier 1. General Business A. Call to Order Chair Tapper called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. B. Roll Call Mr. Tapper called the roll. C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items None D. Approval of Agenda MELISSA ROBECK MOVED TO APPROVE THE REARRANGEMENT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS FOR THE SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WITH ITEM 2B MOVED TO HEARING BEFORE ITEM 2A. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. E. Approval of Meeting Minutes TERI LEHNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE JULY 11 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. F. Citizen Comment None 2. Public Hearings A. Consideration of a Reauest for Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for a Retail Use as a Principal Use in the B-4, Regional Business District and Conditional Use Permit for Cross Access. Applicant: Josh laquinto City Planner Grittman provided background on the subject site, which is zoned Regional Business (B-4) and the proposal to construct a new 4,400 square foot retail facility on the site. The proposed retail site development includes parking, sidewalk, and utilizes the existing driveway access point to 7t" Street shared with Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — 09/02/2025 the property to the west. The site is covered under a conditional use permit (CUP) for planned unit development (PUD) for the Union Crossings commercial development, consistent with the previously approved PUD. Mr. Grittman displayed an aerial and spoke to the access point on 71h Street shared with the westerly restaurant site and also illustrated the parking and service access shared with the site toward the east. He stated that the recommendation of staff is to approve the consideration to amend the PUD as it meets all clarifying conditions set forth in Exhibit Z of the report. Mr. Tapper asked if it is common practice to allow a building, such as the proposed, to be placed along the freeway without a rear access for fire or other emergencies. Building Official Bob Ferguson confirmed the proposal does meet all fire access requirements, per building code and based on structure size and proposed accessibility route. Ms. Lehner spoke to her desire to see a marked pedestrian crossing for access from the future restaurant location, anticipating cross -traffic in the parking lots. Mr. Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Mr. Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. RICK KOTHENBEUTEL MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-33 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A RETAIL USE AS A PRINCIPAL USE IN THE B-4, REGIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CROSS ACCESS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. B. CONTINUED FROM 8/19/25 - Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Sections 153.045 Industrial Base Zoning Districts, 153.046 Overlay Zoning Districts, 153.090 Use Table, 153.091 Use -Specific Standards, 153.092 Accessory Use Standards and any other related sections of text necessary to define and regulate data center and technology campus land uses within the Cltv Applicant: City of Monticello Mr. Grittman addressed the Commission, stating that the public hearing is a continuation of the hearing opened on August 19th, 2025 to consider an amendment to the ordinance for a planned unit development zoning ordinance for development of data centers. Planner Grittman stated that one of the City's core responsibilities and powers under state statute is to plan for and regulate land use. One reason for this planning is to ensure that over the long term the public facilities developed for 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — 09/02/2025 private land development are managed and sustainable. Land use regulations include the types of land uses allowed, where they are allowed, how they will look and how land uses meet community development goals as identified in the comprehensive plan. The next step following the comprehensive plan goal setting is the consideration of ordinances that implement those goals. Mr. Grittman explained that ordinances are an implementation measure for City goals, with the zoning ordinance being one of the most common tools to implement land use goals. The zoning ordinance proposed provides a framework for potential data center development. Mr. Grittman stated that there are no applications for data centers at this time because there is no class for data center in the zoning ordinance. The City does allow the data center land use in Light Industrial designations, but the purpose of the ordinance is to establish the rules for data center development. It is not to consider any particular application or site. Mr. Grittman explained the continuation of the public hearing held on August 19t" with the continued record open for public comment at this meeting. Mr. Grittman indicated the ordinance is intended to address this unique type of development. The current ordinance addresses manufacturing and warehousing industrial areas, but not specifically data centers. He noted recent demand for data center development in Minnesota and nation-wide. Mr. Grittman said the City's study of this use began in fall of 2024 after receiving inquiries regarding data center development. The City Council and Commission held workshops to review the land use and the challenges related to data center uses. Mr. Grittman reviewed the amendments to the comprehensive plan, stating that they better clarify data center technology uses - setting them apart from other types of technology uses, limiting the use to light industrial park areas, and considering the impacts of the use. Mr. Grittman addressed how the ordinance evaluates potential impacts to public services and external neighborhoods, stating that the internal site would be under less scrutiny, focusing instead on the potential external impacts. Mr. Grittman explained that the City uses other regulatory tools like the zoning and subdivision ordinance to support achievement of the comprehensive plan goals as noted. The ordinance will include standards and process or review requirements. Mr. Grittman noted that by considering the adoption of the ordinance, the City is avoiding conflict with the 2040 Plan, providing clear regulations, and addressing the specific attributes of data centers. He stated that the ordinance will apply to any data center proposed in the City, and each would be required to be rezoned to the data center PUD, no matter the scale. While the ordinance would set minimum performance standards, the ordinance requires submission of a set of plans and studies to verify compliance with the comprehensive plan. Finally, Mr. Grittman noted that the ordinance provides a specific process, including a public hearing process. 3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — 09/02/2025 Mr. Grittman stated that at this time, staff recommends taking the additional comment, then closing the public hearing and scheduling a joint workshop with City Council and Planning Commission present. The workshop would be for a discussion of the ordinance and the public comments for ordinance development. Mr. Grittman also noted that there may be other outside agency reviews that may be applicable. Mr. Grittman made himself available for any questions of the Commission. Ms. Lehner appreciated clarification on several items addressed by Mr. Grittman. Mr. Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Scott Harper, 4334 85t" Street NE, asked if the document he sent via email for Commission was received and proceeded to ask questions as posed in the document, suggesting Commission answer yes or no. Mr. Harper said the August 19th meeting was not listed on a City calendar and asked if comment time might be extended to accommodate for that circumstance. Mr. Tapper responded that the meeting is a continuation of that August 19t" hearing. Councilmember Christianson confirmed the meeting was properly noticed and spoke to the Commission's intent for transparency by continuing the hearing to allow for more conversation. Mr. Harper requested another month for review. Angela Schumann thanked citizens for their comments to -date, noting all comments received to -date are available to review with the agenda items posted online and printed. She stated that the purpose of the hearing is to listen to the additional comments and assemble them for review at the proposed joint workshop. She noted it will be a public workshop and all are welcome to attend. Ms. Schumann said that regarding the questions and comments this evening, the Commission and staff members may not be able answer all questions with a simple yes or no, but they will do their best to answer. Ms. Schumann also noted the notice for the special meeting was published in the newspaper for each meeting, including the continuation of tonight's regular -scheduled meeting, and information is posted to the bulletin board and on the website via various page sources. She noted that the calendar referred to by Mr. Harper was not the official calendar also published to the City website. Mr. Harper asked if Commission was aware of Lennar soliciting other developers to mail letters in opposition. Mr. Harper asked if the City is prepared to lose jobs and tax base if housing slows. Mr. Tapper indicated that Mr. Harper's questions would be taken as comments. Mr. Harper asked whether a data center facility would be built next to a school by ordinance. Mr. Harper asked whether a data center facility would be placed near a high density housing development and asked about compatibility per the 2040 Plan. 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — 09/02/2025 Mr. Harper inquired whether the City had consulted with legal since the August 19th meeting and remarked on suspecting future liabilities and loss of property value for citizens. Ms. Lehner stated that the reason for the hearing and the future joint workshop is to specifically take comments as related to some of the questions being posed. She noted that the Commission is listening for purposes of addressing the comments. City Administrator Rachel Leonard addressed the Commission, requesting the ability to continue moving through questions and comments from the public, then noting that the Commission would pause the creation of the ordinance to be able to take everything that has been heard and determine how to fit it into the ordinance going forward, including what areas needing additional research. Mr. Harper said residents are concerned with the loss of property work and value. Ms. Leonard stated that she cares for the community and is also a resident. She spoke to her role to facilitate the development of policy based on the input or Commission, Council, and residents provide and in the interests of the community. Ms. Leonard noted again the opportunity and importance of providing comments on this item. She explained the ordinance language is how the use would be regulated. Mr. Harper asked why the City would create a framework before studies are conducted. Ms. Leonard responded that it is the framework that will detail what applicants will provide to the City, including studies and minimum standards. The ordinance would specify studies required, which may include water, sewer, and infrastructure. Mr. Harper suggested that once the framework is defined, multibillion dollar corporations will sue the City and the City will have lost its rights. Ms. Leonard spoke to the powers granted by the State in terms of the City's right to draft an ordinance based on the adopted comprehensive plan tools and legal guidance. She addressed the planning effort and land use plan for areas outside of the City and the process for consideration for annexation. Ms. Leonard also spoke to the need to develop the right process for future development, including consistency of review. Mr. Harper noted that on August 19t", it was noted that this issue cannot be put to a vote due to statutes for the type of city. Mr. Harper suggested a straw -poll to ask citizens what they want. Ms. Leonard stated the reason for the hearing is to collect feedback is accepted for putting together the structure of the ordinance. Ms. Leonard confirmed that all comments are all available on the City website. 5 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — 09/02/2025 Mr. Harper referenced aerial pictures of Iowa data centers from the agenda packet. He stated that high -density or single-family houses are not near those sites. Ms. Leonard spoke to noise being one of the various elements included in the ordinance and incorporating appropriate setbacks and addressing other aspects of the building impact. Mr. Harper spoke to the noise pollution in Elk River emitted from six bladed -fan cooling towers; he also referred to the possibility of airborne illness. Ms. Leonard stated that the photos are for purposes of reference as there are no other data centers for nearby comparison. The images provide context as the City considers what is most applicable to Monticello. It may be that following comments, the ordinance is fully revised by the careful consideration of policymakers. Mr. Harper spoke to recent demand for geothermal activities for development and suggested placing a mandate on hydrocooling systems to minimize taxpayer burdens for extension and maintenance of infrastructure. Ms. Leonard responded that by walking through the ordinance and comments, it will help determine what is regulated. She noted that the ordinance would be drafted with measures for developers to bear the infrastructure costs so as to not be absorbed by taxpayers. Mr. Harper suggested many sites have already broken state rules for noise. Mr. Christianson responded that the City may be more restrictive in the ordinance. He spoke to consideration of varying scales and technologies for data centers and that the ordinance would need to apply to data centers at all scales, not only hyperscale. Mr. Christianson said the meeting is not intended as a question and answer session, but a public hearing. The questions posed do bring forward points for consideration and encouraged that everyone be heard. Mr. Christianson stated that he hopes that it is recognized that policymakers and staff are working with due diligence to draft the ordinance, by receiving and responding to citizen comments. He reiterated that the option is not available to vote on the ordinance, but a survey could be possible. Mr. Harper suggested the City is rushing to develop the ordinance without experience. Ms. Leonard said staff has been researching data centers for nearly a year with due diligence. Ms. Leonard stated that staff respond to direction from publicly - elected officials. In response to the comment that the process was moving quickly, she stated that the process has been slowed to take enough time to process, synthesize and draft the ordinance. Mr. Harper stated that he is not denigrating staff, but spoke to his desire for more time, suggesting an additional 30 days for comments. Con Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — 09/02/2025 Ms. Leonard explained that the intent is for policymakers to be able to review all of the public comments received. With any revisions, the ordinance would need to come back to the Commission following additional noticing and public hearing. She stated that would be an additional opportunity for public comment. Mr. Harper noted the potential for water levels to be drawn down and inquired of any possibility of tritium via gravity flow, referencing the Xcel Energy site. Ms. Leonard responded that Xcel Energy is required to complete monitoring and reporting as related to the tritium leak. She stated that water resource concerns are one of many components to hear from public. Ms. Leonard also noted that other state permits and studies that may be required for data center uses. Ben Anderson, 4208 Eaton Circle NE, addressed the Commission. He inquired about existing water capacity and asked how many gallons of water are used daily. Ms. Schumann said staff will try to answer as many questions as possible but reiterated that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to gather questions and comments to summarize for Planning Commission and City Council the shared concerns for consideration. Information on meetings is also available on the City website and if unable to locate it, please call City Hall for information assistance. Ms. Leonard responded to the question on the capacity of the water treatment facility. She explained that the planned wastewater expansion would bring the capacity to 8MGD, which is sized for Monticello with today's statistics and future growth. It does not include additional draw from a potential data center. Mr. Anderson asked if the data center wells may be tied into City infrastructure. Ms. Leonard indicated that as part of the ordinance, there is a requirement to collect information at application to determine upgrades required and additional funding would be received from the applicant/developer for this purpose. Mr. Anderson asked if a proposed data center might be required to have their own treatment plant with unknown capacity. Ms. Leonard responded that the City has completed a comprehensive utility study that shows how the City system would be built out to the township boundary over time. That study is based on growth modeling and would need additional study for a larger project. The goal of the land use ordinance will be to place a proposed structure for evaluation for data centers to decide if it fits or if the developer needs to look for other options. Mr. Anderson suggested setting a range for capacity usage on data centers. Mr. Anderson cited statistics on data center water usage by megawatt and suggested that the percentages for usage should be written into ordinance to avoid drawdown. 7 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — 09/02/2025 Mr. Anderson asked what data centers will bring to the community in terms of securing easements for electric power and other utilities. He inquired whether utilities would be extended along residential streets, which could impact neighborhoods. He also noted the importance of avoiding stagnated project development if a data center project does not move forward. Kara Radtke addressed the Commission and recommended establishing trust with the citizens. She noted the recent development of multiple apartments and stated that it seems that the City is becoming a suitcase community. She encouraged building homes. Ms. Radtke spoke to a school district levy on ballot and asked why this matter cannot be voted on if causing community disruption. Ms. Radtke stated concern regarding the data center planned unit development as an avenue for developers to take advantage and the need to communicate. A resident addressed the Commission, stating only her first name as Brittney. She indicated that she is supportive of the community and its assets. She discussed concern regarding the proposed data center south of 85t" Street, and her familiarity with her neighborhood. She suggested that data centers do not contribute to the community in contrast to other land uses. She inquired as to whether the zoning is changing and requested the City not adopt the zoning ordinance to allow data centers. She indicated that if the City has set goals, it has an agenda for what it wants to accomplish as related to data centers. Nora Greteman, West River Street, stated her opposition to the ordinance for data centers in Monticello or Wright County. She cited the earlier stated issues, including noise, large corporations, habitat loss, and water consumption. She noted the purpose of a data center is to collect data and re -stated her request that the City not consider the ordinance. Kolton Kratky, Fieldcrest Circle, commented on the current draft ordinance. He noted the revocation clause and recommended that as the zoning can be for any scale of data center, the City consider penalties or fine triggers. He also suggested a specific point for revocation, such as several violations. He further recommended a consistent setback for all districts, such as 300', which is not specific to a type of use. This would address future changes in use from one type to another. Brady Akin, 22390 Beaumont Avenue in Farmington, spoke of his own experience. He explained that a data center development in Farmington is on pause due to lawsuits against the city. Mr. Akin stated setbacks and water usage were not discussed at Farmington and thanked other speakers for their comments. Mr. Akin stated that he is for responsible development and explained that he is part of the Coalition for Responsible Data Center Development, a group of Farmington neighbors who connected to talk about data center development standards. He encouraged organizing with neighbors and education. He indicated he was banned from a Monticello facebook page. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — 09/02/2025 Christina Johnson-Koshiol, 2485 Briar Oakes Road, addressed the Commission, stating that she is in favor of protecting natural spaces. She noted her involvement with the Bertram Chain of Lakes Park and that the City has been proactive in protecting natural assets, expressing concern if a data center were to be developed nearby. Ms. Johnson-Koshiol noted the potential water, light, environmental, and noise impacts and the need to protect Bertram and the adjacent residential neighborhood. She stated concerned that the costs outweigh the tax benefits. She encouraged continued comment and to slow down the process to gain community trust over corporate influence, and suggested tightening measures to avoid negative impacts. Mie Morimoto, 750 Harrison Drive, Big Lake, addressed the Commission, stating that she is a student and spoke of the need for studies that address sustainable long-term planning. The investment in Bertram Park was noted, and she expressed similar concerns with data center impact on the environment and families. Jeff Roiger addressed the Commission on the need to take time with this process. He raised concerns on water and energy costs potentially increasing, citing the recent Metro Transit light rail timeframe and budget. Mr. Roiger also noted the community meetings when Xcel Energy experienced a plant leak and expressed concern with lost trust on these types of issues. Kevin Cichon, Monticello resident, addressed the Commission, suggesting that data centers are terrorist targets. Mr. Cichon also expressed his concern regarding the size of the proposed facilities and long-term planning for power given the age of the current power plants. Mr. Cichon stated that he is also concerned about the City's annexation of township property into City and inquired if it requires a public vote. Mr. Christianson responded to the question about annexation, stating that annexation occurs by application of the property owner only and under the terms of the current Orderly Annexation Agreement with Monticello Township. He explained that there is no vote, rather annexation occurs under the terms of the agreement, which is available on the city website. Leandra Iverson, 3363 87t" Street NE, said the location of a future data center at County Road 106 and TH 25 would be devastating to the area. She concurred with the prior comments and stated concerns about who will pay for the infrastructure and fears for higher taxes. Ms. Iverson expressed concern that the value of homes will decrease and no one will want to live by a data center. Ms. Iverson commented on the possibility of frequent power outages, noting the township already experiences outages without timely notification. Alexander Coady, 2760 Oakview Court, stated similar concerns to those prior and stated his opposition to the ordinance. He suggested a mandate for City Z Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — 09/02/2025 residents to be employed at data centers. He also recommended regulations for the aesthetics and appearance of a data center. Scott Crawford, 8674 Dalton Avenue NE, stated that there should be stipulations for size and floor area ratio, stating that setbacks should be larger depending on the size of the facility. Mr. Crawford noted that there are already billion -dollar companies operating in the community. He noted the state requirements for these projects, referencing the AUAR process in Becker and its outcomes. He noted the existing state regulations and the state regulations adopted this year, which could help solidify what Monticello puts into place as the framework for regulation. He recommended adjusting the FAR depending on the size of the project and suggested larger setbacks to help obscure buildings. Mr. Crawford reminded Commissioners to consider traffic during construction. Councilmember Christianson asked Mr. Crawford what he proposes regarding FAR setback conditions for smaller scale facilities. Mr. Crawford suggested that facilities 100 acres or smaller could have different setbacks than larger sites and that the FAR and setback should be scaled based on the site. Lisa Murphy, 4339 891" Street NE, stated her opposition and said she had researched data centers not having many employees and producing significant noise. Lisa Murphy referenced Xcel Energy's property as an example buffer zone for data centers. Cheryl Mikkelsen, 330 West 3rd Street, noted the City's growth and management of that growth, including with respect to financing, which has generally been good. Cheryl Mikkelson stated her opposition to this type of development, expressing concern over responsibility for payment of infrastructure and the prior citizen comments. She inquired whether solar panels would be required and stated concern regarding site appearance, noting that people chose to live in Monticello for a reason. Chris Scribner, Wright County resident, inquired about required setbacks from schools, parks and on Federal and State land. Mr. Scribner inquired whether a data center can reuse existing wells or will drill new wells on the site. He also suggested that any generators on site be required to meet a specific standard. Ryan Buboltz, Big Lake, said he relocated for a smaller community feel and convenience, explaining his concern with lower -income housing development and crime increase in Eagan. He stated the City should ask what value a data center development might bring to Monticello. Mr. Buboltz stated his opposition to the consideration. Mr. Buboltz recognized the City's work on the issue but re- stated his concerns regarding benefit to the community. Kevin Cichon inquired about the applicable EPA pollution standards for generators and inquired what might occur if the Planning Commission 10 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — 09/02/2025 recommended denial to the City Council. He indicated that it seems an ordinance will be created whether the citizens like it or not and recommended separation from communities. Lisa Keenan, 8270 State Highway 25 NE, Monticello Township, stated her opposition to data centers and the ordinance. Lisa Keenan suggested stricter regulations on a DCPUD if the ordinance is enacted. Ms. Keenan proposed minimum setbacks of 300 feet from residential property lines, lighting mitigation, and sound -proofing and pollution control for generators. Ms. Keenan shared information she had researched on data centers built in Virginia and the ordinance updates they are working on to address the complications and issues with incompatibility. She inquired if substations would be erected to support data center use. She noted pre- and post -construction noise studies and types of acoustic barriers that are used in other location. Ms. Keenan noted the extent of the timeline of construction proposed was a concern and stated that it is her hope that no wells are allowed to be drilled on the site. She cited similar concerns on electrical usage. Ms. Keenan also encouraged an understanding of groundwater analysis and the liability for affected landowners if incorrect. Mr. Tapper asked Ms. Keenan to share the research information to include in further ordinance discussions. Mie Morimoto returned to the podium, stating concern for noise affecting children's development and animal habitat, and the potential for light pollution. She emphasized the need for better communication between citizens and the government. Shannon Bye, Monticello Township resident, stated that there are examples of unsuccessful data center development and recommended the ordinance to address contingencies for abandonment given the limited abilities for site conversion. Ms. Bye reminded the citizens in audience of the environmental review process for a data center project, with public comments closing on September 4 and encouraged review. Ms. Schumann indicated that the AUAR Scoping Document review referenced is being conducted on a defined geographic area, which is a 546-acre project area located south of 85t" Street. Ms. Schumann stated that the current document available is a Scoping Document, which defines the geographic area to be studied and what will be studied as part of the prescribed full AUAR environmental review process. The full environmental review document will come later. She noted the location of information on the City's website. Scott Crawford, Monticello Township, addressed the Commission and recommended the sound study address seasonal impacts due to tree coverage. Mr. Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. 11 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — 09/02/2025 TERI LEHNER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MONTICELLO CITY CODE, TITLE XV, LAND USAGE, CHAPTER 153: ZONING ORDINANCE TO DEFINE AND REGULATE DATA CENTER AND TECHNOLOGY CAMPUS LAND USES WITHIN THE CITY, AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO SCHEDULE A JOINT WORK SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. C. Consideration of Amendine the Monticello Citv Code Title XV. Chapter 153: Zoning, for the regulation of Cannabis related land uses in section § 153.091 Use -Specific Standards. Applicant: City of Monticello Ms. Schumann reminded Commission of the recently amended zoning ordinance relating to the regulation of cannabis -related businesses, adopted in late 2024. Ms. Schumann stated that the proposed amendment addresses the allowance for cannabis -business operations within the 1-1 (Heavy Industrial) district if/when adjacent to a residential zoning district and proposes to be consistent with the same requirement for the 1-2 (Industrial and Business) district, which prohibits such uses when directly abutting residential. Ms. Schumann also explained the City ordinance places distance buffers from certain uses per Statute. She stated that the proposed amendment would allow 1-94 as the dividing boundary to the application distance of any such buffer. Ms. Schumann stated that the amendment also proposes a clerical revision to reference the correct section number within the cannabis -related ordinance for purposes of regulations applicable to all businesses. Ms. Schumann noted speaking with the City Attorney on whether the same reasonable restriction for location can be adopted to limit retail cannabis -related businesses adjacent to residential zoning districts. Since the drafting of the report, staff has received information to confirm the potential to apply a reasonable restriction to prohibit retail cannabis operations directly adjacent to residential. Ms. Schumann spoke to select locations within B-3 and B-4 where retail would be directly adjacent to residential. She noted that there are currently general buffer requirements between any residential and commercial uses and on -site consumption would require a CUP. If Planning Commission did want to research that item, Planning Commission can direct that additional action. She noted that the City had gotten retail inquires directly adjacent to residential. Mr. Tapper asked if staff may be aware of any State revisions enacted to buffering, per an article read relating to other Minnesota cities struggling with cannabis retail mitigation. 12 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — 09/02/2025 Ms. Schumann said not to her knowledge, but information may be researched and research if requested. Mr. Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Mr. Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. MELISSA ROBECK MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-034 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE XV, CHAPTER 153: ZONING, CHAPTER § 153.091 USE -SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR SECTIONS RELATED TO THE REGULATION OF CANNABIS BUFFERS AND INDUSTRIAL CANNABIS BUSINESSES BASED ON FINGiNGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of a one year extension of Conditional Use Permit approval for an Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for a Restaurant as a Principal Use and Drive-thru Services as an Accessory Use in a B-4, Regional Business zoning district. Applicant: HAZA Foods (Wendy's) Ms. Schumann provided background information on the prior approval for the conditional use permit for the future Wendy's restaurant location. Ms. Schumann explained that the applicant continues to work on the project construction estimates, which is the reason for the proposed extension. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2025-35 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION TO SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THRU FACILITIES BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT Z. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. 4. Other Business A. Community Development Director's Report Community Development Director Angela Schumann provided an overview of the Report to the Planning Commission and the public. No action was taken on the agenda item. 5. Adjournment TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE SEPTEMBER 212025 REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M. 13 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes — 09/02/2025 Recorded by: Date Approved: Attest: Anne Mueller November 3, 2025 Angela Schuma o munity Development Director 14