Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/19/2025 (Special)MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 19, 2025 — 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Chair Andrew Tapper, Vice -Chair Melissa Robeck, Teri Lehner, Rob Stark (arrived at 6:18 p.m.) Staff Present: Rachel Leonard, Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Bob Ferguson, Tyler Bevier, Anne Mueller 1. Call to Order Chairperson Tapper called the special meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:03 p.m. and noted the presence of Commissioners and Councilmember Christianson. 2. Public Hearing - Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Sections 153.045 Industrial Base Zoning Districts, 153.046 Overlay Zoning Districts, 153.090 Use Table, 153.091 Use -Specific Standards, 153.092 Accessory Use Standards and any other related sections of text necessary to define and regulate data center and technology campus land uses within the City Mr. Tapper welcomed the public present for the item and clarified that the purpose of the meeting is to review a proposed ordinance for data centers, including specific requirements. The meeting will not review specific applications or proposals. He explained that the ordinance is a framework for a new land use. City Planner Steve Grittman addressed the Commission, indicating that the purpose of the meeting is to review the proposed zoning ordinance and is not specific to a project or property, but he noted that the City has been approached to review data center concepts. Mr. Grittman explained that the Planning Commission and City Council have been working through issues that data centers may present, including the nature of the use and the impacts of the use. When regulating land uses, the City is regulating the impacts and state law gives the City this authority. Mr. Grittman stated that the highest level of land use review for cities is at the comprehensive plan level. Mr. Grittman spoke to the amendments to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan made earlier this year, which addressed and identified the differences between data centers and light industrial uses. The 2040 Vision + Plan now calls out data centers as a separate land use within the light industrial designation. Mr. Grittman explained that data center development was acknowledged as an opportunity to achieve Monticello's tax base growth, diversification, and stabilization goals. He noted that the 2040 Plan cites this as a primary economic development goal. The other relevant goal is employment opportunities adding to the local economic environment. Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes — 08/19/2025 The 2040 Plan uses those as consideration factors for how a zoning ordinance will support implementation of those goals. Mr. Grittman stated that given the interest in data center development, the city's initial land use discussions and ultimately the 2040 plan amendment focused on both the opportunities as well as the challenges of this type of development, including the use of large tracts of land typically designated for light industrial purposes, as well as the increased demand for electricity and access to water and sewer utilities. Mr. Grittman explained that the City has the greatest level of discretion at the Comprehensive Plan level. The City is setting local land use policy. Similarly, the City has significant discretion when creating ordinances. Both are legislative actions that apply generally to the community. The primary constraint with a zoning ordinance is that it supports the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. As decision -making moves to specific properties, the City's discretion narrows, for example when considering a plat or CUP. At that point, the evaluation is how it meets the ordinance or manages an impact. Mr. Grittman stated that is why getting the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance correct at the beginning is important, as they are the rules to regulate land use. He walked through a graphic illustrating City decision discretion relative to various application and permit reviews. Mr. Grittman stated that following the 2040 Plan amendments, the development of Data Center ordinance language is required to support the Comprehensive Plan statements. He stated that the proposed ordinance amendment recognizes the opportunities that data center development offers, while acknowledging the specific issues that require inquiry and management and the ability and limits of the City to regulate. Mr. Grittman provided an overview of the proposed Data Center Planned Unit Development (DCPUD) process. Mr. Grittman explained that a typical PUD process allows for flexibility from base code standards in the interest of more additional amenities for development. In contrast, the proposed DCPUD ordinance provides a base set of required standards, and what is variable is within the buildable area of a data center site. The ordinance includes a series of requirements and a process to address the impacts expected from this type of use. Mr. Grittman described how the PUD process would establish a framework for application and plan submittals tailored to the specific use and its impacts. This process would incorporate the applicant's internal site design components as a foundation for City review and decision -making. It would also define site development performance standards, address mitigation measures, and help the City understand potential impacts on public infrastructure. Mr. Grittman highlighted the goals of the DCPUD from both the City and the landowner/developer perspectives. Developers seek to obtain development rights that enable them to move forward with permitting, infrastructure planning, and securing investment capital. For the City, the goal is to ensure certainty when investing in public 2 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes — 08/19/2025 infrastructure and to protect and preserve existing assets. To support these goals and following the 2040 Plan amendment, the development of a data center ordinance language is required to support comprehensive statements. Mr. Grittman spoke to structure of the drafted ordinance, which includes five general categories: performance standards, application requirements, review process, site improvement plan agreement (SIPA), and timing, performance, amendment. Mr. Grittman spoke on the draft performance standards of the DCPUD. These include development density established as a minimum floor area ratio of 0.25; setbacks at 100 feet minimum from property line for all buildings, and 200-foot minimum setback from residentially guided or zoned property or open space areas. He explained that the ordinance requires building materials similar to other light industrial buildings, noise compliance per Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) standards, lighting compliance with current code maximums with attention to residential properties and required materials and design elements for buffering, landscaping, and screening. He noted the landscaping and screening should be installed with the first phase. Mr. Grittman next addressed the draft ordinance requirements for the DCPUD application submittal requirements, which focus on the project impacts including those to City utilities. The ordinance also requires platting, site phasing and development, stormwater management, traffic data, power use and fiscal information. Mr. Grittman then spoke to the DCPUD application process, which requires a development and final stage review process. He explained that the development stage application will require a significant level of application detail and require a public hearing. It will also include the rezoning application. The hearing is at Planning Commission with a decision at the City Council level. As with other applications, there will likely be assigned conditions of approval. The final stage is expected to be a review of how the application has met the conditions. Final stage is a Council review and decision and will include approval of the Site Improvement Plan Agreement (SIPA). The SIPA will incorporate the fiscal expectations of the applicant and the timing for phasing and infrastructure of the development, financial securities, and developer obligations. It will also address the process in the event of future changes. Mr. Grittman stated that staff is looking for questions and comments of the Commission, and information from the public during the hearing to further inform the draft ordinance. The recommendation is to postpone any formal action and continue the hearing to the September 2, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Tapper inquired if City review continues throughout the site planning process, such reviewing to fire code compliance. Mr. Grittman stated building and fire codes are applicable regardless of the type of structure and will be evaluated at a site plan and building permit review that will be required. 3 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes — 08/19/2025 Ms. Lehner asked how the City plans to monitor and mitigate potential impacts within the site in the event of a proposed increase in intensity of the use on a site, for example increased demand on utility systems. Mr. Grittman responded that the ordinance requires municipal utilities and will require an application for their capacity. The ordinance outlines a requirement for the applicant to provide information on all known utility demands. If there is a change, then the intention is for the SIPA to include terms for increased demand review. Ms. Lehner asked if there should be documentation on how much change should be allowed before other review is required or if information is available to gauge the need for an amendment. Mr. Tapper expanded, stating the factoring might be based on maximum limits. Mr. Grittman stated that the ordinance is intended to require that the planning application for the DCPUD include information on how utility services will be provided to other growth areas, in both infrastructure design and capacity. Mr. Tapper inquired how the City will verify application information for this type of use. He asked that the information also be required to be verified by an independent source. Mr. Grittman said City engineers and consultants used by the City will verify the calculations as part of review and that City staff are routinely monitoring compliance to the approvals. Mr. Tapper noted that there would be a significant amount of information to review and the board members will have a significant review responsibility. He inquired whether in addition to a minimum FAR there should also be a maximum FAR. Mr. Grittman responded that the minimum was set based on tax base objectives. If the applicant can meet the other impact standards, staff was less concerned about setting a maximum FAR. Mr. Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Scott Harper, 4234 861" St NE, thanked staff and Commission for including his written feedback in the agenda item and spoke to need for mitigation of sound and light impacts. Mr. Harper noted that he had requested economic impact information and expressed concern that developers will benefit, not the City. Mr. Harper also indicated concern regarding property values, stating concern regarding significant reduction in value. Mr. Harper also suggested a measure to use recirculated water to reduce water consumption, waste, chemicals and potential for fog hazard. Mr. Harper asked about the proximity to the City and inquired why the use would be allowed in or close to City limits. Mr. Harper also stated concern for ensuring the requirements are adhered to. He stated that he is in favor of setbacks and sound prevention measures but is not certain they will adequately address sound concerns. Rylee Averill, Lake Street South, Big Lake, addressed the Commission and stated that she had been reviewing the Monticello Industrial Alternative Urban Areawide Review 51. Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes — 08/19/2025 (AUAR) and noted her concern regarding the loss of primate farmland. She also suggested that the Monticello Industrial proposer is not a local entity. Mr. Tapper reminded the public that the hearing is not for a specific data center proposal but rather the potential ordinance. Ms. Averill stated her comments are related and spoke to concerns regarding water consumption impacting the areas surrounding watersheds and will leave residents in surrounding areas vulnerable. Ms. Averill stated concern regarding the added stress on the area for data center infrastructure. Kevin Cchon, 6289 Edmonson Avenue NE, stated that he has concerns regarding water use, property values, noise, and pollution from generators. Scott Crawford, 8674 Dalton Avenue NE, asked if the consultant reviewing the standards was paid for by the City of Monticello or the developer and inquired about the process for annexation in the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA) relative to the 2040 Plan. Mr. Grittman stated that annexations occur when petitions are received by the City from township residents under the terms of the agreement with Monticello Township for the Monticello Orderly Annexation area. Kolton Kratky, 9127 Fieldcrest Circle, asked that the City consider internet routing, as the "last mile" of the internet infrastructure needed for a data center could potentially cause data congestion. Mr. Kratky also recommended that the proposed ordinance consider multiple or single -tenant capacity, noting data centers have varying operations on all scales which may influence traffic generation. Mr. Kratky noted the complex equipment housed in the data center and indicated that if government information will be stored at the data center it will need intensive security. Mr. Tapper concurred that internet service lines should be addressed for data centers. Mr. Tapper stated that if the City sets the standards for usage, regardless of the nature of the business operations, the question will be whether the City should try to regulate the type of data storage. Theodore Roberts, 306 6t" Street West, spoke to the Commission, asking how the City will benefit from data centers and referenced power plant issues dating back to 2022. Mr. Roberts stated the City has enough water issues. Mr. Tapper stated a potential applicant would provide a list of utilities demand needs. Danielle Lee, 9368 Golden Pond Lane N, sought confirmation that the City would be regularly monitored for water, light and noise. Mr. Grittman responded that the City regularly monitors water and sewer usage. Regarding complaints received for violation of zoning codes or enforced ordinances, the City usually responds on a complaint basis and uses the enforcement process depending on the nature of the use. He stated that noise and light are not currently monitored on a regular basis for all uses. Ms. Lee stated her concern is that there would be no monitoring if there wasn't a complaint and encouraged a regular system of monitoring. 5 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes — 08/19/2025 Lisa Keenan, 8270 State Highway 25 NE, addressed the Commission, noting that she is an adjacent neighbor to a proposed data center site and stating her opposition to any data center. She referenced an article on heavy and light industrial uses and suggested that data centers should be classified as heavy industrial. Ms. Keenan expressed concerns about potential noise, noise frequency, and other negative impacts on neighboring properties. Ms. Keenan also raised concerns about possible decreases in sewer and water pressure, increased utility costs, and concern that the City might require residents to reduce their water consumption to accommodate the increased demand from the data center. Finally, Ms. Keenan questioned whether this is the appropriate time for such a project, citing broader national concerns related to data centers. Chris Scribner, 3456 88t" Street NE, commented on the power required by data centers and concerns about who pays for it and the ability to supply to meet data center demand. Mr. Scribner stated backup power and generators will cause exhaust and pollution and suggested a cap on megawatts be implemented. Shannon Bye, 5235 85t" Street NE, stated it took time for Council to address cannabis distribution; the City should do its due diligence in the same manner regarding data centers. She stated her concern for diverting resources from residential homes and other taxpayers. Ms. Bye spoke to climate change and the potential heat generated from cooling systems. She noted the number of jobs available at data centers are minimum for the area comparably to other urban development. Ms. Bye also stated concern that the City will need to subsidize for water or sewer capacity increases, resulting in impact to the taxpayers. Ms. Bye concurred that land is a limited resource and commented on the lack of amenities such as parks and walking paths, as these facilities are shut off from community. Ms. Bye listed other disadvantages including cost to taxpayers, service interruptions due to increased internet usage, depleting non- renewable resources, potential security risks, concerns about the appearance of the building, noise, and the tax incentives that might be used to attract developers. Nancy Kopff, 1490 75t" Street NE, asked when the process to draft the data center zoning ordinance began. Ms. Schumann stated that the process began earlier in the summer of 2025; the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan amendments for the data center land use were adopted by City Council in spring of 2025. Mr. Tapper added that developers have approached the City with concept proposals, leading to the need to discuss an ordinance to address the use. Nancy Kopff stated that she has worked in planning and zoning and suggested that the development of an ordinance should not be the result of a potential development. Ms. Kopff spoke to planning for the long-term and the need for smart development practices. Ms. Kopff stated that the size of a potential data center comes with many unknowns. She recommended the Planning Commission use a careful process, allowing people to understand and to gather more information. Ms. Kopff stated, once L Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes — 08/19/2025 developed, enforcement by City and County becomes difficult and expensive. She stated the need to not only to grow the tax base, but also to take care of the existing tax base. Councilmember Christianson thanked Ms. Kopff for her comments and explained the process taken by the Planning Commission and City, which is deliberative. Mr. Christianson stated that he has also completed research and travel to review data center impacts from a critical point of view. Mr. Christianson addressed the process in drafting the ordinance, which is unique to this type of use and includes accountability for development on the front end and is intended to set requirements that continue into the future. Ms. Kopff stated that citizens do not want data centers and fear it. Ms. Kopff spoke to the ordinance as presented will allow data centers to come. Mr. Christianson noted that an ordinance's purpose is to establish regulations and enforcement. He stated that the development of the ordinance is a process. Mr. Tapper stated this is a first step, and noted that development may not materialize. He explained that the City has spent a significant amount of time on the ordinance development process. City Administrator Rachel Leonard addressed the Commission, stating that the work on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and the ordinance is based on the City's responsibility for regulating land use. Ms. Leonard stated that the City's discussion has occurred over a series of meetings and is intended to provide the City with the tools and detail to review development. The City has determined that it needs to have regulations to review this type of development. The comprehensive plan evaluated how the use fits in the community and the next step is the zoning ordinance. This meeting and citizen comments inform the discussion on the type of ordinance that is put in place. While an ordinance does relate to what may be happening in the community, the City needs to have the ability to evaluate the use for its place in the Monticello community. She stated that it will be up to policymakers to make decisions, taking into consideration citizen comments and concerns. Scott Crawford spoke to his experience at data centers and recommended including review of transportation needs and commute patterns during construction and noted proximity of one of the proposals to residential uses and potential traffic impacts. Mr. Tapper noted that the draft ordinance does require a traffic study and noted the need to consider construction -related impacts in the study. Tyler Sirovy, 5858 Deer Street, asked how the City was prompted to consider zoning policy and who the potential applicants for projects are. Mr. Sirovy stated his concern regarding the eventual breach of required standards and the City's enforcement ability. He recommended robust enforcement standards and stated concerns about impacts in comparison to benefit, stating more information is needed before the City proceeds to allow a data center. 7 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes — 08/19/2025 Mr. Christianson stated that via the ordinance, the City has authority to include enforcement measures. Ms. Schumann addressed the Commission on Mr. Sirovy's questions, explaining that two conceptual workshops were held by City Council and Planning Commission on data center proposals and are available to review via the City website. In response to specific developers, Ms. Schumann stated that the data center proposals have come forward from Monticello Tech LLC and Scannell Development. Ms. Schumann addressed the Commission, stating that the hearing is specific to the zoning ordinance. She noted that some comments of the public have referenced the Alternative Urban Areawide Review process. That process is in the Scoping phase and the full AUAR, which includes more detailed evaluation of issues and data collected, is not yet available. The AUAR Scoping Document is available to review on the website and all public comments relating to it are accepted until September 4. She noted that the AUAR review is separate from the public hearing for zoning ordinance discussed this evening. She re -stated that the hearing was intended as an opportunity for comment and research to further inform the process prior to a follow-up hearing on the zoning ordinance in September. Lisa Keenan addressed the Commission regarding traffic during construction and the need for construction noise standards in the ordinance. She restated concern regarding water use and well impact. City wells are going to run dry. Ms. Schumann spoke to the MPCA handbook and City Code which work together for noise regulations. Councilmember Christianson stated the drafted ordinance is a first step of a multi -step regulatory processes required for development. Addressing water, Mr. Christianson spoke to hydrology studies conducted by the City on municipal wells and evaluation of impacts to the wells and the surrounding township. Scott Harper addressed the Commission again, indicating concern for the long-term impact to the aquifer and on noise potential from both truck traffic and generators. Mr. Harper also indicated the City lacked adequate information on the issue and for necessary enforcement. Jaycie Kratky, 9127 Fieldcrest Circle, shared her hesitancies with the Commission and questioned why the ordinance is being completed prior to completion of the noted study. Mr. Tapper responded that the ordinance is a framework for City control. The required AUAR Scoping document has to do with the impacts of a proposal and is a requirement in the process. Mr. Tapper noted that the purpose of the ordinance review is not whether or not the City will allow data center, but how it will allow the development. Mr. Christianson reiterated the need for a framework that requires studies such as those noted. 0 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes — 08/19/2025 Ms. Schumann addressed the question, stating that the ordinance is being developed with the intent that it will apply broadly to any proposed data center in whatever scale or size it is proposed and is being written to address and regulate both the impacts that are specific to an individual site or proposal and those that are common to data centers generally. Ms. Schumann stated that the AUAR process in contract is a specific review process related to a specific site and development concept proposals for the site. It evaluates that area of land and the potential environmental impact issues related to those development proposals. Kevin Cichon addressed the Commission, inquiring whether the ordinance could be taken to a citizen vote. Theodore Roberts addressed the Commission and indicated that based on social media posts no one wants a data center in Monticello and expressed concern for moving too quickly with decisions. Holly Newman, 840 Powell Street N, Big Lake, cited concerns on the long-term effects and the data center facilities potentially being left abandoned when technology is outdated. Mr. Tapper concurred that technology advancement and obsolescence are a concern and should be addressed in the ordinance. Ms. Newman addressed the increased water demand and asked who pays for the water treatment plant capacity. Mr. Tapper indicated that the ordinance should address both the evaluation of the demand and the fiscal accountability. Bryan Luong, 6620 Oak Leaf Court, spoke to Commission and addressed the cooling system needed for the information technology equipment inside the walls of data centers. Ms. Schumann stated a summary of comments will be posted on the agenda center of the City website. She stated that over 30 comments in opposition to the ordinance and data centers generally were received. She summarized the comments related to energy consumption, water usage and the environmental strain, minimal long-term job creation and industrial impacts, loss of land for development, and traffic concerns. One comment was received recommending proposed ordinance revisions. Ms. Schumann reviewed those proposed revisions briefly, which included setback and buffering comments, along with a request to clarify the FAR. She explained that the comments were provided to the Commission, made available for the public and will be posted to the City website. Mr. Tapper inquired about ordinance references to bitcoin or data mining operations. Mr. Grittman stated that based on research, data or crypto mining facilities are undercapitalized projects without returns to the City and clarified the intent is that data centers do not include crypto mining as an allowable principal use. Nick Frattalone, Monticello Tech LLC, addressed the Commission. Mr. Frattalone requested that the ordinance further clarify the FAR calculation requirements. He also W7 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes — 08/19/2025 recommended that the proposed 3-year timeline for phase completion be increased to 5 years. Mr. Frattalone spoke to the potential for increased setbacks rather than buffering in non-residential areas. Nancy Kopff addressed the Commission, adding concerns regarding legal risk and costs, stating that the City will be in a difficult position to deny without litigation. Those costs will be on the taxpayers. She also noted the potential for future amendments. Mr. Tapper asked Ms. Kopff what her proposal might be. Ms. Kopff said the City does not have to allow every land use and that in adopting the ordinance it is creating an avenue for the use. The City could also prohibit the use. Kevin Cichon inquired again why the ordinance cannot be placed on a voting ballot. Mr. Grittman spoke to the Commission, stating that per State Statute the City does not have authority to authorize and hold a vote on an ordinance adoption issue. Mr. Grittman stated that the City will utilize the comments heard this evening to revise the drafted ordinance. Theodore Roberts stated his concern that the City should do what is best for the community and not developers. Kolton Kratky inquired of the planned timeframe to study and write the ordinance. Mr. Tapper stated that an initial ordinance structure has been drafted; the public hearing will allow the incorporation of additional information. Mr. Tapper indicated that continuing the matter to the next Planning Commission meeting also does not mean the ordinance will be adopted at that time. He noted the ordinance once adopted, can also be amended. Mr. Tapper said that a lot of time, careful thought, and vast research went into preparing a draft. Kolton Kratky inquired as to the process for the final enaction of the ordinance. Ms. Schumann responded that the Planning Commission will review the ordinance as an advisory body and make a recommendation, which then move to the City Council for a final decision. Danielle Lee spoke to the Commission on the recent number of project approvals and requested that members remember that they represent the people. Scott Harper addressed the Commission on the potential impacts of years of construction and inquired when information will be available on liability and legal responsibility. Chris Scribner inquired if an application is ready to go once the rezoning takes place. Mr. Tapper clarified that this consideration is not a rezoning action. Ms. Schumann stated no applications for a data center site development have been accepted. If the data center ordinance is adopted the process described by the ordinance would be followed, as applicable. 10 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes — 08/19/2025 Holly Newman inquired about the tax exemptions and how it impacts the City's goals for tax base. Mr. Christianson responded that there is a state sales tax exemption for equipment within a data center. There is not currently a property exemption applicable to local jurisdictions. There was a brief discussion on the likely property tax for a data center site. Melissa Robeck stated her appreciation for the comments, which will assist the Commission in further review. MR. TAPPER MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND POSTPONE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MONTICELLO CITY CODE, TITLE XV, LAND USAGE, CHAPTER 153: ZONING ORDINANCE TO DEFINE AND REGULATE DATA CENTER AND TECHNOLOGY CAMPUS LAND USES WITHIN THE CITY TO THE SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. The public record will remain open until September 2nd, 2025 for comments to be received at the continued hearing at the Planning Commission meeting. 3. Adjournment ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:53 P.M. Recorded by: Anne Mueller Date Approved: November 31 2025 Attest: Angela Sch n , Community Development Director 11