Planning Commission Agenda - 01/06/2026AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING – PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, January 6, 2026– 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.Appointment of Officers
D.Consideration of Additional Agenda Items
E.Approval of Agenda
F.Approval of Meeting Minutes
•Regular Meeting – December 2, 2025
•Joint City Council & Planning Commission Workshop – December 2, 2025
To be approved by the City Council
•Joint City Council & Planning Commission Workshop – December 15, 2025
To be approved by the City Council
G.Citizen Comment
2.Public Hearings
A.Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Auto Repair-Major and a Variance
to §153.091 Use-Specific Standards, for door opening to service area garage on
street frontage, for a project in a B-3 (Highway Business) District.
Applicant: Mohammad Awad (Rockstone Automotive)
B.Consideration of Amending the Monticello City Code, Title XV: Land Usage,
Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Section § 153.012 Definitions, § 153.090 Use
Table, § 153.070 Building Materials, § 153.064 Signs, § 153.091 Use-Specific
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION/PARC WORKSHOP
Monticello Community Center
5:00 p.m. Park Dedication Analysis
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda – 1/6/2026
2
Standards, and § 153.043 Residential Base Zoning Districts.
Applicant: City of Monticello
C.Consideration for adoption of the 2026 Monticello Official Zoning Map, including
appendices
Applicant: City of Monticello
3.Regular Agenda
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
4.Other Business
A.Community Development Director’s Report
5. Adjournment
Planning Commission Agenda: 1/6/2026
1B. Consideration of the election of Planning Commission officers for 2026.
A.REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission is asked to take action to elect positions of Chair and
Vice Chair of the Commission for 2026.
At present, the City code for Planning Commission requires that the Commission
elect a chair from its appointed members for a term of one year, and other
officers as it determines. The Planning Commission has in the past elected a Vice
Chair, in addition. The Vice Chair has fulfilled the duties of the chair in the event
of absence.
Unless otherwise directed by the Commission, staff will continue to serve as
Secretary.
B.ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Decision 1: Chair Position
1.Motion to nominate Commissioner _____________ as Chair of the
Planning Commission for 2026.
2.Motion of other.
Decision 2: Vice Chair Position
1.Motion to nominate Commissioner ___________________ as Vice Chair
of the Planning Commission for 2026.
2.Motion of other.
C.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff defers to the Planning Commission on matters of appointment.
D.SUPPORTING DATA:
A.City Code Title III, Chapter 32 - 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 – 01/06/2026
1
2A. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Auto Repair-
Major and a Variance to §153.091 Use-Specific Standards, for door opening to service
area garage on street frontage, for a project in a B-3 (Highway Business) District.
Applicant: Mohammad Awad
Prepared by: Grittman Consulting,
Stephen Grittman, City Planner
Meeting Date:
01/06/2026
Council Date (pending
Commission action):
1/26/2026
Additional Analysis by: Community Development Director, Community & Economic
Development Coordinator, Chief Building Official
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Auto Repair-Major
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-02 recommending approval of a request for a
Conditional Use Permit for Auto Repair-Major, subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z and
based on findings in said resolution.
2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-02 recommending denial of a request for a
Conditional Use Permit for Auto Repair-Major 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 table action on Resolution No. PC-2026-02.
Decision 2: Consideration of Variance to §153.091 Use-Specific Standards, for door opening
to service area garage on street frontage, for a project in a B-3 (Highway Business) District.
Planning Commission acts as the Board of Adjustment & Appeals on variance requests.
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-03 approving a Variance to §153.091 Use-
Specific Standards, for door opening to service area garage on street frontage, for a
project in a B-3 (Highway Business) District, subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z and
based on findings in said resolution.
2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-03 denying a Variance to §153.091 Use-
Specific Standards, for door opening to service area garage on street frontage, for a
project in a B-3 (Highway Business) 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 table action on Resolution No. PC-2026-03.
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/06/2026
2
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Property: Legal Description: Lengthy-Contact City Hall
PIDs #: 155027001031, 155027001041
Planning Case Number: 2025-48
Request(s): 1. Conditional Use Permit for Auto Repair-Major
2. Variance to §153.091 Use-Specific Standards, for door
opening to service area garage on street frontage, for a
project in a B-3 (Highway Business) District.
Deadline for Decision: January 18, 2026 (60-day deadline)
March 19, 2026 (120-day deadline) – Extension letter sent
Land Use Designation: Regional Commercial
Zoning Designation: B-3: Highway Business
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable: Freeway Bonus District
Current Site Uses: Vehicle Sales and Rental Use
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Vehicle Retail Sales Lot
East: Highway 25
South: Retail Commercial
West: Auto Repair Major
Project Description: The applicant proposes to add Auto Repair- Major as an allowed
use to the current Vehicle Sales Conditional Use Permit applicable
to the property. This change will require rearrangement of
interior spaces, as well as modifications to the existing parking
and circulation plan for the site.
In addition to the CUP request, the city’s zoning regulations for
automobile service uses prohibit a service door opening directly
toward a public street. Because the site is already developed, and
is surrounded by public streets on three sides, the applicant seeks
a variance to waive this standard, accommodating service bay
doors opening to the west.
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/06/2026
3
ANALYSIS:
The applicant received a Conditional Use Permit to occupy the site for vehicle retail sales
approximately one year ago. The applicant made changes to the prior site plan through
improvements to the pavement and circulation on the site, addition of site landscaping, and
building maintenance, among other requirements. As a component of that CUP, the applicant
noted that parking on the site for employees would primarily occur inside the building’s service
bay areas, and along the westerly side of the building (adjacent to Sandberg Road).
The modified site plan shows that the proposed addition of vehicle repair will retain the interior
parking spaces with service bay uses. Five employee spaces will remain indoors, three spaces
directly west of the site, and two parallel spaces on the north side of the building will serve as
additional employee parking. Customer parking of 5 spaces is shown along the north side of
the building near the primary public entrance.
The original CUP requires that no less than 15 spaces on the site are reserved for customer and
employee parking. The addition of the major auto repair use does not change this number.
The original requirement for 15 spaces accounted for the size of the building for vehicle sales
purposes (even though a portion of the building was – and is - occupied by parking spaces). The
proposed site plan illustrates 16 employee and customer spaces in total.
The parking requirements for vehicle repair would add 3 spaces to the requirement but also
serves to reduce the floor area of the vehicle sales portion of the building by an equal amount.
Thus, no impact to required parking count is anticipated by the new use, and the redesignation
for employee/customer parking on the proposed site plan is consistent with the requirements.
Conditional Use Permit for Major Auto Repair in a B-3 District
The specific requirements applicable to Major Auto Repair are as follows:
(1) Automobile repair - major.
(a) Door opening to service area garage must not face street frontage.
Staff comment: The applicant has applied for a variance from this condition.
(b) Vehicle storage area limited to 50% of floor space of the structure housing the auto
body shop.
Staff comment: No outdoor vehicle storage is provided on the plan. A condition is
included within Exhibit Z which refers to the site plan as the approved plan for the use,
limiting any outdoor storage of vehicles waiting for repair and specifying location
allowance for repaired vehicles.
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/06/2026
4
(c) All vehicles being serviced and all vehicle parts must be stored inside or in vehicle
storage area.
Staff comment: As noted, no outdoor storage is shown on the plan.
(d) Vehicle storage area shall be enclosed by enclosure intended to screen the view of
vehicles in storage from the outside. Enclosure shall consist of a six-foot high, 100%
opaque fence designed to blend with the auto body shop structure and consisting of
materials treated to resist discoloration.
Staff comment: As noted, no outdoor storage is shown on the plan.
(e) The floor of the vehicle storage area shall consist of asphalt or concrete paving.
Staff comment: This is an existing condition of the building.
(f) All work on vehicles or vehicle parts shall be conducted within an enclosed building.
Staff comment: This is an ongoing operational requirement for the site.
(g) No conditional use permit shall be granted for an auto body shop located within
600 feet of a residential zone existing at the time the conditional use permit is granted.
Staff comment: The nearest residential property is approximately 690 feet to the
west of the site.
In summary, the site easily complies with the specific standards required by the zoning
ordinance for major auto repair, with the noted exception of the service bay doors (subject to
the variance request discussed below).
Variance to Allow Service Door Facing Public Street
As noted, the applicant seeks a variance to accommodate service doors facing a street,
otherwise not allowed by the conditions applicable to Auto Repair - Major. The applicant’s plan
shows three service bays opening toward the west (Sandberg Road), although the vehicles
would circulate to the main parking area, through the existing doors along the east side of the
site, then out to Sandberg from the proposed doors.
When considering variances from the requirements of the code, the standard of review (in
summary) is as follows:
Whether or not there are unique circumstances on a property that create practical
difficulty in putting the property to what would otherwise be considered a reasonable
use. The circumstances cannot be primarily economic in nature, nor be created by the
applicant.
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/06/2026
5
In this case, the property is surrounded on three sides by public right of way, including Highway
25 on the east, Chelsea Road on the north, and Sandberg Road on the west. The south
property line adjoins a retail commercial site, with existing buildings on both the subject site
and the adjoining property near the common boundary. No viable service entrances can be
created for that side of the property.
Auto Repair-Major is a reasonable use of the site, given the B-3 (Highway Business) zoning. The
purpose of the “B-3” (Highway Business) district is to provide for limited commercial and
service activities and provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or
dependent commercial and service activities. In addition, two other similar principal uses are in
close proximity to this site, and nearby vehicle sales facilities include major auto repair as
accessory uses. Moreover, given the options for service door placement, orientation toward an
internal local street would be seen as superior to the arterial and collector roads on the east
and north of the site.
Finally, the applicant has provided landscaping along the west roadway boundary, visually
obscuring views of the service bay doors from the street. This screening is supplemented by
the note above, that access to the bays is via the main parking lot, and not directly out to
Sandberg Road.
In summary, staff believe that the conditions for variance consideration can be seen as being
met by the specifics of this site, noting that neither economic conditions, nor actions of the
applicant, contribute to the conditions on the property justifying the variance.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
For the Conditional Use Permit for Major Auto Repair, staff recommend approval of the CUP
with the modifications to the site’s parking designations as shown on the proposed site plans.
This would include confirmation of compliance with the terms of the original Vehicle Sales CUP
parking improvements, specifying site signage designating customer and employee parking, and
circulation markings as required and as shown on the proposed on the site plan. For the
Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission serves in an advisory role, and the
recommendation of the Commission will be transmitted to the City Council for formal
consideration.
For the Variance request, the Planning Commission acts as the Board of Adjustment & Appeals.
Staff recommend approval of the variance, based on the uniquely developed configuration of
the site as being surrounded by public rights of way, and that major auto repair is otherwise a
reasonable use of the property in a B-3 zoning district.
If Planning Commission approves the variance, the variance is approved unless a written appeal
of the variance approval is received within 10 business days. If Planning Commission denies the
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/06/2026
6
variance, the applicant may file a written appeal within 10 business days of the Planning
Commission decisions. Variance appeals are heard by the City Council.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution PC-2026-02
B. Resolution PC-2026-03
C. Aerial Site Image
D. Applicant Narrative
E. Certificate of Survey
F. Plans, Including:
a. Site Plan Circulation & Parking
b. Interior Layout
c. Garage Door Dimensions & Rendering
G. Chief Building Official’s Letter, dated December 29, 2025
H. Monticello Zoning Code Excepts
I. Citizen Comment Letter,
Z. Conditions of Approval
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/06/2026
7
EXHIBIT Z
Conditions of Approval
Conditional Use Permit for Major Auto Repair
Variance from Requirements for Service Bay Door Orientation
PIDs: 155027001031, 155027001041
1. The CUP is conditioned on approval of the variance to accommodate service bay
doors facing a public street.
2. Compliance with the site plan and parking signage of the original CUP granted on
January 27, 2025, with changes to the signage reflecting the proposed site plan
included in the staff report of January 2026.
3. No outdoor storage of vehicles waiting to be serviced shall be allowed on the
site.
4. Vehicles whose service work is completed may occupy employee or customer
parking spaces on a temporary basis if space exists, but not in such a manner
that shifts any parking to the public street.
5. Modification of site parking signage is consistent with the site plans
accompanying this application.
6. Compliance with the terms of the Chief Building Official’s letter dated December
29, 2025
7. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-02
1
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO REPAIR - MAJOR
IN A B-3, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT
PID 155-027-001041; 155-027-001031
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request for a Conditional Use Permit for major
Auto Repair- Major as an additional use to an existing vehicle sales facility; and
WHEREAS, the proposed facility would alter the existing conditions through modifications
to the sales and display area, as well as altering the locations for designated employee and
customer parking; and
WHEREAS, the applicant seeks a variance from the prohibition for service doors facing the
public street as required by the City’s zoning ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the proposed use would have no other expected impacts on the site; and
WHEREAS, the site is zoned Highway Business (B-3), which allows such use as an accessory
use by Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the general land use would be consistent with the long-term land use plan for
the City and the location, including the designation of the site for “Community Commercial”
uses; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have provided materials documenting that the proposed use
facilitates long term use of the site for uses in the B-3 zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have provided materials documenting that the proposed use will
comply with the terms and standards of the zoning ordinance with the recommendations
approved by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 6th, 2026 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:
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-02
2
1. The applicant has provided plans demonstrating that the proposed facility will be
in compliance with the standards for major auto repair facilities found in the
zoning ordinance (subject to variance approval).
2. The applicant has provided plans demonstrating that the use will improve long-
term use of the site for uses in the subject zoning district and Comprehensive
Plan land use category.
3. The parcel is intended for commercial uses, which is the existing and proposed
use of the property.
4. The operation of the business will not create noise, odors, visual impacts, or
other noticeable impacts on the property or the neighborhood beyond those
expected for allowed uses in the zoning district, subject to the additional site
improvements as required by City approval.
5. The use will improve convenience to customers and to the public, consistent
with the City’s economic development objectives for commercial property.
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 approve the Conditional Use Permit for Auto Repair - Major, subject to the
conditions identified in Exhibit Z of the Staff report, as listed below:
1. The CUP is conditioned on approval of the variance to accommodate service
bay doors facing a public street.
2. Compliance with the site plan and parking signage of the original CUP
granted on January 27, 2025, with changes to the signage reflecting the
proposed site plan included in the staff report of January 2026.
3. No outdoor storage of vehicles waiting to be serviced shall be allowed on the
site.
4. Vehicles whose service work is completed may occupy employee or customer
parking spaces on a temporary basis if space exists, but not in such a manner
that shifts any parking to the public street.
5. Modification of site parking signage consistent with the site plans
accompanying this application.
6. Compliance with the terms of the Chief Building Official’s letter dated
December 29, 2025.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-02
3
7. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission.
ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 2026 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By: _______________________________
Andrew Tapper, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
Request for CUP for Auto Repair/Variance for Door
Legal: Lengthy-Contact City Hall; PIDs: 155027001031 & 155027001041
Created by: City of Monticello
118 ft
!
"
#
"
$ "
%
"$
& #
' (
$ $
)
*
+
* , '
#
"
- .
/
0 - .
1
/0$)
#
- .
/
0 - .
1
/0$)
2
- .
&
*
'
# 0
.
3
3
"
!#
. - 0 &'
#
4
!
#
!
. - 5&' &
. - 5&'
6
$
$
7
/
8
0
*
& . - 5) , +& )
' . - 5'+ &)9
$
$
- .
. - 0 &'
6
6
2
$
$
*
!
#
($& ($'
$
" $
& 0
2
$
*
*
"
1
"$
$
D
!
%
K
),C
K
?
*$
,,C 6
#
"
2
+,,
*
H
6
*
),,,,,
,,
H
6
*
,,
,, 6
),
&
#
9
#
$
"
-
6
"
*
$
& 2
" 6
I
' ?*
)
,,
$
+!,,
,!,,
+
# $ $
" . "
"
( E) Highway Business District, B-3. The purpose of the “B-3” (highway business) district is to provide for limited
commercial and service activities and provide for and limit the establish ment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent
commercial and service activities.
(1) Base lot area. No minimum.
(2) Base lot width. Minimum: 100 ft.
Typical B-3 Lot Configuration
TABLE 3-13: B-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARD S
Required Yards (in feet)
Max Height
(stories/
ft.)
Max Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Max Impe
rvious
(% of gross lot
area)
Fro
nt
Interi
or
Side
Street
Side
Rear
All Uses 30 10 20 20
2 stories
30 feet
[1]
(Reserved)(Reserved)
[1]: Multi-story buildings may be allowed as a conditional use pursuant to §
153.028(D) contingent upon strict adherence to fire safety code provisions as
specified by the International Building Code as adopted in the Monticello City
Code.
Accessory
Structures
- See § 153.092(B) for all general standards and limitations on accessory
structures.
Other
Regulation
to Consult
(not all
inclusive)
- § 153.042, Common District Requirements
- § 153.043(B), Standards Applicable to All Residential Base Zoning Districts
- § 153.060, Landscaping and Screening Standards
- § 153.064, Signs
- § 153.067, Off-Street Parking
- § 153.068, Off-street loading spaces
- § 153.070, Building Materials
(F) Regional Business District, B-4. The purpose of the “B-4” regional business district is to provide for the establishm
ent of commercial and service activities which draw from and serve customers from the entire community or region.
(1) Base lot area. No minimum.
(2) Base lot width. No Minimum.
Typical B-4 Lot Configuration
TABLE 3-14: B-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Required Yards (in feet)
Max Height
(stories/ Max Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Max Impervious
(% of gross lot
LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 36
2018 Correlating
Zoning District
ZONING INFORMATION
2018 Correlating
Zoning District
B-3
Highway
Business District
B-4
Regional
Business District
LAND USE MIX
Commercial
• “Big Box” Stores
• Department Stores
• Hotels
• Restaurants
Recreational
• Plaza
• Public Space
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
The Regional Commercial designation includes large-scale commercial uses serving a regional market, typically on large sites along the Interstate or major arterials roadways such
as State Highway 25. Retail uses within this category usually have large floor areas and high sales volumes and may be considered shopping “destinations” by consumers from the
region. Uses such as furniture and electronic stores, farm supply, home improvement stores, department stores, “big box” retailers, hotels and restaurants are included. Smaller
and more local-serving retail uses, and personal services are generally not appropriate but could be allowed if complementary to a regional use.
VISUAL EXAMPLE
LOT PATTERN DEVELOPMENT FORM
• Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
0.30 to 0.50
• Height -
1-2 stories, 4 stories
for hotels or office
• Lot Area -
N/A
Primary Mode
Vehicular with
access to collectors
and arterials
Transit or
shuttle service
Secondary Mode
Shared bike/
pedestrian facilities
MOBILITY
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/06/2026
1
2B. Public Hearing - Consideration of Amending the Monticello City Code, Title XV: Land
Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Section § 153.012 Definitions, § 153.090 Use
Table, § 153.070 Building Materials, § 153.064 Signs, § 153.091 Use-Specific Standards,
and § 153.043 Residential Base Zoning Districts. Applicant: City of Monticello
Prepared by: Community
Development Director
Meeting Date:
01/06/26
Council Date (pending
Commission action):
01/12/26
Additional Analysis by: Consulting City Planner, Chief Building & Zoning Official, Community
& Economic Development Coordinator
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Various
Sections
1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-04 recommending approval of an amendment
to the Monticello City Code, Title XV: Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance,
Various Sections, based on findings in said resolution.
2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-04 recommending denial of an amendment to
the Monticello City Code, Title XV: Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Various
Sections, 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-2026-04 of the regular meeting.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Property: City of Monticello
Planning Case Number: 2026-03
Request(s): Amendments to clarify or address changing conditions affecting
the Zoning Ordinance and support the goals and objectives of the
2040 Plan
Deadline for Decision: NA
Land Use Designation: NA
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/06/2026
2
Zoning Designation: NA
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable: NA
Current Site Uses: NA
Surrounding Land Uses: NA
Project Description: City staff is requesting consideration of various ordinance
amendments which are intended to clarify language within the
ordinance to support consistent application of the code and
reduce errors in interpretation.
ANALYSIS:
As City staff apply the Monticello Zoning Ordinance to changes in land use, land use
applications, and to address public inquiries, identified clarifications to the ordinance are
tracked for potential amendment. Potential amendments to better clarify various sections of
ordinance have been gathered over the first 6 months of 2025 and a draft ordinance
amendment has been prepared for consideration.
The following is a summary of the amendments proposed with a brief description of the
rationale for amendment.
Definitions - § 153.012
• Add a definition for Bar. No definition currently exists. The definition is recommended
as a reference point for current ordinances regulating use and permitting.
• Amend the definition for General Warehousing to further clarify the specific intent of
the types of warehousing uses allowable under this definition, which does not include
digital storage as is typical of a data center.
• Amend the definition of Sign. Staff have worked with the City attorney to clarify the
current definition to clarify allowances for public art distinct from other commercial
messaging. The current definition poses a number of issues as written. This definition
was upheld in court cases regarding what constitutes “art” versus “sign”. No
amendment to § 153.064 Signs is needed to support this amendment.
Residential Base Zoning Districts - § 153.043
• Amend the ordinance for a minor correction to accessory use text, which incorrectly
references the R-1, rather than R-2 District.
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/06/2026
3
Building Materials - § 153.070
• Amend the ordinance to clarify that non-conforming building conditions on existing
principal use residential structures, such as roof pitch or lack of brick or stone on
facades, may be continued for residential structure building alterations or expansions.
Use Table - § 153.090
• Amend the ordinance to more correct shading within the table. The amendment does
not propose to change any existing allowances or prohibition of uses, but rather correct
shading within the table to accurately reflect allowable or prohibited uses.
Use Specific Standards - § 153.091
• Amend the ordinance to prohibit the location of cannabis-related businesses when
abutting a residential zoning district. The amendment is similar to current language
within the industrial use standard section, which limits cannabis-related uses in
industrial districts when adjacent to residential districts. This amendment does not
propose to restrict cannabis-related uses when abutting mixed-used or PUD districts.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommend approval of the proposed amendments. The ordinance revisions are intended
to provide additional clarity were needed or to correct errors in the ordinance, and to address
changing trends in development and land use.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution PC-2026-04
B. Draft, Ordinance No. 8XX
C. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Excerpts
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-04
1
RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO MONTICELLO CITY CODE, TITLE XV: LAND USAGE,
CHAPTER 153: ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO MISCELLANEOUS SECTIONS
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance serves as the primary implementation tool of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives; and
WHEREAS, various portions of the Zoning Ordinance have been identified as benefitting
from amendment to increase clarity and usefulness; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 6, 2026 on the
application 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 has identified ordinance amendments to clarify
various chapters and sections with changes to the following:
§ 153.012 Definitions
§ 153.043 Residential Base Zoning Districts
§ 153.070 Building Materials
§ 153.090 Use Table
§ 153.091 Use Specific Standards
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 amendments address needs arising from a changing condition, trend,
or fact, or correct specific language within the ordinance.
2. The proposed amendments improve the ability of the Planning Commission and City
Council to direct land use and land use policy in the City.
3. The proposed amendments are consistent with the language and intent of the
Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comprehensive Plan).
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-04
2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota, that the Commission recommends that the City Council adopts the proposed
amendments as presented and approved.
ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 2026 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. 8XX
1
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XV OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE,
CHAPTER 153: ZONING, VARIOUS SECTIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section § 153.012 DEFINITIONS, is hereby amended as follows:
BAR. Establishment accessible to the public holding a valid on-sale alcohol license
where alcoholic beverages are sold or permitted to be displayed and consumed on the
premises. Such establishment may serve both food and alcoholic beverages, but the
principal business is the sale of such alcoholic beverages at retail for consumption on
the premises.
GENERAL WAREHOUSING. Structures used for the storage or distribution of goods
where there is no sale of items to retailers or the general public unless permitted as an
accessory use to the warehouse, except that such uses shall not include buildings or
structures used primarily for the storage, management, processing, and transmission
of digital data.
SIGN. Any letter, word or symbol copy, advertising symbols, lettering, trademarks,
poster, picture, statuary, reading matter or representation in the nature of
advertisement, announcement, message or visual communication, whether painted,
posted, printed, affixed or constructed, including all associated brackets, braces,
supports, wires and structures, which is displayed for informational or communicative
purposes. The area containing copy, advertising symbols, lettering, trademarks, or
other references to the premises, products, or services, is considered sign area and
shall comply with these regulations. Painted graphics on a wall or fence that are
murals or mosaics, or any type of statuary or graphic art that does not contain copy,
advertising symbols, lettering, trademarks, or other references to the premises,
products, or services that are provided on the premises where the graphics are located
or any other premises, are not signs for the purposes of these regulations.
Section 2. § 153.043 RESIDENTIAL BASE ZONING DISTRICTS, Table 3-6 is hereby amended as
follows:
- An attached garage shall be included with all principal residential structures in the R-1
R-2 district.
Section 3. § 153.070 BUILDING MATERIALS, is hereby amended as follows:
(B) General requirements
ORDINANCE NO. 8XX
2
(1) Consistency required. In all districts, all buildings shall be finished on all sides
with consistent architectural quality, materials, and design. For expansions to, or
minor alterations of, existing principal use residential buildings, the roof pitch and
building materials of the expansion or alteration shall be consistent with the
existing principal structure.
Section 4. § 153.090 USE TABLE, is hereby amended to correct the following:
Place of public assembly: Shade to prohibit in M-H, B-1 and B-4 Districts
Funeral services: Shade to prohibit in B-3 District
Specialty eating establishments: Remove shading for conditional use in B-1 District
Auto repair – major: Shade to prohibit in IBC
Bulk fuel sales and storage – Shade to prohibit in IBC and I-1 Districts
Section 5. § 153.091 USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS, is hereby amended as follows:
(E) Regulations for commercial uses.
(33) Cannabis retail business.
(d) No cannabis-related business shall permit consumption of any
product on- site, except by conditional use permit, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The facility shall only be located in the B-3 or B-4 zoning district
and no parcel may be used for cannabis-related business if
such parcel abuts a residential zoning district.
2. If the facility is a part of a multi-tenant building, the facility
shall ensure that no odors from smoke or other on-site
activities can be detectable outside of the facility.
3. Consumption may be allowed only indoors, located in a
specified area physically separated from other retail floor
space.
Section 6. 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.
Section7. 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.
ORDINANCE NO. 8XX
3
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 12th day of January, 2026.
__________________________________
Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Jennifer Schreiber, City Clerk
AYES:
NAYS:
§ 153.012 DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a
different meaning.
ACCESSORY. A use, activity, structure, or part of a structure that is subordinate and incidental to the main activity or
structure on the site.
ACCESSORY BUILDING - MAJOR. A building which is accessory to a principal structure and is required to be
constructed with a building permit per Minn. Rule 1300.0120.
ACCESSORY BUILDING - MINOR. A building which is accessory to a principal structure and exempt from a building
permit per Minn. Rule 1300.0120.
ADULT USES. Adult uses include adult bookstores, adult motion picture theatres, adult mini-motion picture theatres, adult
massage parlors, adult steamroom/bathhouse/sauna facilities, adult companionship establishments, adult rap/conversation
parlors, adult health/sport clubs, adult cabarets, adult novelty businesses, adult motion picture arcades, adult modeling
studios, adult hotels/motels, adult body painting studios, and other premises, enterprises, establishments, businesses, or
places open to some or all members of the public, at or in which there is an emphasis on the presentation, display,
depiction, or description of "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas" which are capable of being seen by
members of the public. Activities classified as obscene as defined by Minnesota Statutes, are not included.
SPECIFIED ANATOMICAL AREAS.
(a) Less than completely and opaquely covered human genitals, pubic region, buttock, anus, or female breast(s)
below a point immediately above the top of the areola; and
(b) Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered.
SPECIFIED SEXUAL ACTIVITIES.
(a) Actual or simulated sexual intercourse, oral copulation, anal intercourse, oral-anal copulation, bestiality, direct
physical stimulation of unclothed genitals, flagellation or torture in the context of a sexual relationship, or the use of
excretory functions in the context of sexual relationship, and any of the following sexually-oriented acts or conduct:
anilingus, buggery, coprophagy, coprophilia, cunnilingus, fellatio, necrophilia, pederasty, pedophilia, piquerism, sapphism,
zooerasty.
(b) Clearly depicted human genitals in the state of sexual stimulation, arousal, or tumescence.
(c) Use of human or animal ejaculation, sodomy, oral copulation, coitus, or masturbation.
(d) Fondling or touching of nude human genitals, pubic region, buttocks, or female breast.
(e) Situations involving a person or persons, any of whom are nude, clad in undergarments, or in sexually revealing
costumes; and who are engaged in activities involving the flagellation, torture, fettering, binding, or other physical restraint of
any such persons.
(f) Erotic or lewd touching, fondling, or other sexually oriented contact with an animal by a human being.
(g) Human excretion, urination, menstruation, vaginal, or anal irrigation.
ADULT USE/ACCESSORY. The offering of goods and/or services which are classified as adult uses on a limited scale
and which are incidental to the primary activity and goods and/or services offered by the establishment. Examples of such
items include adult magazines, adult movies, adult novelties, and the like.
ADULT USE/PRINCIPAL. The offering of goods and/or services which are classified as adult uses as a primary or sole
activity of a business or establishment and include, but are not limited to, the following:
ADULT USE BODY PAINTING STUDIO. An establishment or business which provides the service of applying paint or
other substance, whether transparent or non-transparent, to or on the body of a patron when such body is wholly or partially
nude in terms of "specified anatomical areas."
ADULT USE BOOKSTORE. A building or portion of a building used for the barter, rental, or sale of items consisting of
printed matter, pictures, slides, records, audio tape, videotape, or motion picture film if such building or portion of a building
is not open to the public generally but only to one or more classes of the public excluding any minor by reason of age, or if a
substantial or significant portion of such items are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on the depiction or
description of "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas."
ADULT USE CABARET. A building or portion of a building used for providing dancing or other live entertainment, if such
building or portion of a building excludes minors by virtue of age, or if such dancing or other live entertainment is
distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on the presentation, display, depiction, or description of "specified sexual
activities" or "specified anatomical areas."
ADULT USE COMPANIONSHIP ESTABLISHMENT. A companionship establishment which excludes minors by reason
of age, or which provides the service of engaging in or listening to conversation, talk, or discussion between an employee of
the establishment and a customer, if such service is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual
activities" or "specified anatomical areas."
ADULT USE CONVERSATION/RAP PARLOR. A conversation/rap parlor which excludes minors by reason of age, or
which provides the service of engaging in or listening to conversation, talk, or discussion, if such service is distinguished or
characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas."
ADULT USE HEALTH/SPORT CLUB. A health/sport club which excludes minors by reason of age, or if such club is
distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas."
ADULT USE HOTEL/MOTEL. Adult hotel/motel means a hotel or motel from which minors are specifically excluded from
patronage and wherein material is presented which is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on matter depicting,
describing, or relating to "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas."
ADULT USE MASSAGE PARLOR/HEALTH CLUB. A massage parlor or health club which restricts minors by reason of
age, and which provides the services of massage, if such service is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on
"specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas."
ADULT USE MINI-MOTION PICTURE THEATRE. A building or portion of a building with a capacity for less than 50
persons used for presenting material if such building or portion of a building as a prevailing practice excludes minors by
virtue of age, or if such material is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or
"specified anatomical areas" for observation by patrons therein.
ADULT USE MODELING STUDIO. An establishment whose major business is the provision to customers of figure
models who are so provided with the intent of providing sexual stimulation or sexual gratification to such customers and who
engage in "specified sexual activities" or display "specified anatomical areas" while being observed, painted, painted upon,
sketched, drawn, sculptured, photographed, or otherwise depicted by such customers.
ADULT USE MOTION PICTURE ARCADE. Any place to which the public is permitted or invited wherein coin or slug-
operated or electronically, electrically, or mechanically controlled or operated still or motion picture machines, projectors, or
other image-producing devices are maintained to show images to five or fewer persons per machine at any one time, and
where the images so displayed are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on depicting or describing "specified
sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas."
ADULT USE MOTION PICTURE THEATRE. A building or portion of a building with a capacity of 50 or more persons
used for presenting material if such building or portion of a building as a prevailing practice excludes minors by virtue of age,
or if such material is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical
areas" for observation by patrons therein.
ADULT USE NOVELTY BUSINESS. A business which has, as a principal activity, the sale of devices which stimulate
human genitals or devices which are designed for sexual stimulation.
ADULT SAUNA. A sauna which excludes minors by reason of age, or which provides a steam bath or heat bathing
room used for the purpose of bathing, relaxation, or reducing; utilizing steam or hot air as a cleaning, relaxing, or reducing
agent, if the service provided by the sauna is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities"
or "specified anatomical areas."
ADULT STEAM ROOM/BATHHOUSE FACILITY. A building or portion of a building used for providing a steam bath or
heat bathing room used for the purpose of pleasure, bathing, relaxation, or reducing; utilizing steam or hot air as a cleaning,
relaxing, or reducing agent, if such building or portion of a building restricts minors by reason of age or if the service
provided by the steam room/bathhouse facility is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual
activities" or "specified anatomical areas."
AGRICULTURAL BUILDING. A structure on agricultural zoned land designed, constructed, and used to house farm
implements or agricultural produce or products used by the owner, lessee, or sub-lessee or their immediate families, their
employees, and persons engaged in the pick up or delivery of agricultural produce or products grown or raised on the
premises. The term "agricultural building" shall not include dwellings.
AGRICULTURAL SALES. The retail sale of fresh fruits, vegetables, flowers, herbs, trees, or other agricultural,
floricultural, or horticultural products. The operation may be indoors or outdoors, include pick-your-own or cut-your-own
opportunities, and may involve the ancillary sale of items considered accessory to the agricultural products being sold or
accessory sales of unprocessed foodstuffs; home processed food products such as jams, jellies, pickles, sauces; or baked
goods and home-made handicrafts. The floor area devoted to the sale of accessory items shall not exceed 25% of the total
floor area. No commercially packaged handicrafts or commercially processed or packaged foodstuffs shall be sold as
accessory items. No activities other than the sale of goods as outlined above shall be allowed as part of the agricultural
sales business.
AGRICULTURE. Those commonly associated with the growing of produce on farms. These include: field crop farming;
pasture for hay; fruit growing; tree, plant, shrub, or flower nursery without building; truck gardening and livestock raising and
feeding, but not including fur farms, commercial animal feed lots, and kennels.
ALLEY. A public right-of-way less than 30 feet in width which affords secondary access to abutting property.
ANIMAL KENNEL/BOARDING (COMMERCIAL). A facility or service where dogs, cats and/or other small household pets
as permitted by city code are kept or maintained (day or overnight), for the care, training, exercising and/or socializing by a
person other than the owner of the animals for a fee. Animal boarding may include incidental grooming, dog walkers or
training services. Animal boarding does not include facilities that provide breeding of animals, selling of animals, or facilities
whose primary source of revenue is licensed veterinarian services.
ANTENNA, COMMERCIAL TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION. Shall mean commercial and industrial communications
equipment accessory to business operations of one meter in width or greater, but not personal wireless telecommunications
service equipment.
ANTENNA, PRIVATE AMATEUR RADIO. Shall mean equipment, including antennae, antennae support structures, and
other related material, necessary to conduct Ham and Short Wave Radio reception and transmissions, only for use by those
persons properly licensed by the Federal Communications Commission for such reception and transmissions, and who are
in full compliance with all licensing requirements.
ANTENNA, PRIVATE RECEIVING. Television and other electronic reception antennae for private use.
ANTENNA, TELECOMMUNICATION. A device used for the transmission and/or reception of wireless communications,
usually arranged on an antenna support structure or building, and consisting of a wire, a set of wires, or electromagnetically
reflective or conductive rods, elements, arrays, or surfaces, inclusive of the following: private amateur radio antenna(s),
private receiving antenna(s), commercial transmission and reception antenna(s), and wireless telecommunications service
antenna(s).
ANTENNA, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE. Shall mean any equipment necessary to provide or support
all types of wireless electronic communications, including, but not necessarily limited to, wireless "cellular" telephone, radio,
and internet transmission and reception communications between mobile communications providers and users, including
public safety communications.
ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE. Any pole, telescoping mast, tower, tripod, or other structure which supports an
antenna. Such structure may be freestanding or attached to a building or other device that conforms to this chapter.
APARTMENT. A room or suite of rooms which is designed for, intended for, or occupied as a residence by a single-family
or an individual and is equipped with cooking facilities. Includes dwelling unit and efficiency unit. An apartment is offered only
as a rented or leased residence, as distinguished from condominiums and townhouses, which allow for separate ownership.
APPURTENANCES. The visible, functional, or ornamental objects accessory to, and part of a building, such as chimneys,
fire escapes, open decks, stoops, steps, bay windows, roof overhangs, awnings, solar energy systems and similar features.
ARTIFICIAL OBSTRUCTION. Means any obstruction which is not a natural obstruction (see Obstruction).
AS-BUILT PLANS. Record drawings of as-constructed improvements.
ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY. A multiple-family structure that includes a special combination of housing, supportive
services, personalized assistance, and health care designed to respond to the individual needs of people who need help
with activities of daily living, but where the emphasis of the facility remains residential. Residents of assisted living facilities
do not require hospitalization or skilled or intermediate nursing care associated with nursing home facilities, but do, because
of their advanced age, require assistance or supervision in matters such as dressing, bathing, diet, financial management,
evacuation of a residence in the event of an emergency, or medication prescribed for self-administration.
ATTENTION GETTING DEVICE. Any device whose primary purpose is to attract public attention to a use of land (but
which is not a building or the use of land itself), whether two or three dimensional, and whether through graphics, light,
movement, shapes or other method. Such device may be either permanent or temporary, and would be regulated as a sign
under the appropriate sections of this chapter.
AUCTION HOUSE. A building, area, or areas within a building used for the public sale of goods, wares, merchandise, or
equipment to the highest bidder.
AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE (ATM). A facility to provide banking and other electronic services that is operated by
the customer.
AUTOMOBILE REPAIR - MAJOR. General repair, rebuilding or reconditioning engines, motor vehicles or trailers; collision
service, including body, frame, or fender straightening or repair; overall painting or paint job; vehicle steam cleaning. This
business performs structural and cosmetic repairs to autos, light trucks, and equipment of 9,000 pounds GVW and less.
Allowed: Body repair and painting, frame and/or unibody straightening and repair, glass replacement, sandblasting and/or
steam cleaning, undercoating or rust proofing, upholstery work, washing, cleaning, and polishing.
AUTOMOBILE REPAIR - MINOR. A business that performs mechanical and electrical repairs to autos, light trucks, and
equipment 9,000 pounds GVW and less. Allowed activities include minor repairs, incidental body and fender work, minor
painting and upholstering, tune ups and adjustments, replacement of parts (excluding body and frame), rebuilding of parts or
components when installation is available, wheel alignment and balancing, tire repair, radiator repair, washing, cleaning, and
polishing, but specifically excluding any operation specified or implied under the definition of "Automobile Repair - Major."
AUTOMOTIVE WASH FACILITY. An area or structure equipped with automatic or self-service facilities for primarily
washing automobiles.
BANNERS AND PENNANTS. Attention-getting devices which resemble flags and are of a paper, cloth, or plastic-like
consistency.
BASEMENT. Means any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base subgrade (below ground
level) on all four sides, regardless of the depth of excavation below ground level.
BED AND BREAKFAST. A private residence, generally a single-family residence, engaged in renting one or more
dwelling rooms on a daily basis to tourists, vacationers, and business people, where provision of meals is limited to
breakfast for guests only.
BERM. An earthen mound designed to provide visual interest on a site, screen undesirable views, reduce noise, or fulfill
other such purposes.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs). Erosion and sediment control and water quality management practices that
are the most effective and practicable means of controlling, preventing, and minimizing degradation of surface water,
including, but not limited to, avoidance of impacts, construction-phasing, minimizing the length of time soil areas are
exposed, or prohibitions or other management practices published by state or designated areawide planning agencies.
BLUFF. A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an
average slope of less than 18% over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff):
(1) Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area;
(2) The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the waterbody;
(3) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high water level
averages 30% or greater; and
(4) The slope must drain toward the waterbody.
BLUFF IMPACT ZONE. A bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff.
BOARDER. A person who regularly receives lodging with or without meals at another's home for pay or services.
BOATHOUSE. A structure designed and used solely for the storage of boats or boating equipment.
BODY ART. Establishments that engage in providing "body art" or "body art procedures" including physical body
adornment using, but not limited to, tattooing and body piercing. Body art does not include practices and procedures that are
performed by a licensed medical or dental professional if the procedure is within the professional's scope of practice.
BREW PUB. A restaurant-brewery that sells 85% or more of its beer on-site. The beer is brewed primarily for sale in the
restaurant and bar, and may be dispensed directly from the brewery's storage tanks. Brewpubs may also sell beer for off-
sale consumption in growler containers.
BUILDABLE AREA. The portion of a lot remaining after required yards have been provided.
BUILDING. A structure with a roof, intended for shelter, housing, business, or enclosure.
BUILDING, FRONT FACADE. A building elevation which fronts on a public street, public parking lot, private parking lot
available to the general public, or pedestrian walk where customer access to a structure is available.
BUILDING HEIGHT. See § 153.010(B)(5).
BUILDING LINE. See § 153.010(B)(3).
BUILDING, PRINCIPAL. A building in which is conducted the principal use of the lot.
BULK FUEL SALES AND STORAGE. The commercial storage of gasses and fuels in above ground containers.
BUSINESS. Any establishment, occupation, employment, or enterprise where merchandise is manufactured, exhibited, or
sold, or where services are offered for compensation.
BUSINESS DAY. A day on which City Hall is open.
BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES. Establishments that engage primarily in rendering services to businesses including
but not limited to copy shops, printing services, package and postal services, photo processing, janitorial services, and
similar operations.
CALIPER. A horticultural method of measuring the diameter of a tree trunk for the purpose of determining size. The
caliper inches of a tree shall be determined by measuring the tree's diameter four feet, six inches from the ground.
CANNABIS CULTIVATION. A cannabis business licensed by the state to grow cannabis plants within the approved
amount of space from seed or immature plant to mature plant, harvest cannabis flower from mature plant, package and label
immature plants and seedlings and cannabis flower for sale to other cannabis businesses, transport cannabis flower to a
cannabis manufacturer located on the same premises, or perform other actions approved by the office, for either adult use
or medical use.
CANNABIS INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS. A business enterprise that is licensed by OCM for one of the following cannabis-
related uses:
(1) Cultivator;
(2) Manufacturer;
(3) Wholesaler;
(4) Transporter;
(5) Testing facility;
(6) Delivery service;
(7) Mezzobusiness;
(8) Microbusiness;
(9) Any such business that conducts these activities for lower-potency hemp enterprises;
(10) Any such business that conducts these activities for medical cannabis enterprises; or
(11) Any other cannabis-related business enterprise that is not expressly and solely a retail business.
CANNABIS-RELATED BUSINESSES. Unless otherwise noted in this section, words and phrases contained in M.S. §
342.01, as amended from time to time, and the rules promulgated pursuant to any of these acts, shall have the same
meanings in this chapter.
CANNABIS RETAIL BUSINESSES. A business enterprise that is licensed by OCM for one of the following cannabis-
related uses: a cannabis retailer, or the location(s) of a mezzobusiness with a retail operations endorsement, or the retail
locations of a microbusiness with a retail operations endorsement, medical cannabis retailer, or a medical combination
businesses operating a retail dispensary location, (and excluding) lower-potency hemp edible retailers.
CANOPY. A roof-like cover, often of fabric, plastic, metal, or glass on a support, which provides shelter over a doorway.
CANOPY TREE. A tree that has an expected height at maturity of 30 feet or more.
CELLAR. See BASEMENT.
CEMETERY. Land used or intended to be used for burying the remains of human dead and dedicated for cemetery
purposes, including mausoleums and mortuaries when operated in conjunction with and within the boundaries of the
cemetery.
CHANNEL. A natural or artificial depression of perceptible extent, with definite bed and banks to confine and conduct
water either continuously or periodically.
CHARITABLE, FRATERNAL, OR SOCIAL CLUB/LODGE. See PLACE OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY.
CHURCH. See PLACE OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY.
CITY ENGINEER. A person who has received training and is given authority by the City of Monticello to design, review,
authorize, approve, inspect, and maintain erosion and sediment control plans and practices. The City Engineer is part of the
Community Development Department.
CIVIC INTEREST GROUP. A civic interest group is a non-governmental organization which has a public or quasi-public
service purpose as its central function, but may include additional uses and activities related to its public function or provided
to its membership. A civic interest group may or may not have a specific site location or building which it occupies whether
owned or leased. Examples of such groups may include religious institutions, local or national service clubs and
organizations, private museums, historical facilities or similar entities.
CLEARING. Any activity that removes the vegetative surface cover.
CLEAR-CUTTING. The removal of an entire stand of trees.
CLINIC/MEDICAL SERVICES. A structure intended for providing medical and dental examinations and service available
to the public. This service is provided without overnight care available.
COCKTAIL ROOM. A room that is ancillary to the production of liquor at a production distillery where the public can
purchase and/or consume only the liquor produced on site.
COMBINATION USE. The combination of two principal uses.
COMMERCIAL LODGING. A building or group of buildings in which sleeping accommodations are offered to the public
and intended primarily for rental for temporary occupation by persons on an overnight basis, not including bed and breakfast
establishments or a rooming house. Such uses may include microwaves and refrigerators for each guest unit.
COMMERCIAL OFFICES. A commercial use involving predominantly administrative, clerical, or professional operations.
Commercial offices may include professional and administrative training, but shall not include direct retail commercial
transaction activities. Professional training may include classes and training offered by professional or administrative entities
to consumers of professional services.
COMMERCIAL SELF-STORAGE. A land use characterized by a variety of sized spaces available to the general public for
rent on short-term periods, and for which size of individual spaces are less than 1,000 square feet in area. Commercial self-
storage facilities are limited to storage use only, with no separate business activities permitted as part of the use.
COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS AND ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURES. See ANTENNA, TELECOMMUNICATION.
COMMUNICATIONS/BROADCASTING. Establishments primarily engaged in the provision of broadcasting and other
information relay services accomplished through the use of electronic and telephonic mechanisms. Antennas, antenna
support structures and satellite dishes are included in this definition. Typical uses include television studios,
telecommunication service centers, telegraph service offices, or film and sound recording facilities.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Those departments assigned by the City Administrator to oversee the
various aspects of development within the city. Such departments may include but are not limited to planning, building
safety, code enforcement, and engineering.
COMMUNITY GARDEN. A public or private facility for cultivation of fruits, flowers, vegetables or ornamental plants by
more than one person or group.
CONDITIONAL USE. A permitted use that, because of special requirements or characteristics, may only be allowed in a
particular zoning district after review by the city and granting of conditional use permit which imposes conditions deemed
necessary to make the use compatible with other uses permitted in the same zone or vicinity. Conditional uses that cannot
be adequately controlled through conditions shall be prohibited. Approved conditional uses and their conditions run with the
land and are not specific to property owners.
CONDOMINIUM. A form of property ownership providing for individual ownership of space in a structure together with an
individual interest in the land or other parts of the structure in common with other owners. Residential condominium dwelling
units are subject to the provisions of the Minnesota Condominium Law, M.S. §§ 515.01 to 515.29, as they may be amended
from time to time.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT. A conservation easement is legal land preservation agreement between a landowner and
a municipality or a qualified land protection organization. The easement confers the transfer of usage rights from one party
to another.
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. A disturbance to the land that results in a change in the topography, or the existing soil
cover (both vegetative and non-vegetative). Examples of construction activity may include clearing, grading, filling and
excavating.
CONSTRUCTION TRAILER. Trailers used as temporary offices to meet a short-term need while the permanent facilities
are being expanded. A temporary use permit is required for such office trailers.
CONTRACTOR. The party who signs the permit, application, construction contract, or development agreement with the
city to construct a project. Where the construction project involves more than one contractor, the general contractor shall be
the contractor that is responsible pursuant to the obligations set forth in this chapter.
CONTRACTORS YARD - TEMPORARY. A location on which a construction contractor operating with a current permit for
construction of public utilities, infrastructure, or other project on public property, rights-of-way, or public easements, stores
equipment, temporary office space, vehicles, and materials for no more than a two-year period.
CONVENIENCE RETAIL. A retail store not more than 4,000 square feet in area that generally carries a reduced inventory
of a variety of items such as dairy products, minor automobile related items, groceries, novelties, magazines, etc. A
convenience store may be combined with vehicle fuel sales where permitted.
COOPERATIVE (HOUSING). A multiple-family attached dwelling owned and maintained by the residents. The entire
structure and real property is under common ownership as contrasted to a condominium dwelling where individual units are
under separate individual occupant ownership.
COUNTRY CLUB. A membership club or business organized and operated primarily to provide recreational activities such
as golf, swimming, tennis, and other outdoor recreation to its members and their guests which includes facilities such as a
club house, banquet areas, locker rooms, and pro shop.
COURT. An unoccupied open space other than a yard which is bounded on two or more sides by the walls of the
buildings.
CREMATORY. A facility containing furnaces for the reduction of dead bodies to ashes by fire.
DAYCARE. A location licensed with the Minnesota Department of Human Services to provide the care of a child in a
residence outside the child's own home for gain or otherwise, on a regular basis, for any part of a 24-hour day.
DAY CARE - HOME. See definitions for GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY.
DECIDUOUS TREE. A tree that generally loses all of its leaves for part of the year.
DECK. A horizontal, unenclosed platform with or without attached railings, seats, trellises, or other features, attached or
functionally related to a principal use or site at any point extending above grade.
DENSITY, BASE. The number of dwelling units allowed per net acre of land.
DENSITY, MAXIMUM. The number of dwelling units potentially allowed per net acre of land if certain conditions are met
through either performance standards or the planned unit development process.
DEPARTMENT STORE. See RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES (OTHER).
DEPOSIT. Any rock, soil, gravel, sand, or other material deposited naturally or by man into a water body, watercourse,
floodplain, or wetland.
DEWATERING. The removal of water for construction activity such as the removal of temporary sediment basin water or
appropriated surface or groundwater to dry and/or solidify a construction site.
DISTRICT. An area delineated on the official zoning map that sets forth standards and guidelines for all development
within the prescribed zoning district.
DONATION DROP-OFF CONTAINER. A receptacle designed with a door, slot, or other opening that is intended to accept
and store donated items.
DRAINING. The removal of surface water or groundwater from land.
DREDGING. To enlarge or clean out a water body, watercourse, or wetland.
DRIPLINE. A vertical line that extends from the outermost branches of a tree's canopy to the ground around the
circumference of the tree.
DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICE. A building opening, including windows, doors, or mechanical devices, through which
occupants of a motor vehicle receive or obtain a product or service.
DUMPSTER. A container that has a hooking mechanism that permits it to be raised and dumped into a sanitation truck or
be hauled away for emptying.
DWELLING. A building or portion thereof designated exclusively for residential occupancy, including one-family, two-
family, and multiple-family dwellings, but not including hotels, motels, and boarding houses.
DWELLING, ATTACHED. A structure intended for occupancy by more than one family, including duplexes, townhomes,
multi-family dwellings, apartments, and condominiums. Accessory dwelling units as defined and permitted by this chapter
are incidental to a principal dwelling unit and are not considered to be attached dwellings.
DWELLING, DUPLEX OR TWO-FAMILY. Any building that contains two separate dwelling units with separation either
horizontal or vertical on one lot that is used, intended, or designed to be built, used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be
occupied, or occupied for living purposes.
DWELLING, SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED. Any building that contains one dwelling unit used, intended, or designed to
be guilt, used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied, or occupied for living purposes by one family.
DWELLING, MULTIPLE-FAMILY. A building designed with three or more dwelling units exclusively for occupancy by
three or more families living independently of each other but sharing hallways and main entrances and exits.
DWELLING UNIT. An area within a structure designed and constructed to be occupied by one family which includes
permanent provisions for living, cooking, and sanitation. Dwelling unit does not include hotels, motels, correctional facilities,
nursing/convalescent home, rehabilitation centers, or other structures designed for transient residence. In group residential
facilities, multi-family, each separate bedroom, combined with all common areas up to 520 square feet of gross building floor
area shall be considered one potential dwelling unit for purposes of calculating dwelling unit density on a multi-family parcel.
EFFICIENCY APARTMENT. A dwelling unit consisting of one principal room exclusive of bathroom, hallway, closets, or
dining alcove, and has limited provisions for cooking (kitchenette).
ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING STATION FACILITY: ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING STATION
FACILITY. An EV CHARGING STATION (or "charger") is a facility designed and constructed to supply electricity for the
purpose of charging one electric motor vehicle, together with the transformers, batteries, inverters, connections, cables, and
other equipment necessary to supply such electricity. For the purposes of this chapter, a facility that can serve more than
one vehicle at a time shall be deemed to consist of multiple charging stations.
ENTERTAINMENT, INDOOR COMMERCIAL. An establishment providing completely enclosed recreation or
entertainment activities. Accessory uses may include the preparation and serving of food or the sale of equipment related to
the enclosed uses. Examples of indoor commercial entertainment businesses include bowling alleys, roller and ice-skating
rinks, billiards halls, swimming pools, motion picture theaters, and similar amusements. Indoor commercial entertainment
uses do not include event centers or adult uses.
ENTERTAINMENT, OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL. An establishment providing recreation or entertainment activities
primarily occurring outdoors. Accessory uses may include the preparation and serving of food, the sale of equipment related
to the outdoor uses, and complementary indoor entertainment facilities. Examples of outdoor commercial entertainment
businesses include, but are not limited to, golf driving ranges, sand volleyball courts, go-carts, and miniature golf courses.
Outdoor commercial entertainment uses do not include projectile weapon ranges (archery or shooting), sports stadiums or
drive-in movie theaters.
ERECT. Activity of constructing, building, raising, assembling, placing, affixing, attaching, creating, painting, drawing or
any other way of bringing into being or establishing.
EROSION. The wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind, water, ice and/or land
disturbance activities.
EROSION CONTROL. A measure that prevents erosion including but not limited to: soil stabilization practices, limited
grading, mulch, temporary or permanent cover, and construction phasing.
EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR. A designated agent given authority by the City of Monticello to inspect and maintain
erosion and sediment control practices.
EROSION PREVENTION. Measures employed to prevent erosion. Examples include, but are not limited to: soil
stabilization practices, limited grading, mulch, temporary or permanent cover, and construction phasing.
ESSENTIAL SERVICES. Public or private utility systems for gas, electricity, steam, sewer and water; voice, television,
and digital communications systems; and waste disposal and recycling services. These services include underground,
surface, and overhead systems and all accessories thereto such as poles, towers, wires, mains, drains, vaults, culverts,
laterals, sewers, pipes, catch basins, water storage tanks, conduits, cables, fire alarm boxes, police call boxes, traffic
signals, pumps, lift stations, hydrants, and other similar features necessary for the function of the essential service. Wireless
radio frequency reception and transmission antennas and support structures shall not be considered an essential service.
Essential services do not include buildings or uses that include human occupancy or activity beyond occasional service or
maintenance.
EVENT CENTER. A multi-purpose commercial venue (public or privately owned) used for the purposes of performances,
trade shows, corporate functions, sporting events, private receptions or parties, holiday gatherings or similar attractions.
(1) Common characteristics of event centers, which differentiate such uses from places of public assembly, often
include but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Varied and/or irregular activity schedules.
(b) The display and/or sale of retail commercial goods.
(c) The generation of high traffic volumes at varied time periods.
(d) Commercial activities and uses in coordination with the events.
(e) Locations in commercial districts.
(f) Alcohol service as licensed.
(2) Accessory uses may include food preparation facilities, concessions, offices, museums, parks, athletic training or
practice facilities, stores, restaurants, structured parking facilities, and patron transportation facilities. Event centers do not
include adult uses and places of public assembly.
EVERGREEN TREE. A tree that retains some or most of its leaves or needles throughout the year.
EXCAVATION. The process of reshaping land at a construction site. This can include raising or lowering ground levels,
adding or removing slopes or leveling the ground surface. In general, it has two main purposes: creating proper drainage;
preparing land to bear weight. Excavation may remove soil or other materials from a site, but is distinguished from
EXTRACTION in that excavation is specifically related to a construction project. Also GRADING .
EXISTING TREE CANOPY. The crowns of all healthy self-supporting canopy trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH)
of ten inches or greater and understory trees with a caliper size of four inches or greater at breast height.
EXTRACTIVE USE. The use of land for surface or subsurface removal of sand, gravel, rock, other nonmetallic minerals,
and peat not regulated under M.S. §§ 93.44 to 93.51, as they may be amended from time to time. Also MINING.
FAMILY. An individual or group that maintains a common household and use of common cooking and kitchen facilities and
common entrances to a single dwelling unit, where the group consists of:
(1) Two or more persons each related to the other by blood, marriage, domestic partnership, adoption, legal
guardianship (including foster children); or
(2) Not more than four unrelated persons.
FARMERS MARKET. An occasional or periodic market held in an open area or in a structure where groups of individual
sellers offer for sale to the public such items as fresh produce, seasonal fruits, fresh flowers, arts and crafts items, and food
and beverages (but not to include second-hand goods) dispensed from booths located on-site.
FENCE. A tangible barrier constructed of any allowable material erected for the purpose of providing a boundary or as a
means of protection, or to prevent uncontrolled access, or for decorative purposes (such as an ornamental gate or
ornamental gates), or to screen from viewers in or on adjoining properties and streets, materials stored and operations
conducted behind it.
FILLING. The act of depositing any rock, soil, gravel, sand, or other material so as to change the natural grade of the land;
and/or to fill or partly fill a water body, watercourse, or wetland.
FINAL GRADE. Excavation or fill of material to final plan elevation. Final grade completed as part of individual site
development.
FINAL STABILIZATION.
(1) All soil disturbing activities at the site have been completed and a uniform (e.g., evenly distributed, without large
bare areas) perennial vegetative cover with a density of 70% of the native background vegetative cover for the area has
been established on all unpaved areas and areas not covered by permanent structures, or equivalent permanent
stabilization measures (such as the use of riprap, gabions, or geotextiles) have been employed;
(2) For individual lots in residential construction by the contractor, the contractor must either: (a) complete final
stabilization as specified above; or (b) establish temporary stabilization including perimeter controls for an individual lot prior
to occupation of the structure. If the contractor chooses (b), it must inform the owner in writing of the requirements for final
stabilization;
(3) For construction projects on land used for agricultural purposes (e.g., pipelines across crop or range land) final
stabilization may be accomplished by returning the disturbed land to its preconstruction agricultural use. Areas disturbed
that were not previously used for agricultural activities, such as buffer strips immediately adjacent to surface waters and
drainage systems and areas which are not being returned to their preconstruction agricultural use must meet the final
stabilization criteria in subparts (a) or (b) above;
(4) The contractor must clean out all sediment from conveyances and from temporary sedimentation basins that are to
be used as permanent water quality management basins. Sediment must be stabilized to prevent it from washing back into
the basin, conveyances or drainage ways discharging off-site or to surface waters. The cleanout of permanent basins must
be sufficient to return the basin to design capacity. All drainage ditches constructed to drain water from the site after
construction is complete must be stabilized to preclude erosion; and
(5) All temporary synthetic and structural erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs (such as silt fence) must be
removed as part of the final stabilization on the site.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION. An establishment that provides retail banking services, mortgage lending, or similar financial
services to individuals and businesses. Financial institutions include those establishments engaged in the on-site circulation
of cash money and check-cashing facilities, but shall not include bail bond brokers. Financial institutions may also provide
automated teller machine (ATM) services, located within a fully enclosed space or building, along an exterior building wall
intended to serve walk-up customers only, or in a city authorized drive-thru lane.
FINISHING STANDARD. Criterion established to control and limit the impacts generated by, or inherent in, uses of land or
buildings. The term "finishing standard" shall be synonymous with "performance standard."
FLAG. Any fabric or similar lightweight material attached at one end of the material, usually to a staff or pole, so as to
allow movement of the material by atmospheric changes and which contains distinctive colors, patterns, symbols, emblems,
insignia, or other symbolic devices.
FLOOD. A temporary increase in the flow or stage of a stream or in the stage of a wetland or lake that results in the
inundation of normally dry areas.
FLOOD FREQUENCY. The frequency for which it is expected that a specific flood stage or discharge may be equaled or
exceeded.
FLOOD FRINGE. That portion of the floodplain outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term
"floodway fringe" used in the flood insurance study for the City of Monticello.
FLOODPLAIN. The beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake, or watercourse which have been or hereafter
may be covered by the regional flood.
FLOOD PROFILE. A graph or a longitudinal plot of water surface elevations of a flood event along a reach of a stream or
river.
FLOOD-PROOFING. A combination of structural provisions, changes, or adjustment to properties and structures subject
to flooding, primarily for the reduction or elimination of flood damages.
FLOODWAY. The bed of wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the adjoining floodplain
which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood discharge.
FLOOR AREA. See § 153.010(B)(4).
FLOOR AREA - FINISHABLE. Area within a building-exclusive of mechanical, garage, or unfinished storage space-that
could meet all requirements of "finished floor area" after improvements are completed.
FLOOR AREA - FINISHED. To qualify as finished floor area, the space shall be at or above the finished exterior grade, or
in the case of lower levels, no less than 42 inches below such grade; must have heat; flooring such as carpet, vinyl, tile,
wood or other similar floor covering; a ceiling and walls covered with gypsum board, plaster, or wood which is stained,
painted or covered with other residential wall/ceiling covering prior to occupancy. Basements that are neither "look out" or
"walk out" levels may be finished, but shall not be counted towards a minimum finished square footage calculation.
FOREST LAND CONVERSION. The clear cutting of forested lands to prepare for a new land use other than
reestablishment of a subsequent forest stand.
FREEWAY CORRIDOR (SIGN) AREA. A special signing area encompassing land located within 800 feet either side
(north or south) of the centerline of Interstate 94, in addition to certain areas along Trunk Highway 25 south of Interstate 94
north of Dundas Road, East of Sandberg Road, and West of Cedar Street as shown on the city's official Freeway Bonus
Sign District Map.
FUEL PUMP. Equipment or unit designed and constructed to supply gasoline, diesel, natural gas, or other petroleum fuels
and oils, electric charging, hydrogen, or any other fuel intended to power motor vehicles.
FUNERAL SERVICES. An establishment that provides human funeral services, including embalming and memorial
services. Crematories are accessory uses to a funeral home.
GARAGE. An attached or detached accessory structure for the purpose of parking vehicles.
GARAGE SALE. The sale of miscellaneous used items commonly associated with residential use. Garage sales shall not
be for the sale of primarily a single commodity. The term "garage sale" includes "sidewalk sale," "yard sale," "basement
sale," and "estate sale."
GENERAL WAREHOUSING. Structures used for the storage or distribution of goods where there is no sale of items to
retailers or the general public unless permitted as an accessory use to the warehouse.
GRADING. Excavation or fill of material, including the resulting conditions thereof.
GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PERMIT. A permit issued by the municipality for the construction or
alteration of the ground and for the improvements and structures for the control of erosion, runoff, and grading. Herein after
referred to as "grading permit".
GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS. A set of plans prepared by or under the direction of a
licensed professional engineer. Plans are required to indicate the specific measures and sequencing to be used to control
grading, sediment and erosion on a development site during and after construction as detailed in the City of Monticello "Plan
Requirements and Design Guidelines".
GREENHOUSE/CONSERVATORY. A structure, primarily of glass, in which temperature and humidity can be controlled
for the cultivation or protection of plants.
GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY, MULTI-FAMILY. A state-licensed facility, public or private, which regularly provides a
planned combination of living conditions, services, and resources for the treatment, rehabilitation, training, supervision, or
care of persons residing on the premises which falls into one of the following categories: 1) a state licensed residential
facility serving between seven and 16 persons; or 2) a licensed day care facility serving between 13 and 16 persons. This
term does not include any type of residential or non-residential facility for persons convicted of crimes, or for persons
accused of crimes who are diverted to the facility before conviction; nor does it include a residential facility whose primary
purpose is to treat juveniles who have violated criminal statutes relating to sex offenses or have been adjudicated delinquent
on the basis of conduct in violation of criminal statutes relating to sex offenses.
GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY, SINGLE-FAMILY. A state-licensed facility, public or private, which regularly provides a
planned combination of living conditions, services, and resources for the treatment, rehabilitation, training, supervision, or
care of persons residing on the premises which falls into one of the following categories: 1) a state licensed residential
facility serving six or fewer persons; 2) registered housing with services establishment serving six or fewer persons; 3) a
licensed day care facility serving 12 or fewer persons; or 4) a group family day care facility licensed to serve 14 or fewer
children. This term does not include any type of residential or non-residential facility for persons convicted of crimes, or for
persons accused of crimes who are diverted to the facility before conviction; nor does it include a residential facility whose
primary purpose is to treat juveniles who have violated criminal statutes relating to sex offenses or have been adjudicated
delinquent on the basis of conduct in violation of criminal statutes relating to sex offenses.
GROWLER. A 64 fluid ounce (1.89 liter) container of beer that is made available for purchase at the brewery where it's
produced. Said container is available for off-sale consumption only.
HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE. See HEAVY MANUFACTURING.
HELIPORT. An area used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of helicopters, and may include any or all of
the areas of buildings appropriate to accomplish these functions.
HIGH RISK TREE. Any tree with structural defects sufficient to render the tree or part of the tree likely to fail and cause
damage to persons, property, or other significant vegetation, as determined by a qualified arborist or other tree professional.
HOME OCCUPATION. An occupation carried on in a dwelling unit by the resident thereof; provided that the use is limited
in extent and incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling unit for residential purposes and does not change the
character thereof.
HOOP BUILDING (see also TARP GARAGE). A portable or permanently anchored structure defined mainly by a steel or
PVC frame over which a cover made from plastic, tarp, or other similar type fabrics or materials is placed.
HOSPITAL. A facility providing medical, psychiatric, or surgical services for sick or injured persons primarily on an
inpatient basis, including ancillary facilities for outpatient and emergency treatment, diagnostic services, training, research,
and administration, and services to patients, employees, or visitors.
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. A constructed hard surface that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil and
causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities and at an increased rate of flow than existed prior to development.
Examples include rooftops, sidewalks, patios, parking lots, storage areas and concrete, asphalt, or gravel driveways or
roads.
INDOOR FOOD/CONVENIENCE SALES. A small retail establishment located within or associated with another use that
offers for sale prepared food or convenience goods such as prepackaged food items, tobacco, periodicals, and other
household goods.
INDUSTRIAL SELF-STORAGE. A land use characterized by larger spaces available to occupants for the purposes of
storage of commercial, industrial, or personal goods, as well as business, industrial, or hobby activities accessory to such
storage as may be permitted within the zoning district, provided that no such space is subdivided to a total area that is less
than 2,000 square feet in area.
INDUSTRIAL SERVICES (GENERAL). Businesses that are engaged in the repair or servicing of industrial, business, or
consumer machinery, equipment, products, or by-products; or providing other related services primarily for industrial
businesses. Industrial service firms that service consumer goods do so by mainly providing centralized services for separate
retail outlets. Also includes firms such as contractors and building maintenance services and similar establishments
engaged in performance of services off-site. Few customers, especially the general public, come to the site. Accessory
activities may include retail sales, offices, parking and storage.
INTENSIVE VEGETATION CLEARING. The complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or
block.
LAKE, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT. Lakes that usually have more than 225 acres of water per mile of shoreline and 25
dwellings per mile of shoreline, and are more than 15 feet deep.
LAKE, NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. Lakes that usually have less than 150 total acres, less than 60 acres per mile of
shoreline, and less than three dwellings per mile of shoreline. They may have some winter kill of fish; may have shallow,
swampy shoreline; and are less than 15 feet deep.
LAKE, RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. Lakes that usually have between 60 and 225 acres of water per mile of
shoreline, between three and 25 dwellings per mile of shoreline, and are more than 15 feet deep.
LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY. Any land change that may result in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of
sediments into or upon waters or lands within the city's jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, grading,
excavating, transporting and filling.
LAND RECLAMATION. The reclaiming of land by the importation, depositing, or grading of soils in excess of 400 cubic
yards so as to elevate the grade.
LANDSCAPE STRIP, PERIMETER. Vegetative material associated with the perimeter landscaping required for a
vehicular use area.
LANDSCAPING/NURSERY BUSINESS. A retail business devoted to the growth, display, and/or sale of plants, shrubs,
trees; and/or landscaping materials and services.
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE. See MANUFACTURING, LIGHT.
LOT (OF RECORD). A parcel of land, whether subdivided or otherwise legally described, as of the effective date of this
chapter, or approved by the city as a lot subsequent to such date and which is occupied by or intended for occupancy by one
principal building or principal use together with any accessory buildings and such open spaces as required by this chapter
and having its principal frontage upon a street.
LOT. Land occupied or to be occupied by a building and its accessory buildings, together with such open spaces as are
required under the provisions of this zoning regulation, having not less than the minimum area required by this zoning
chapter for a building site in the district in which such lot is situated and having its principal frontage on a street or a
proposed street approved by the Council. LOT related definitions (e.g. lot depth, lot area, lot corner, etc): see § 153.010(B).
LOT LINE. A property boundary line of any lot held in single or separate ownership, except that where any portion of the
lot extends into the abutting street or alley, the lot line shall be deemed to be the street or alley right-of-way.
LOWER-POTENCY HEMP EDIBLE. As defined under M.S. § 342.01, subd. 50, as amended from time to time.
MACHINERY/TRUCK REPAIR. This business performs mechanical, electrical, structural, and cosmetic repairs to trucks
and heavy equipment. Allowed: Tune ups and adjustment, replacement of parts, rebuilding of parts or components when
installation is available, body repair, collision service and painting, frame straightening and repair, steam cleaning and/or
sandblasting, undercoating and rust proofing, radiator repair, tire repair, wheel alignment and balancing, washing, cleaning,
and polishing.
MANAGED NATURAL LANDSCAPE. A planned, intentional, and maintained planting of native or nonnative grasses,
wildflowers, forbs, ferns, shrubs, or trees, including but not limited to rain gardens, meadow vegetation, and ornamental
plants. MANAGED NATURAL LANDSCAPES does not include turf-grass lawns left unattended for the purpose of returning
to a natural state.
MANUFACTURED (MOBILE) HOME. A structure transportable in one or more sections which in the traveling mode is
eight body feet or more in width or 40 body feet or more in length, or, when erected on a side, is 760 or more square feet
and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation
when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems
contained in it, and which complies with the manufactured home building code (M.S. § 327.31, as it may be amended from
time to time).
MANUFACTURED HOME PARK. A contiguous parcel of land which has been developed for the placement of
manufactured homes and is owned by an individual, firm, trust, partnership, public or private association, or corporation.
MANUFACTURING, HEAVY. The manufacturing of products from raw or unprocessed materials, where the finished
product may be combustible or explosive. This category shall also include any establishment or facility using large
unscreened outdoor structures such as conveyor belt systems, cooling towers, cranes, storage silos, or similar equipment
that cannot be integrated into the building design, or engaging in large-scale outdoor storage. Any industrial use that
generates noise, odor, vibration, illumination, or particulate that may be offensive or obnoxious to adjacent land uses, or
requires a significant amount of on-site hazardous chemical storage shall be classified under this land use.
MANUFACTURING, LIGHT. The mechanical transformation of predominantly previously prepared materials into new
products, including assembly of component parts and the creation of products for sale to the wholesale or retail markets or
directly to consumers. Such uses are wholly confined within an enclosed building, do not include processing of hazardous
gases and chemicals, and do not emit noxious noise, smoke, vapors, fumes, dust, glare, odor, or vibration.
MARQUEE. Any permanent roof like structure projecting beyond a theater building or extending along and projecting
beyond the wall of that building, generally designed and constructed to provide protection from the weather.
MAXIMUM DENSITY. The number of dwelling units allowed per gross acre of land as controlled by an individual or joint
ownership group.
MEADOW VEGETATION. Grasses and flowering broad-leaf plants that are native to, or adapted to, the State of
Minnesota, and that are commonly found in meadow and prairie plant communities, not including noxious weeds.
MEAN GROUND LEVEL. The elevation established for the purpose of regulating the number of stories and the height of
buildings. Grade shall be the mean level of the finished surface of the ground adjacent to the exterior walls of the buildings.
MICRO-DISTILLERY. A distillery that produces 40,000 proof gallons of liquor or less annually.
MULTIPLE-TENANT SITE. Any site which has more than one tenant, and each tenant has a separate ground level
exterior public entrance.
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES). The program for issuing, modifying, revoking,
reissuing, terminating, monitoring, and enforcing permits under the Clean Water Act (Sections 301, 318, 402, and 405) and
United States Code of Federal Regulations Title 33, Sections 1317, 1328, 1342, and 1345.
NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM. All land surface areas which by nature of their contour configuration, collect, store and
channel surface water run-off.
NATURAL OBSTRUCTION. Means any rock, tree, gravel, or analogous natural matter that is an obstruction and has been
located within a water body, watercourse, or wetland by a nonhuman cause.
NEXT AVAILABLE AGENDA. The next meeting at which an application can be heard by a reviewing body after
consideration of the anticipated time for review and other items already scheduled for future agendas. The Community
Development Department has full discretion to select the best future meeting date that will accommodate the administrative
and official review of an item provided the overall timeframe for review will comply with all state mandated review deadlines.
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE OR BUILDING. A structure or building, the size, dimensions, or location of which was
lawful prior to effective date of this chapter as denoted in § 153.004, or on the effective date of any amendment to this
chapter, but that fails by reason of such adoption or amendment to conform to the requirements of this chapter.
NONCONFORMING USE. Any use lawfully being made of any land, building, or structure not otherwise abandoned,
existing on effective date of this chapter as denoted in § 153.004 or on the effective date of any amendment of this chapter,
that does not comply with the use regulations of this chapter or the amendment.
NURSING HOME (CONVALESCENT HOME). A facility that provides nursing services and custodial care generally on a
24-hour basis for two or more unrelated individuals who for reasons of illness, physical infirmity, or advanced age, require
such services; but not including hospitals, clinics, sanitariums, or similar institutions.
OBSTRUCTION (IN RELATION TO FLOODPLAINS). Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment,
projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, or matter in, along,
across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, or regulatory floodplain which may impede, retard, or change the
direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water.
OFFICE OF CANNABIS MANAGEMENT. Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management, referred to as "OCM" in this
chapter.
OFFICE USE. An establishment primarily engaged in providing professional, financial, administrative, clerical, and similar
services.
OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE. A space accessible from the street, alley or way, in a building or on the lot, for the use
of trucks while loading or unloading merchandise or materials. Such space shall be of such size as to accommodate one
truck of the type typically used in the particular business.
OPACITY (OPAQUE). A measurement indicating the degree of obscuration of light or visibility. An object that is 100%
opaque is impenetrable by light.
OPEN SALES. Any open land used or occupied for the purpose of buying, selling, and/or renting merchandise and for the
storing of same prior to sale. This use includes all outdoor sales and display of goods and/or materials that are not
specifically addressed as outdoor storage, sidewalk sales and display, or off-street vehicle parking.
OPEN SPACE. An area on a lot not occupied by any structure or impervious surface.
OPEN SPACE, USABLE. A required ground area or terrace area on a lot which is graded, developed, landscaped, and
equipped and intended and maintained for either active or passive recreation or both, available and accessible to and
usable by all persons occupying a dwelling unit or rooming unit on the lot and their guests. Such areas shall be grassed and
landscaped or covered only for a recreational purpose. Roofs, driveways, and parking areas shall not constitute usable open
space.
ORDINARY HIGH WATER (NEW SHORELAND DISTRICT CODE). The boundary of public waters which may include
wetlands, and shall be an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of
time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly
aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the elevation of the top of the bank of
the channel. For reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary high water level is the operating elevation of the normal summer pool.
ORNAMENTAL PLANTS. Grasses, perennials, annuals, and groundcovers purposefully planted for aesthetic reasons.
OUTDOOR STORAGE. The keeping, in an un-roofed area, of any goods, material, merchandise, or vehicles in the same
place for more than 24 hours. This shall not include the display of vehicles for sale in a new or used car sales lot.
OUTPATIENT CARE. Medical examination or service available to the public in a hospital. This service is provided without
overnight care and shall be considered a separate, independent, principal use when combined or operated in conjunction
with a hospital.
OWNER. The person or entity with a legal or equitable interest in the land on which the construction activities will occur.
PARAPET. A low wall which is located perpendicular to (extension of front wall) a roof of a building.
PARK FACILITY, ACTIVE. A park or recreation facility that includes one or more of the following: buildings, lighting, ball
fields, tennis courts, swimming pools, skate parks, golf courses, or other active sports facilities. Active park facilities will
commonly include benches, picnic areas, trails, sidewalks, and other similar features.
PARK FACILITY, PASSIVE. A park or recreational facility that does not include the construction of facilities, lighting, or
development of ball fields or other active sports facilities. Passive parks may include benches, picnic areas, trails and
sidewalks.
PARKING, OFF-STREET. The act of keeping a passenger vehicle as defined herein and/or small commercial vehicles,
recreational vehicles and emergency vehicles as defined herein, on an approved parking space, properly surfaced, for a
period of less than 24 hours.
PARKING BAY. The parking module consisting of one or two rows of parking spaces or stalls and the aisle from which
motor vehicles enter and leave the spaces.
PARKING ISLAND. Landscaped areas within parking lots used to separate parking areas and to soften the overall visual
impact of a large parking area from adjacent properties.
PARKING LOT DRIVE AISLE. A vehicular accessway located within an off-street parking or vehicular use area which
serves individual parking stalls and driveways.
PARKING SPACE/STALL. An area enclosed in the main building, in an accessory building, or unenclosed sufficient in
size to store one automobile which has adequate access to a public street or alley and permitting satisfactory ingress and
egress of an automobile.
PARKING STRUCTURE. A structure designed to accommodate vehicular parking spaces that are fully or partially
enclosed or located on the deck surface of a building. This definition includes parking garages, decks, and ramp parking.
PARKING, SURFACED. A parking space or storage space which is paved, or surfaced with crushed rock, such as Class
V limestone, crushed or decomposed granite, "con-bit", or landscaping rock of adequate durability to support the load
parked or stored thereon.
PARKING, UNSURFACED. A storage space which is covered by vegetation, such as grass or other landscaped cover,
and which is mowed or trimmed to meet the city's weed control regulations. Unsurfaced space may not include bare ground
which may be subject to erosion, tracking of mud onto the roadway, or drainage of silt into a public drainage easement or
waterway.
PASSENGER TERMINAL. A place that receives and discharges passengers which generally includes facilities and
equipment required for the operation. Examples include terminals for bus, taxi, railroad, shuttle van, or other similar
vehicular services. This definition does not include bus stops or similar transfer points for passengers at which no facilities
(excluding a bench or shelter) are provided.
PAVED. A parking space or storage space which is surfaced with only the following materials: Asphalt, concrete, and
natural or man-made paving stones such as brick, granite, or concrete pavers, provided such pavers have a flat surface
area of no less than nine square inches.
PERFORMANCE STANDARD. Criterion established to control and limit the impacts generated by, or inherent in, uses of
land or buildings. The term "performance standard" shall be synonymous with "finishing standard."
PERIMETER SEDIMENT CONTROL. A barrier that prevents sediment from leaving a site by filtering sediment-laden
runoff or diverting it to a sediment trap or basin.
PERMANENT COVER. Final stabilization.
PERMITTED USE. A use which may be lawfully established in a particular district or districts, provided it conforms with all
requirements, regulations, and performance standards (if any) of such districts.
PERMITTEE. Applicant for and recipient of an approved permit.
PERSON. An individual, firm, partnership, association, corporation, or organization of any kind.
PERSONAL SERVICES. Establishments that primarily engage in providing services generally involving the care of the
person or person's possessions. Personal services may include but are not limited to: laundry and dry-cleaning services,
barber shops, beauty salons, health and fitness studios, music schools, informational and instructional services, tanning
salons, body art (including tattooing), and portrait studios. This use may also include indoor pet grooming services for dogs,
cats and/or small household pets as permitted by city code, not including animal kennel/boarding or overnight care, outdoor
activities or veterinary activities.
PHASING (IN RELATION TO GRADING). Clearing a parcel of land in distinct phases, with the stabilization of each phase
completed before the clearing of the next.
PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION. A business, accommodation, refreshment, entertainment, recreation, or
transportation facility of any kind, whether licensed or not, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or
accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public.
PLACE OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY. An institution or facility that congregations of people regularly attend to participate in or
hold meetings, workshops, lectures, civic activities, religious services, and other similar activities, including buildings in
which such functions and activities are held. Places of public assembly are characterized by individuals arriving and
departing at regularly scheduled times and do not include event centers. Common characteristics of places of public
assembly, which differentiate such uses from event centers, may include but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Regular activity schedules.
(2) No display and/or sale of retail commercial goods or services.
(3) The generation of traffic at routine time periods.
(4) Predictable traffic volumes during activities.
(5) Locations that may be in commercial, industrial, or residential zoning districts.
PLAN REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES. Manual detailing city specifications for all plan requirements.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A type of development which may incorporate a variety of land uses planned and
developed as a unit. The planned unit development is distinguished from the traditional subdivision process of development
in that zoning standards such as density, setbacks, height limits, and minimum lot sizes may be altered by negotiation and
agreement between the developer, the municipality, and the Commissioner of Natural Resources as may be required.
PLANTING STRIP. Areas intended for the placement of vegetation within the interior of vehicular use areas or along street
right-of-way edges, typically between the back of the curb and the inside edge of the sidewalk.
PORTABLE CONTAINER. A large container designed and rented or leased for the temporary storage of commercial,
industrial, or residential household goods that does not contain a foundation or wheels for movement.
PRELIMINARY LICENSE APPROVAL. OCM pre-approval for a cannabis business license for applicants who qualify
under M.S. § 342.17, as amended from time to time.
PRINCIPAL USE. The main use of land or buildings as distinguished from subordinate or accessory uses.
PRODUCTION BREWERY. A facility that manufactures, processes and warehouses beer for wholesale distribution in off-
sale packages to retail liquor establishments and may retail beer product for on-site consumption in a taproom for off-site
consumption as growlers. A production brewer may not have an ownership interest in a brewery licensed under Minnesota
Statutes.
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE - SERVICES. A commercial use involving administrative, clerical, or professional operations,
and routinely including direct transactions or consultations with clients for such services. Such uses commonly include legal,
financial, insurance, or real estate services, among others, but do not include retail sales of stock-in-trade goods.
PUBLIC BUILDING OR USE. Any facility, including but not limited to buildings and property that are leased or otherwise
operated or funded by a governmental body or public entity.
COMMUNITY CENTER. A “public building or use” that provides a variety of services and facilities for both public and
private activities, which may include the following: city offices; U.S. or State of Minnesota military offices; recreation facilities
and classes; public assembly uses; senior citizen community rooms and activities; event center gatherings; and support
facilities for any of the above. Individual public space and/or facilities within a COMMUNITY CENTER may be used, leased
or rented to other entities, including private individuals or groups as an incidental and accessory aspect of such space or
facility, at the discretion of the public agency owner/manger.
PUBLIC WAREHOUSING. The indoor storage of equipment and/or materials by a government agency which may, or may
not, be related to other principal uses on the same property.
PUBLIC WATERS. Any waters as defined in M.S. § 103G.005, subd. 15, 15a, as it may be amended from time to time.
RAIN GARDEN. A native plant garden that is designed not only to aesthetically improve properties, but also to reduce the
amount of stormwater and accompanying pollutants from entering streams, lakes, and rivers.
REACH (IN RELATION TO FLOODPLAINS). A hydraulic engineering term to describe a longitudinal segment of a stream
or river influenced by a natural or man-made obstruction. In an urban area, the segment of a stream or river between two
consecutive bridge crossings would most typically constitute a reach.
REAL ESTATE OFFICE/MOBILE SALES HOME. A dwelling temporarily used as a sales office for a residential
development under construction for on-site sales.
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE CAMP SITE. A lot or parcel of land occupied or intended for occupancy by recreational
vehicles for travel, recreational, or vacation usage for short periods of stay subject to the provisions of this chapter.
RECYCLING AND SALVAGE CENTER. A facility engaged solely in the storage, processing, resale, or reuse of recyclable
and recovered materials.
REGIONAL FLOOD. A flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and
reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100-year
recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in the flood insurance study.
REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION. The regulatory flood protection elevation shall be an elevation no
lower than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments
on the floodplain that result from designation of a floodway.
REPAIR ESTABLISHMENT. An establishment primarily engaged in the provision of repair services for TV's, bicycles,
clocks, watches, shoes, guns, canvas products, appliances, and office equipment; including tailor; locksmith; and
upholsterer.
RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY. As defined under M.S. Ch. 245G, as amended from time to time.
RESTAURANT. An establishment where meals or prepared food, including beverages and confections, are served to
customers for consumption on or off the premises. Such a facility may include indoor and outdoor seating and/or drive
through services.
RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES (OTHER). A commercial land use where the establishment is primarily engaged in the sale
or rental of goods and materials to the general public, accepts payment or orders for, and delivers to the end user a good or
service. Elements of the retail business include stock-in-trade held on the premises in the case of goods or provides a
service to the end user on the premises. Retail businesses may arrange for delivery of a good rather than deliver the good
concurrent with the transaction, or may accept payment or orders electronically in advance, for delivery of the good or
service in person at a later date. Retail commercial uses do not include those business engaged primarily in delivery of
goods for further treatment or finishing, or the sale of goods to businesses for subsequent resale, sale of goods from
moveable motorized vehicles, or medical clinics. Where the Zoning Ordinance establishes a separate class of use for a
specific business, such business shall be subject to the specific regulations applicable to such use.
RETAIL REGISTRATION. An approved registration issued by the city to a state-licensed cannabis retail business.
RETAIL SERVICE. A retail service establishment is a form of retail business that creates a product of value (either good
or service) on site and delivers said good or service to the end user on site. Examples of retail services include businesses
which fabricate and/or craft creative goods on site and both display and sell such goods to the end user at the retail location
such as artist studios, bicycle shops, photography studios or similar uses. Where the Zoning Ordinance establishes a
separate class of use for a specific business, such business shall be subject to the specific regulations applicable to such
use.
RIVER, AGRICULTURAL. Rivers that run through intensively cultivated areas, mainly in the southern and western area of
Minnesota.
RIVER, FORESTED. Rivers that are in forested, sparsely to moderately populated areas with some roads; typically found
in northeast, southwest and north-central Minnesota
RIVER, REMOTE. Rivers that are primarily in roadless, forested, sparsely populated areas in northeastern Minnesota.
RIVER, TRANSITION. Rivers that are in a mixture of cultivated, pasture and forest lands.
RIVER, TRIBUTARY. Rivers in the Protected Public Waters Inventory that are not classified by the DNR as an agricultural,
forested, remote or transition river.
ROOF. The exterior surface and its supporting structure on the top of a building or structure. The structural makeup of
which conforms to the roof structures, roof construction and roof covering sections of the International Building Code.
ROOT ZONE. The area inside the dripline of a tree that contains its roots.
SCHOOL. A public school as defined under M.S. § 120A.05, as amended from time to time, or a nonpublic school that
must meet the reporting requirements under M.S. § 120A.24, as amended from time to time.
SCHOOL, HIGHER EDUCATION. A public or private non-profit institution for post-secondary education or a public or
private school offering vocational or trade instruction to students. Such educational institutions operate in buildings or
structures on land leased or owned by the educational institution for administrative purposes. Such uses include
classrooms, vocational training (including that of an industrial nature for instructional purposes only), laboratories,
auditoriums, libraries, cafeterias, after school care, athletic facilities, dormitories, and other facilities that further the
educational mission of the institution.
SCHOOL, PRE-K-12. A public or private school offering general, technical, or alternative instruction at the elementary,
middle, or high school level that operates in buildings or structures on land leased or owned by the educational institution for
administrative purposes. Such uses include classrooms, vocational training (including that of an industrial nature for
instructional purposes only in middle or high schools), laboratories, auditoriums, libraries, cafeterias, after school care,
athletic facilities, dormitories, and other facilities that further the educational mission of the institution.
SCROLLING TEXT. A type of dynamic sign movement in which the letters or symbols move horizontally across the sign in
a continuous scroll, permitting a viewer to observe the message over time. Scrolling shall not include flashing or other types
of video movement.
SEDIMENT. The product of an erosion process; solid material both mineral and organic, that is in suspension, is being
transported, or has been moved by water, air or ice, and has come to rest on the earth's surface either above or below water
level.
SEDIMENT CONTROL. Measures and methods employed to prevent sediment from leaving the site.
SELF-STORAGE FACILITY. A building or group of buildings that contains equal or varying sizes of individual,
compartmentalized, and controlled access stalls or lockers for the storage of residential or commercial customer's goods or
wares.
SEMIPUBLIC USE. The use of land by a private, nonprofit organization to provide a public service that is ordinarily open
to some persons outside the regular constituency of the organization.
SENIOR HOUSING. A multiple-family structure, 80% of whose occupants shall be 65 years of age or over, or a multiple-
family structure where each unit is occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or over and is retired. The facility
may include common areas for the congregation of occupants for activities or meals. Senior housing shall typically consist of
multiple-household attached dwellings, but may include detached dwelling units as part of a wholly owned and managed
senior project.
SENSITIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. The preservation and management of areas unsuitable for development in
their natural state due to constraints such as shallow soils over groundwater or bedrock, highly erosive or expansive soils,
steep slopes, susceptibility to flooding, or occurrence of flora or fauna in need of special protection.
SETBACK. The horizontal distance between a structure and the lot lines of the lot on which it is located; or the minimum
horizontal distance between a structure, sewage treatment system or other facility and an ordinary high water level, sewage
treatment system, top of a bluff, road, highway, property line, or other facility.
SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM. a septic tank and soil absorption system or other individual or cluster type sewage
treatment system as described and regulated in Minn. Rules Chapter 7080.
SEWER SYSTEM. Pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, and force main, and all other construction, devices,
appliances, or appurtenances used for conducting sewage or industrial waste or other wastes to a point of ultimate disposal.
SHADE TREE. A tree planted or valued chiefly for its shade from sunlight; this term usually applies to large trees with
spreading canopies.
SHELTER, FALLOUT. An accessory building specifically designed and used for the protection of life from radioactive
fallout.
SHELTER, STORM. An accessory building specifically designed and used for the protection of life from weather events.
SHOPPING CENTER. An integrated grouping of commercial stores under single ownership or control. See also RETAIL
COMMERCIAL USES.
SHORE IMPACT ZONE. Land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a
setback of 50% of the required structure setback.
SHORELAND. Land located within the following distances from public water:
(1) One thousand feet from the ordinary high water mark of a lake, pond, or flowages.
(2) Three hundred feet from a river or stream, or the landward extent of a floodplain designated by ordinance on such
river or stream, whichever is greater. The limits of shorelands may be reduced whenever the waters involved are bounded
by topographic divides that extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and when approved by the Commissioner
of the Department of Natural Resources or the commissioner's designated representative.
(3) The area included in the recreational land use districts for the Mississippi River as defined in Minn. Rules Chapter
6105.0800-0950.
SHRUB. A woody plant, smaller than a tree, consisting of several small stems emerging from the ground, or small
branches near the ground. Shrubs may be deciduous or evergreen.
SIDEWALK SALES AND DISPLAY, OUTDOOR. Outdoor sale and display, conducted as an accessory, incidental activity
by the proprietor, of products normally sold inside a retail establishment, subject to the limitations identified in this chapter.
SIGN. Any letter, word or symbol, poster, picture, statuary, reading matter or representation in the nature of
advertisement, announcement, message or visual communication, whether painted, posted, printed, affixed or constructed,
including all associated brackets, braces, supports, wires and structures, which is displayed for informational or
communicative purposes.
SIGN FACE. The surface of the sign upon, against, or through which the message of the sign is exhibited.
SIGN STRUCTURE. Any structure including the supports, uprights, bracing and framework which supports or is capable of
supporting any sign.
SIGN, ABANDONED. Any sign and/or its supporting sign structure which remains without a message or whose display
surface remains blank for a period of one year or more, or any sign which pertains to a time, event or purpose which no
longer applies, shall be deemed to have been abandoned. Signs applicable to a business temporarily suspended because of
a change in ownership or management of such business shall not be deemed abandoned unless the property remains
vacant for a period of one year or more. Any sign remaining after demolition of a principal structure shall be deemed to be
abandoned. Where a sign has received a special permit or other city approval, such approval shall run with the principal use
of the property, and such a sign shall be considered to be abandoned under this definition when it meets the conditions
specified in this section, notwithstanding the prior special approval.
SIGN, AREA. A sign identifying a series of related parcels or uses, rather than a specific parcel or use.
SIGN, AREA IDENTIFICATION. A freestanding sign which identifies the name of a neighborhood, a residential
subdivision, a multiple residential complex consisting of three or more structures, a shopping center consisting of five or
more separate business concerns, an industrial area, an office complex consisting of three or more structures, or any
combination of the above located on contiguous property.
SIGN, AWNING. A building sign or graphic printed on or in some fashion attached directly to the awning material.
SIGN, BALLOON. A sign consisting of a bag made of lightweight material supported by helium, hot, or pressurized air
which is greater than 24 inches in diameter.
SIGN, BILLBOARD. See OFF-PREMISEs SIGN.
SIGN, BUILDING. Any sign attached or supported by any building.
SIGN, CANOPY. Any sign that is part of or attached to a canopy, made of fabric, plastic, or structural protective cover over
a door or entrance. A canopy sign is not a marquee and is different from service area canopy signs.
SIGN, CHANGEABLE COPY. A sign or portion thereof that has a reader board for the display of text information in which
each alphanumeric character, graphic or symbol is defined by objects not consisting of an illumination device and may be
changed or rearranged manually or mechanically with characters, illustrations, letters or numbers that can be changed or
rearranged without altering the face or surface of the sign structure.
SIGN, CHANGEABLE COPY (ELECTRONIC). A sign or portion thereof that displays electronic, non-pictorial text
information in which each alphanumeric character, graphic, or symbol is defined by a small number of matrix elements using
different combinations of light emitting diodes (LEDs), fiber optics, light bulbs or other illumination devices within the display
area. Electronic changeable copy signs include computer programmable, microprocessor controlled electronic displays.
Electronic changeable copy signs include projected images or messages with these characteristics onto buildings or
objects. Electronic changeable copy signs do not include official signs. Electronic changeable copy signs may also be
dynamic display signs if the definition of dynamic display sign is met.
SIGN, DYNAMIC DISPLAY. Any characteristics of a sign that appear to have movement or that appear to change, caused
by any method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, whether the apparent movement or
change is in the display, the sign structure or any other component of the sign. This includes displays that incorporate
technology or methods allowing the sign face to change the image without having to physically or mechanically replace the
sign face or its components as well as any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking or animated display and any display
that incorporates rotating panels, LED lights manipulated through digital input, digital ink or any other method or technology
that allows the sign face to present a series of images or displays. All dynamic displays are changeable copy signs, but not
all changeable copy signs are dynamic displays.
SIGN, ELECTRONIC GRAPHIC DISPLAY. A sign or portion thereof that displays electronic, static images, static graphics
or static pictures, with or without text information, defined by a small number of matrix elements using different combinations
of light emitting diodes (LEDs), fiber optics, light bulbs or other illumination devices within the display area where the
message change sequence is accomplished immediately or by means of fade, repixalization or dissolve modes. Electronic
graphic display signs include computer programmable, microprocessor controlled electronic or digital displays. Electronic
graphic display signs include projected images or messages with these characteristics onto buildings or other objects.
SIGN, FLASHING. A directly or indirectly illuminated sign or portion thereof that exhibits changing light or color effect by
any means, so as to provide intermittent illumination that changes light intensity in sudden transitory bursts and creates the
illusion of intermittent flashing light by streaming, graphic bursts showing movement, or any mode of lighting which
resembles zooming, twinkling or sparkling.
SIGN, FREESTANDING. Any sign which has supporting framework that is placed on, or anchored in, the ground and
which is independent from any building or other structure.
SIGN, HEIGHT OF. The height of the sign shall be computed as the vertical distance measured from the mean ground
level on which the sign is placed to the top of the highest attached component of the sign.
SIGN, IDENTIFICATION. Signs in all districts which identify the business or owner, or manager, or resident, and set forth
the address of the premises where the sign is located and which contain no other material.
SIGN, ILLUMINATED. Any sign which contains an element designed to emanate artificial light internally or externally.
SIGN, MARQUEE. Any building sign painted, mounted, constructed or attached in any manner, on a marquee.
SIGN, MONUMENT. Any freestanding sign with its sign face mounted on the ground or mounted on a base at least as
wide as the sign and which has a total height not exceeding 14 feet.
SIGN, MULTI-VISION. Any sign composed in whole or part of a series of vertical or horizontal slats or cylinders that are
capable of being rotated at intervals so that partial rotation of the group of slats or cylinders produces a different image and
when properly functioning allows on a single sign structure the display at any given time one of two or more images.
SIGN, OFF-PREMISES. A commercial speech sign which directs the attention of the public to a business, activity
conducted, or product sold or offered at a location not on the same lot where such sign is located. For purposes of the Sign
Ordinance, easements and other appurtenances shall be considered to be outside such lot and any sign located or
proposed to be located in an easement or other appurtenance shall be considered an off-premises sign.
SIGN, OFFICIAL. Signs of a public noncommercial nature including public notification signs, safety signs, traffic signs,
direction to public facilities when erected by or on behalf of a public official or employee in the performance of official duty -
See also "Public Sign".
SIGN, POLE. See PYLON SIGN.
SIGN, PORTABLE. Any sign which is manifestly designed to be transported, including by trailer or on its own wheels,
even though the wheels of such sign may be removed and the remaining chassis or support is converted to another sign or
attached temporarily or permanently to the ground since this characteristic is based on the design of such a sign.
SIGN, PROJECTING. Any sign which is affixed to a building or wall in such a manner that its leading edge extends more
than two feet beyond the surface of such building or wall face.
SIGN, PUBLIC. Any sign posted by a governmental agency of a public, noncommercial nature, to include signs indicating
scenic or historical points of interest, memorial plaques, and the like, and signs for civic interest groups within the City of
Monticello when signs are erected by or on order of a public officer or employee in the performance of official duty - see also
OFFICIAL SIGN.
SIGN, PYLON. Any freestanding sign which has its supportive structure(s) anchored in the ground and which has a sign
face elevated above ground level by pole(s) or beam(s) and with the area below the sign face open.
SIGN, ROOF. Any sign erected and constructed wholly on and above the roof of a building, supported by the roof
structure, and extending vertically above the highest portion of the roof.
SIGN, ROOF SIGN, INTEGRAL. Any building sign erected or constructed as an integral or essentially integral part of a
normal roof structure of any design, so that no part of the sign extends vertically above the highest portion of the roof and so
that no part of the sign is separated from the rest of the roof by a space of more than six inches.
SIGN, ROTATING SIGN. A sign or portion of a sign which turns about on an axis.
SIGN, SANDWICH BOARD. A sign placed near the entrance of a business, usually on the public or private sidewalk,
advertising particular aspects of the business goods or services.
SIGN, SHIMMERING. A sign which reflects an oscillating sometimes distorted visual image.
SIGN, SUSPENDED. Any building sign that is suspended from the underside of a horizontal plane surface and is
connected to such surface.
SIGN, TEMPORARY. Any sign which is erected or displayed for a specified period of time, including, but not limited to,
banners, search lights, portable signs, streamers, pennants, inflatable devices.
SIGN, TIME AND TEMPERATURE. A sign that displays only current time and temperature information.
SIGN, VIDEO DISPLAY. A sign that changes its message or background in a manner or method of display characterized
by motion or pictorial imagery, which may or may not include text and depicts action or a special effect to imitate movement,
the presentation of pictorials or graphics displayed in a progression of frames that gives the illusion of motion, including, but
not limited to, the illusion of moving objects, moving patterns or bands of light, or expanding or contracting shapes, not
including electronic changeable copy signs. Video display signs include projected images or messages with these
characteristics onto buildings or other objects.
SIGN, WALL. Any building sign attached parallel to, but within two feet of a wall, painted on the wall surface of, or erected
and confined within the limits of an outside wall of any building or structure, which is supported by such wall or building, and
which displays only one sign surface.
SIGN, WINDOW. Any building sign, picture, symbol, or combination thereof, designed to communicate information about
an activity, business, commodity, event, sale, or service, that is placed inside a window or upon the windowpanes or glass
and is visible from the exterior of the window.
SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC SITE. Any archaeological site, standing structure, or other property that meets the criteria for
eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places or is listed in the State Register of Historic Sites, or is determined to be
an unplatted cemetery that falls under the provisions of M.S. § 307.08, as it may be amended from time to time. A historic
site meets these criteria if it is presently listed on either register or if it is determined to meet the qualifications for listing after
review by the Minnesota state archaeologist or the director of the Minnesota Historical Society. All unplatted cemeteries are
automatically considered to be significant historic sites.
SITE LANDSCAPING. Required vegetative material consisting of trees and shrubs that are placed on a development site
to soften built edges and provide transitions (see § 153.060(H)).
SLOPE. Means the degree of deviation of surface from the horizontal, usually expressed in percent or degrees.
SOLAR ENERGY. Radiant energy (direct, diffuse, and reflected) received from the sun.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM. A set of devices whose primary purpose is to collect solar energy and convert and store it for
useful purposes including heating and cooling buildings or other energy-using processes, or to produce generated power by
means of any combination of collecting, transferring, or converting solar-generated energy. Solar energy systems are
allowed only as accessory structures in any zoning district other than Planned Unit Development Districts, subject to the
requirements of § 153.092.
SPECIAL EVENT. An event which plans for or can reasonably expect to attract more than 100 persons at any one time
such as cultural events, musical events, celebrations, festivals, fairs, carnivals, etc.
SPECIALTY EATING ESTABLISHMENTS. Establishments selling specialty food items that normally do not constitute a
full meal, including but not limited to: ice cream parlors, dessert cafes, snack shops, juice and coffee houses, and bakeries.
SPEECH, COMMERCIAL. Speech advertising a business, profession, commodity, service or entertainment.
SPEECH, NON-COMMERCIAL. Dissemination of messages not classified as commercial speech which include, but are
not limited to, messages concerning political, religious, social, ideological, public service and informational topics.
STABLE. A building in which horses are sheltered; may be accessory to a residential or other use or a freestanding
principal use.
STABILIZATION/STABILIZED. The exposed ground surface has been covered by appropriate materials such as mulch,
staked sod, riprap, wood fiber blanket, or other material that prevents erosion from occurring. Grass seeding is not
stabilization.
STABLIZED. The exposed ground surface after it has been covered by appropriate materials such as mulch, staked sod,
riprap, wood fiber blankets, or other material that prevents erosion from occurring. Grass seeding is not considered
stabilized until it has established and meets the definition of final stabilization.
START OF CONSTRUCTION. The first land-disturbing activity associated with a development, including land preparation
such as clearing, grading, excavation and filling;
STATE LICENSE. An approved license issued by the State of Minnesota's Office of Cannabis Management to a cannabis
retail business.
STEEP SLOPE. Land where agricultural activity or development is either not recommended or described as poorly suited
due to slope steepness and the site's soil characteristics, as mapped and described in available county soil surveys or other
technical reports, unless appropriate design and construction techniques and farming practices are used in accordance with
the provisions of this chapter. Where specific information is not available, steep slopes are lands having average slopes
over 12%, as measured over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more, which are not bluffs.
STORMWATER. Defined and shall have the meaning given to it by Minn. Rules 7077.0105, subp. 41(b).
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP). A plan for stormwater discharge that includes erosion
prevention measures and sediment controls that, when implemented, will minimize soil erosion on a parcel of land and
minimize off-site nonpoint pollution to the maximum extent practicable.
STORY. See § 153.010(B)(5).
STREET FRONTAGE. See § 153.010(B)(1)(f).
STRUCTURE. Anything constructed, installed, or portable, the use of which requires a location on a parcel of land. This
includes a fixed or movable building which can be used for residential, business, commercial, or office purposes, either
temporarily or permanently. STRUCTURE also includes, but is not limited to, swimming pools, tennis courts, signs, sheds,
docks, and similar accessory construction.
STRUCTURE, PUBLIC. A building or edifice of any kind which is owned or rented, and operated by a federal, state, or
local government agency.
SUBDIVISION. Any real estate, wherever located, improved or unimproved, which is divided or proposed to be divided for
the purpose of sale or lease, including sales or leases of any timeshare interest, unit in a common interest community, or
similar interest in real estate.
SURFACE WATER OR WATERS. All streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, wetlands, reservoirs, springs, rivers, drainage
systems, waterways, watercourses, wells, reservoirs, aquifers, irrigation systems and all other bodies or accumulations of
water, surface or underground, natural or artificial, public or private.
SURFACE WATER-ORIENTED COMMERCIAL USE. The use of land for commercial purposes, where access to and use
of a surface water feature is an integral part of the normal conductance of business. Marinas, resorts, and restaurants with
transient docking facilities are examples of such use.
SWIMMING POOL. A structure, whether above or below grade level, designed to hold water more than 24 inches deep to
be used for recreational purposes
TAPROOM. A room that is ancillary to the production of beer at a production brewery where the public can purchase and
/or consume only the beer produced on site.
TARP GARAGE. A portable or permanently anchored structure defined mainly by a steel or PVC frame over which a
cover made from plastic, tarp, or other similar type fabrics or materials is placed.
TATTOO, TATTOOING. Any method of placing designs, letters, scrolls, figures, symbols or any other mark upon, under or
in the skin with ink or any other substance resulting in the coloration of the skin by the aid of needles or any other
instruments which puncture any portion of the skin to any degree.
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER. Any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting
one or more antennas.
TEMPORARY EROSION PROTECTION. Short term methods employed to prevent erosion. Examples of these methods
include: straw, wood fiber blanket, wood chips and erosion netting.
TEMPORARY MOBILE CELL SITE. Any mobile tower, pole, or structure located on a trailer, vehicle, or temporary
platform intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna or similar apparatus for personal wireless services, also
commonly referred to as cellular on wheels (COW).
TOE OF BLUFF. The lower point of a 50-foot segment with an average slope exceeding 18%.
TOP OF BLUFF. The higher point of a 50-foot segment with an average slope exceeding 18%.
TOTAL SITE SIGNAGE. The maximum permitted combined area of all signs allowed on a specific lot.
TOWNHOUSES. A single-family dwelling unit constructed in a group of two or more attached units in which each unit
extends from the foundation to the roof and having open space on at least two sides of each unit. Each single-family
dwelling unit shall be considered to be a separate building. No single structure shall contain in excess of eight dwelling units,
and each dwelling unit shall have separate and individual front and rear entrance.
TRASH HANDLING AND RECYCLING COLLECTION AREA. Areas designated for the accumulation, storage and pick-
up of refuse and recyclable material associated with multi-family home sites, civic and institutional uses, office uses,
commercial uses, and industrial uses. This definition does not include trash and recycling containers associated with single-
family dwellings, or townhome units which do not utilize a communal location for trash and recycling.
TREE, CANOPY. A tree that has an expected height at maturity of 30 feet or more.
TREE, ORNAMENTAL. A small tree that has high visual impact typically grown for the beauty of its foliage and flowers
rather than its functional reasons.
TREE, SPECIMEN. Any canopy tree with a DBH of 36 inches or more and any understory or ornamental tree with a DBH
of ten inches or more that is not exempted as a specimen tree by this chapter.
TREE, UNDERSTORY. A tree that has an expected height at maturity of no greater than 30 feet.
TREE SAVE AREA. The area around a specimen tree that extends one linear foot around the tree's dripline.
TRASH HANDLING AND RECYCLING COLLECTION AREA. Areas containing large dumpsters or compactors used to
temporarily store trash and recycling materials prior to a regularly scheduled pick up. Such facilities are typically associated
with multi-family buildings of more than four units, commercial operations and industrial sites.
TRUCK OR FREIGHT TERMINAL. A use where buses, trucks, and cargo are stored, where loading and unloading is
carried on regularly, and where minor maintenance of these types of vehicles is performed. This use includes warehousing
and distribution which entails transfer of goods and materials from trucks to a building, where the primary use is the storage
of trucks and distribution and vice versa, and may or may not involve repackaging of such goods for transfer. Such use may
also entail transfer of full trailers from one truck to another.
TURF-GRASS LAWN COVER. A lawn compromised mostly of grasses commonly used in regularly cut lawns or play
areas, including but not limited to bluegrass, fescue, and ryegrass blends, intended to be maintained at a height of no more
than eight inches.
UNDERSTORY TREE. A tree that has an expected height at maturity of no greater than 30 feet.
UPLAND. Means all lands at an elevation above the ordinary high water mark.
USE. The purpose or activity for which the land or building thereon is designated, arranged, or intended, or for which it is
occupied, utilized, or maintained, and shall include the performance of such activity as defined by the performance
standards of this chapter.
UTILITIES - MAJOR. Major utilities shall include the following:
(1) Public infrastructure services providing regional or community-wide service that have regular employees on site
during common working hours, and entail the construction of new buildings or structures such as waste treatment plants,
potable water treatment plants, and solid waste facilities.
(2) Commercial wind energy conversion systems (public or private).
(3) Electrical substations.
VARIANCE. The waving by board action of the literal provisions of the zoning ordinance in instances where their strict
enforcement would cause undue hardship because of physical circumstances unique to the individual property under
consideration.
VEGETATION. Means the sum total of plant life in some area, or a plant community with distinguishable characteristics.
VEGETATION, NATIVE. Any indigenous tree, shrub, ground cover or other plant adapted to the soil, climatic, and
hydrographic conditions occurring on the site.
VEHICLE, EMERGENCY. For the purpose of evaluating vehicles which may be parked in residential areas, the term
emergency vehicle shall include ambulances, police and sheriff's department vehicles, fire protection vehicles, emergency
towing vehicles, and other law enforcement vehicles.
VEHICLE, PASSENGER. A vehicle capable of moving under its own power which is licensed and operable for use on
public roadways, and shall include the following vehicles: Passenger automobiles, pick-up trucks and sport-utility vehicles of
less than 9,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, pick-up trucks and sport-utility vehicles of between 9,000 pounds and 13,000
pounds with no visible commercial messages, commuter vans of a capacity up to 16 persons, and motorcycles.
VEHICLE, RECREATIONAL.
(1) A vehicle that is used primarily for recreational or vacation purposes, and which is licensed and operable for use on
public roadways, whether self-propelled, carried on, or towed behind a self-propelled vehicle.
(2) Operable recreational equipment that is not licensed for used on the public roadway, but used off-road, such as all-
terrain vehicles, boats, off-road motorcycles, race vehicles, snowmobiles, or similar equipment. Such equipment shall be
properly licensed if the State of Minnesota provides for such licensing.
(3) Licensed, operable trailers which may be used to tow recreational equipment, whether such trailers are loaded or
unloaded, including utility trailers. Where a trailer is loaded with recreational equipment, such trailer and equipment shall be
considered to be one piece of equipment for the purposes of this section.
VEHICLE, LARGE COMMERCIAL. A vehicle used for commercial purposes which is a semi-tractor and/or semi-trailer,
dump truck, or any other commercial vehicle that does not qualify under the definition of a "small commercial vehicle".
VEHICLE, SMALL COMMERCIAL. A vehicle used primarily for commercial purposes, including pick-up trucks and sport-
utility vehicles larger than 9,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, but less than 13,000 pounds gross vehicle weight which
display a commercial business message, and all other commercial vans or trucks, regardless of commercial message which
are no greater than any of the following dimensions: 22 feet in length, eight feet in height, and eight and one-half feet in
width.
VEHICLE FUEL SALES.
(1) Buildings and premises where dispensing, sale, or offering for sale at retail (or in connection with a private
operation where the general public is excluded from use of facilities) of motor fuels, including gasoline, diesel, natural gas,
or other petroleum fuels and oils, electric charging stations of more than two such stations, hydrogen, or any other fuel
intended to power motor vehicles of any sort, and where in addition, the following services may be rendered and sales
made, and other similar related uses:
(a) "Automotive repair - minor" as defined by this chapter;
(b) Retail sales of packaged foods, prepared foods and other convenience goods for station customers, as accessory
and incidental to principal operation; and
(c) Provision of restroom facilities, but not including showers.
(2) Uses permissible at a vehicle fuel sales establishment do not include "automobile repair - major" as defined by this
chapter, major mechanical and body work, straightening of body parts, painting, welding, storage of automobiles not in
operating condition, or other work involving noise, glare, fumes, smoke or other characteristics to an extent greater than
normally found in filling stations. Vehicle fuel sales establishments are intended for the servicing and delivery of goods to
passenger vehicles and small commercial vehicles. Facilities for sales to large trucks may be included, but shall not include
activities that would constitute uses most commonly found at a truck stop, such as showers, truck washes, truck parking or
truck storage for more than temporary periods necessary to purchase and pay for retail goods.
VEHICLE SALES OR RENTAL. Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of new and used-in operating
condition-automobiles, noncommercial trucks, motor homes, recreational vehicles or farm machinery; including incidental
storage, maintenance, and servicing.
VEHICULAR USE AREA LANDSCAPING, INTERIOR. Vegetative material, structures (walls or fences), berms, and
associated ground cover located within the interior of a parking lot, or other vehicular use area for the purposes of providing
visual relief and heat abatement (see § 153.060(F)).
VEHICULAR USE AREA LANDSCAPING, PERIMETER. Vegetative material, structures (walls or fences), berms, and
associated ground cover located around the perimeter of a parking lot, or other vehicular use area when such areas are
adjacent to a street right-of-way or land in a residential district or residentially developed lands, used property for the
purposes of screening the vehicular use area from off-site views (see § 153.0604.1(F)).
VETERINARY FACILITIES - NEIGHBORHOOD. An establishment for licensed practitioners engaged in practicing
veterinary medicine, dentistry, or surgery for small household pets only.
VETERINARY FACILITIES - RURAL. An establishment for licensed practitioners engaged in practicing veterinary
medicine, dentistry, or surgery for all animals.
VISIBLE. Capable of being seen by a person of normal visual acuity (whether legible or not) without visual aid.
WALL. Any structure which defines the exterior boundaries or courts of a building or structure and which has a slope of 60
degrees or greater with the horizontal plane.
WASTE DISPOSAL AND INCINERATION. A use which focuses on the disposal by abandonment, dumping, burial,
burning, or other means and for whatever purpose, of garbage, sewage, trash, refuse, junk, discarded machinery, vehicles
or parts thereof, or nontoxic waste material of any kind.
WATER BODY. Means a body of water (lake, pond) in a depression of land or expanded part of a river, or an enclosed
basin that holds water and surrounded by land.
WATER-ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OR FACILITY. A small, above ground building or other improvement,
except stairways, fences, docks, and retaining walls, which, because of the relationship of its use to a surface water feature,
reasonably needs to be located closer to public waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of such structures and
facilities include boathouses, gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump houses, and detached decks.
WATERCOURSE. Means a channel or depression through which water flows such as rivers, streams, or creeks and may
flow year-round or intermittently.
WATERSHED. The area drained by the natural and artificial drainage system bounded peripherally by a bridge or stretch
of high land dividing drainage areas.
WATERWAY. A channel that directs surface runoff to a watercourse or to the public storm drain.
WAYSIDE STAND. A temporary structure or vehicle used for the seasonal retail sale of agricultural goods produced by
the operator of the wayside stand; the stand being clearly a secondary use of the premises which does not change the
character thereof.
WETLANDS.
(1) Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or
the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this chapter, wetlands must:
(a) Have a predominance of hydric soils;
(b) Be inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a
prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions; and
(c) Under normal circumstances, support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation.
(2) "A wetland" or "the wetland" means a distinct hydrologic feature with characteristics of item A, surrounded by non-
wetland and including all contiguous wetland types, except those connected solely by riverine wetlands. "Wetland area"
means a portion of a wetland or the wetland.
(3) Wetlands do include public waters wetlands unless reclassified as shoreland by the commissioner under M.S. §
103G.201, as it may be amended from time to time.
(4) The wetland size is the area within its boundary. The boundary must be determined according to the United States
Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (January 1987). The wetland type must be determined according to
Wetlands of the United States, (1971 edition). Both documents are incorporated by reference under part 8420.0112, items A
and B. The local government unit may seek the advice of the technical evaluation panel as to the wetland size and type.
WETLANDS, EXCEPTIONAL QUALITY. Exceptional quality wetlands contain an abundance of different plant species
with dominance evenly spread among several species. Such wetlands may support some rare or unusual plant species.
Invasive or exotic plant species are either absent or limited to small areas where some disturbance has occurred. This
higher level of plant species variety generally provides high wildlife habitat value and may also support rare wildlife species.
The shorelines of exceptional quality wetlands are natural and unaffected by erosion. These wetlands exhibit no evidence of
significant man induced water level fluctuation. Exceptional quality wetlands provide excellent water quality protection, high
aesthetic quality, and provide excellent opportunities for educational and scientific activities within the community.
WETLANDS, HIGH QUALITY. High quality wetlands are still generally in their natural state and tend to show less
evidence of adverse effects of surrounding land uses. Exotic and invasive plant species may be present and species
dominance may not be evenly distributed among several species, however, a minimum of 20 different species can be found
within the basin. There tends to be little evidence of water level fluctuation due to storms and their shorelines are stable with
little evidence of erosion. The combination of these factors result in these wetlands being judged as providing a greater level
of water quality protection and significantly better wildlife habitat. They show little if any evidence of human influences and
their greater levels of species variety, wildlife habitat and ecological stability results in higher aesthetic quality. These
characteristics also offer opportunities for educational or scientific value to the community.
WETLANDS, LOW QUALITY. Wetlands included in this category have been substantially altered by agricultural or urban
development that caused over nutrification, soil erosion, sedimentation and water quality degradation. As a result of these
factors, these wetlands exhibit low levels of plant species and a related reduction in the quality of wildlife habitat. These
wetlands may also tend to exhibit extreme water level fluctuations in response to storms and show evidence of shoreline
erosion. While these wetlands do provide for water quality and serve an important role in protecting water quality
downstream, the combination of these characteristics cause these wetlands to provide low levels of water quality protection
and to have poor aesthetic quality. They often exhibit evidence of significant human influences and they are deemed to be of
little educational or scientific value to the community.
WETLANDS, MEDIUM QUALITY. Medium quality wetlands have a slightly higher number of plant species present than
low quality wetlands, often with small pockets of indigenous species within larger areas dominated by invasive or exotic
species. Their relatively greater species variety results in slightly better wildlife habitat. They exhibit evidence of relatively
less fluctuation in water level in response to storms and less evidence of shoreline erosion. As a result of these
characteristics, these wetlands provide somewhat better water quality protection. They also exhibit relatively less evidence
of human influences and therefore, tend to be of a higher aesthetic quality. These wetlands are still judged to be of limited
educational or scientific value to the community.
WETLAND BUFFER. An area of non-disturbed ground cover abutting a wetland left undisturbed to filter sediment,
materials, and chemicals.
WHOLESALE SALES. Establishments or places of business primarily engaged in selling merchandise to retailers; to
industrial, commercial, institutional, or professional business users; or to other wholesalers. Wholesale establishment does
not include contractor's materials or office or retail sales of business supplies/office equipment.
WHOLESALER. Any person engaged in the business of selling alcoholic beverages to retail dealers.
WILDLIFE. All free living animals.
WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM (WECS). A wind-driven machine that converts wind energy into electrical power
for the primary purpose of resale or off-site use.
WINE. The product made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of grapes, including still wine, sparkling and carbonated
wine, wine made from condensed grape must, wine made from other agricultural products than sound, ripe grapes, imitation
wine, compounds sold as wine, vermouth, cider, sherry and sake, in each instance containing not less than one half of 1%
nor more than 24% alcohol by volume for nonindustrial use.
WRECKER AND TOWING SERVICE. An establishment operated for the purpose of temporary storage onsite of no more
than nine wrecked or inoperable vehicles for a period no longer than 90 days. If an establishment has ten or more
inoperable vehicles located on-site, stores inoperable vehicles for more than 90 days, stacks vehicles top to bottom, or
portions of the vehicles are dismantled or removed for sale, it shall be considered a junkyard.
YARD. See § 153.010(B)(3)(a). YARD related definitions (e.g. front yard, corner yard, side yard, etc) see section §
153.010(B)(3)(a)7.
(Ord. 780, passed 7-25-2022; Ord. 791, passed 11-14-2022; Ord. 797, passed 2-13-2023; Ord. 799, passed 2-27-2023;
Ord. 802, passed - -; Ord. 804, passed 8-14-2023; Ord. 811, passed 10-9-2023; Ord. 812, passed 10-9-2023; Ord. 830,
passed 7-22-2024; Ord. 835, passed 11-25-2024)
§ 153.043 RESIDENTIAL BASE ZONING DISTRICTS.
(A) General purpose. The residential base zoning districts established in this section are intended to provide a variety of
housing options in a comfortable, healthy, safe, and pleasant environment in which to live and recreate at a neighborhood
level. More specifically, they are intended to:
(1) Promote strong residential neighborhoods with a sense of connection to the community;
(2) Foster citizen involvement in the community, interaction between neighbors and neighborhood oriented support
systems;
(3) Provide a range of housing choices and affordability through varying housing densities, types and designs including
accessory dwelling units;
(4) Seek quality over quantity in new residential growth;
(5) Maintain a connection to the natural environment by incorporation of natural characteristics into the development
setting.
(B) Standards applicable to all residential base zoning districts.
(1) Zero side lot line development. Residential unit lots containing duplexes or townhouses may be subdivided along
the common wall in a “zero lot line” arrangement, provided:
(a) The combined area of the base lot and individual unit lots contains the required amount of lot area per unit as
prescribed elsewhere in this chapter;
(b) Unit lots shall meet all required setbacks from the boundaries of the base lot;
(c) Any shared wall facing on a zero side lot line is a structural wall capable of providing protection from fire, noise and
visual encroachment.
(2) Condominiums. Residential lots of non-single-family structures may be divided for the purpose of condominium
ownership provided that:
(a) The principal structure containing the housing units shall meet the setback distances of the applicable zoning
district.
(b) Each condominium unit shall have the minimum lot area for the type of housing unit and usable open space as
specified in the area and building size regulations of this chapter.
(c) Condominiums shall be designed to meet the International Building Code as adopted in the Monticello City Code.
(C) Agricultural Open Space District (A-O). The purpose of the "A-O" Agricultural-Open Space District is to provide
suitable areas of the city for the retention and utilization of open space and/or agricultural uses, prevent scattered non-farm
uses from developing improperly, and to secure economy in government expenditures for public utilities and service.
(1) Lot area minimum: two acres.
(2) Lot width minimum: 200 feet.
Typical A-O Lot Configuration
TABLE 3-3: A-O DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Required Yards (in feet)
Max Height
(stories/ft.)
Minimum
Floor Area
(sq. ft.)
Minimum
Building
Width (ft.)
Minimum Roof
Pitch & Soffit
(vertical
rise/horizontal
run)
Front
Interior
Side
Street
Side
Rear
Principal
Structures 50 30 30 50 NA 1000 20 NA
Accessory
Structures [1]6 30 6 15 NA NA NA
[1]: Accessory structures shall not be located beyond the front building line established by the
principal structure.
(D) Residential Amenities District (R-A). The purpose of the "R-A" Residential Amenities District is to provide move up
housing in the form of low density, single-family, detached residential dwelling units and directly related compleme ntary
uses in areas of high natural residential amenities including such conditions as woodlands, wetlands, and significant views.
(1) Base lot area.
(a) Minimum: 14,000 sq. ft.
(b) Average: 16,000 sq. ft. (at least 40% of lots created through subdivision shall exceed 15,000 sq. ft. in size).
(2) Base lot width.
(a) Minimum: 90 ft.
(b) Average: 100 ft. (at least 40% of lots created through subdivision shall exceed 100 ft. in width).
Typical R-A Lot Configuration
TABLE 3-4: R-A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Required Yards (in feet)
Max Height
(stories/f t.)
Minimum Floor
Area (sq. ft.)
Minimum
Building
Width (ft.)
Minimum Roof
Pitch & Soffit
(vertical
rise/horizon tal
run)
Front Interior
Side
Street
Side Rear
Single- Family Building 35
10
[1]
20
30
[2]
2.5 stories
35 feet
Minimum
foundation sizes by
home type [3]
2000
finishable [4]
24
6 in./12 in.
no minimum soffit
[5]
[1]: For interior lots in R-1 and R-A districts, attached accessory uses shall be setback no less than 6 feet from the side yard property line, provided
that the sum of both side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet.
[2]: The required rear yard shall consist of a space at least 30-feet in depth across the entire width of the lot that is exclusive of wetlands, ponds, or
slopes greater than 12%.
[3]: 2,400 square foot gross floor area excluding a basement or cellar for two story homes and a 1,600 square foot foundation for multi-level, rambler
and split entry homes.
[4]: Finishable square footage is exclusive of required attached garage floor area.
[5]: Roof gables, shed roofs, dormers and porch roofs to allow for a lower pitch to incorporate as an architectural feature, provided no such exempted
roof areas shall comprise any more than 20% of the total horizontal roof area of a single-family structure as measured from a bird's-eye plan view.
Accessory Structures and
Uses
- An attached garage shall be included with all principal residential structures in the R-A district.
- See § 153.092(B) for all general standards and limitations on accessory structures.
- The minimum floor area for the required attached garage shall be 700 sq. ft.
- No portion of any garage space may be more than five feet closer to the street than the front building line of the
principal use (including porch).
- See footnote [1] above as related to setbacks for attached accessory uses on interior lots.
Other Regulations to
Consult (not all inclusive)
- § 153.042, Common District Requirements
- § 153.043(B), Standards Applicable to All Residential Base Zoning Districts
- § 153.070, Building Materials
- § 153.067, Off-Street Parking
- § 153.060, Landscaping and Screening Standards
(E) Single- Family Residential District (R- 1). The purpose of the "R- 1" Single-Family Residential District is to provide for
low density, single-family, detached residential dwelling units and directly related complementary uses.
(1) Base lot area.
(a) Minimum: 10,000 sq. ft.
(b) Average: 12,000 sq. ft. (at least 40% of lots created through subdivision shall exceed 12,000 sq. ft. in size).
(2) Base lot width.
(a) Minimum: 70 ft.
(b) Average: 80 ft. (at least 40% of lots created through subdivision shall exceed 80 ft. in width).
Typical R-1 Lot Configuration
TABLE 3-5: R-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Required Yards (in feet)
Max Height
(stories/ft.)
Minimum
Floor Area (sq.
ft.)
Minimu m
Building Width
(ft.)
Minimum Roof
Pitch & Soffit
(vertical
rise/horizon
tal run)
Front Interior
Side
Street
Side Rear
Single- Family Building 30 10 [1]
and [2]20 30
2.5 stories
35 feet
1,050
foundation/
2,000 finishable
[4]
24
5 in./12 in.
no minimum
soffit [5]
[1]: For interior lots in R-1 and R-A districts, attached accessory uses shall be setback no less than 6 feet from the side
yard property line, provided that the sum of both side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet.
[2]: Interior side yard setbacks for single-family homes on lots of record with a lot width 66 feet or less in the Original Plat
of Monticello and Lower Monticello shall be at least six feet.
[3]: The required rear yard shall consist of a space at least 30-feet in depth across the entire width of the lot that is
exclusive of wetlands, ponds, or slopes greater than 12%.
[4]: Finishable square footage is exclusive of required attached garage floor area.
[5]: Roof gables, shed roofs, dormers and porch roofs to allow for a lower pitch to incorporate as an architectural feature,
provided no such exempted roof areas shall comprise any more than 20% of the total horizontal roof area of a single-
family structure as measured from a bird's-eye plan view.
Accessory Structures
and Uses
- An attached garage shall be included with all principal residential structures in the R-1 district.
- See § 153.092(B) for all general standards and limitations on accessory structures.
- The minimum floor area for the required attached garage shall be 550 sq. ft.
- See footnote [1] above as related to setbacks for attached accessory uses on interior lots.
Other Regulations to
Consult (not all inclusive)
- § 153.042, Common District Requirements
- § 153.043(B), Standards Applicable to All Residential Base Zoning Districts
- § 153.070, Building Materials
- § 153.067, Off-Street Parking
- § 153.060, Landscaping and Screening Standards
(F) Single and Two- Family Residential District (R-2). The purpose of the "R-2" Single and Two-Family Residential
District is to provide for low to moderate density one and two unit dwellings and directly related complementary uses.
(1) Base density.
Unit Type Minimum Lot Area/Unit
Single-family 10,000 sq. ft.
Duplex/two-family 7,000 sq. ft.
Townhome*7,000 sq. ft.
Multi-family (3-4 units)*5,500 sq. ft.
*By conditional use permit only. See also multi-family dwelling unit standards.
(3) Minimum lot width.
R-2 District Original Plat
Lot Width 80 ft.66 ft.
Typical R-2 Lot Configuration
TABLE 3-6: R-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Required Yards (in feet)
Max Height Minimum
Floor Area
Minimum
Finished Floor Minimum
Building Width
Minimum Pitch
& Soffit
Front Interior
Side
Street
Side Rear
(stories / ft.)(sq. ft.)Area (sq. ft.)
[3]
(ft.)(vertical rise/
horizontal run)
TABLE 3-6: R-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Required Yards (in feet)
Max Height
(stories / ft.)
Minimum
Floor Area
(sq. ft.)
Minimum
Finished Floor
Area (sq. ft.)
[3]
Minimum
Building Width
(ft.)
Minimum Pitch
& Soffit
(vertical rise/
horizontal run)Front Interior
Side
Street
Side Rear
Single- Family 30 10 [1]
and [2]20 30
2.5 stories
35 feet
1,050
foundatio n/
1,800
finishable [3]Minimum
finished square
footage must
be equivalen t
to the principal
use unit
foundatio n size
24
5 in./12 in.
no minimum
soffit [4]
Duplex 30 10 [2]20 30
2.5 stories
35 feet 1,050
foundatio n
1,400
finishable
24
Townhouse
Multi- family
Building
30 10 20 30
2.5 stories
35 feet
24
[1]: For the Original Plat of Monticello and Lower Monticello, where adjacent structures (excluding accessory buildings within same
block) have front yard setbacks different from those required, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the adjacent
structures. If there is only one adjacent structure, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the required setback and
the setback of the adjacent structure.
[2]: Interior side yard setbacks for single-family homes on lots of record with a lot width 66 feet or less in the Original Plat of
Monticello and Lower Monticello shall be at least six feet.
[3]: Finishable and finished square footage is exclusive of required attached garage floor area
[4]: Roof gables, shed roofs, dormers and porch roofs to allow for a lower pitch to incorporate as an architectural feature, provided
no such exempted roof areas shall comprise any more than 20% of the total horizontal roof area of a structure as measured from a
bird’s eye plan view.
Accessory
Structure s and
Uses
- An attached garage shall be included with all principal residential structures in the R-1 district.
- See § 153.092(B) for all general standards and limitations on accessory structures.
-The minimum floor area for all required attached garages shall be 450 sq. ft.
- No portion of any attached garage may be more than 10 feet closer to the street that the principal structure.
- Except for single-family buildings, any driveway leading directly to an attached garage may not exceed 18"in width at the front yard
property line.
Other
Regulations to
Consult (not all
inclusive)
- § 153.042, Common District Requirements
- § 153.043(B), Standards Applicable to All Residential Base Zoning Districts
- § 153.070, Building Materials
- § 153.067, Off-Street Parking
- § 153.060, Landscaping and Screening Standards
(G) Traditional Neighborhood Residential District (T- N). The purpose of the "T-N" Traditional Neighborhood Residential
District is to provide for medium density, single-family, detached residential dwelling units and directly related
complementary uses.
(1) Minimum lot area: 5,500 sq. ft.
(2) Minimum lot width: 55 ft.
(3) Minimum lot depth: 100 ft.
Typical T-N Lot Configuration
TABLE 3-7: T-N DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Required Yards (in feet)
Max Height
(stories/f t.)
Minimum Floor
Area (sq. ft.)
Minimu m
Building Width
(ft.)
Minimum Pitch &
Soffit (vertical
rise/horizon tal
run)
Front
[1]
Interior
Side
Street
Side Rear
TABLE 3-7: T-N DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Required Yards (in feet)
Max Height
(stories/f t.)
Minimum Floor
Area (sq. ft.)
Minimu m
Building Width
(ft.)
Minimum Pitch &
Soffit (vertical
rise/horizon tal
run)
Front
[1]
Interior
Side
Street
Side Rear
Single- Family
Building 25[1]10 20 30
[2]
2.5 stories
35 feet
1,050 foundation/
2,000 finishable [2]
24
5 in./12 in.
no minimum soffit
[5]
[1]: The minimum width of the dimension of the principal building living area across the front building line shall be no less than
12 ft., which may include a usable porch of at least 6 ft. in depth. The maximum building line of the attached garage may be no
more than 20 ft. across the front building line.
[2]: Finishable square footage is exclusive of required attached accessory space garage floor area.
Accessor y
Structure s and
Uses
- An attached garage shall be included with all principal residential structures in the T-N district.
- See § 153.092(B) for all general standards and limitations on accessory structures.
- The minimum floor area for the required attached garage shall be 480 sq. ft.
- For front-loaded attached garages, no portion of any garage space may be more than five feet closer to the street than the
front building line of the principal use (including porch).
- No private driveway leading to an accessory structure may exceed 24 ft. in width at the front yard property line. Driveways
shall be offset and separated to maximize on-street parking capacity.
Other Regulations
to Consult (not all
inclusive)
- § 153.042, Common District Requirements
- § 153.043(B), Standards Applicable to All Residential Base Zoning Districts
- § 153.070, Building Materials
- § 153.067, Off-Street Parking
- § 153.060, Landscaping and Screening Standards
(H) Medium Density Residence District (R-3). The purpose of the “R-3” Medium Density Residential District is to provide
for medium density housing in multiple-family structures ranging up to and including 12 units and directly related,
complementary uses.
(1) Base lot area.
(a) Minimum townhouse: 20,000 sq. ft.
(b) Minimum multi-family: 30,000 sq. ft.
(2) Base lot width. Minimum: 80 ft.
Typical R-3 Lot Configuration
TABLE 3-8: R-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PUD Options for Multi-Family
Buildings R-3 District Townhouse (4-10 units/building)R-3 District Multi-Family (5-12 units/building)
TABLE 3-8: R-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PUD Options for Multi-Family
Buildings R-3 District Townhouse (4-10 units/building)R-3 District Multi-Family (5-12 units/building)
Base Lot Area (minimum)20,000 sf.30,000 sf.
Base Lot Width (minimum)80 ft.80 ft.
Gross Density 3-7 du/acre 8-12 du/acre
Max Density w/o PUD 4.0 du/acre 8.5 du/acre
Net lot area per du 4,500 sf/du, maximum 3,500 sf/du, maximum
Front setback 30 feet 40 feet
Corner side setback 25 feet 30 feet
Interior side setback 20 feet 20 feet
Rear setback to building 30 feet 40 feet
Clear open space setback
from ROW 25 feet 30 feet
Clear open space setback
from Property Line 10 feet 30 feet
Buffer Req. to Single-Family B buffer B buffer
Common open space per du NA 500 sf/du
Landscaping 16 ACI/acre +2 shrubs per 10 feet bldg.
perimeter
16 ACI/acre +2 shrubs per 10 feet
bldg. perimeter
Parking requirements 1.2 spaces/bedroom, with 1 space/bedroom
enclosed
1.2 spaces/bedroom, with 1
space/bedroom enclosed
Architecture 20% street min frontage covered with
enhanced materials
20% street min frontage covered with
enhanced materials
Roofs
5:12 pitch or roofline or building line
articulation, including flat and/or varied
rooflines, parapets, canopies or other similar
features which increase architectural interest
and variability.
5:12 pitch or roofline or building line
articulation, including flat and/or varied
rooflines, parapets, canopies or other
similar features which increase
architectural interest and variability.
Unit square feet 1,000 sf. finished floor area per unit, minimum Average 1,000 sf. finished floor area
per unit, minimum
Garages Attached Enclosed, may be detached
TABLE 3-8: R-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PUD Options for Multi-Family
Buildings R-3 District Townhouse (4-10 units/building)R-3 District Multi-Family (5 -12 units/building)
TABLE 3-8: R-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PUD Options for Multi-Family
Buildings R-3 District Townhouse (4-10 units/building)R-3 District Multi-Family (5 -12 units/building)
Garage Setback 30 feet from ROW (35 feet from curb of private
street)
May not access street directly – must
be served by interior driveway
Garage Doors Maximum 16 feet width facing street. No
smooth panel doors.
No smooth panel doors – detached
buildings must match principal building
materials and include architectural
fenestration on sides facing
residentially zoned property or public
right- of-way
Landscaping Special landscape features including water
features, recreational structures, patios, etc.
Increased landscape quantities and/or
Sizes beyond code minimums; Special
landscape features including water
features, recreational structures,
patios, etc.
Open Space --
Increased open space areas per unit
beyond code minimums of 10% or
more
Parking --All required garage parking attached to
principal building
Building Materials Increased use of stone, brick beyond front, or
on other exterior walls
Increased use of stone, brick beyond
front, or on other exterior walls
Architecture
Extensive use of ornamental features, building
and/or roofline articulation, fenestration and
building wall undulation atypical of other
buildings in similar zoning districts
Extensive use of ornamental features,
building and/or roofline articulation,
fenestration and building wall
undulation atypical of other buildings in
similar zoning districts
Site Work
Use of decorative paving materials in parking,
sidewalks, etc.; Extensive use of ornamental
site lighting or similar features.
Use of decorative paving materials in
parking, sidewalks, etc.;
Extensive use of ornamental site
lighting or similar features.
Housing for Seniors restricted
to 55 years of age or more
Accommodations to design and density
through PUD process only
Accommodations to design and
density through PUD process only
(I) Medium-High Density Residence District (R-4). The purpose of the “R-4”, Medium- High Density Residential District
is to provide for medium to high density housing in multiple- family structures of 13 or more units per building, and at
densities of between ten and 25 units per acre. The district is intended to establish higher density residential opportunities in
areas appropriate for such housing, to be determined by the city on a case by case basis. This district is intended to provide
exclusively multiple-family housing as defined in this chapter, as opposed to lower density housing types such as
townhouses, two-family homes, or single family homes. The City of Monticello shall zone land to the R-4 District only when,
in its sole discretion, all aspects of the property support the potential uses of the R-4 District, including location, private and
public services, and compatibility with existing and future land uses in the area. In making a determination as to the
suitability of a site for R-4 rezoning, the city will prioritize the following site and area factors:
(1) Replacement land uses. R-4 zoning fits the following zoning categories and circumstances:
(a) Land already zoned for R-3 Medium Density Residential District.
(b) Land currently zoned for commercial uses, but which would not be considered "prime" commercial and critical to
"Successful Commercial Centers and Corridors" consistent with the City's 2040 Vision + Plan.
(2) Proximity to other residential neighborhoods.
(a) R-4 zoning may be allowed in proximity to other medium to high density residential areas, however the nature and
concentration of existing multi-family structures shall be carefully considered to avoid an over concentration of these uses.
(b) R-4 zoning may be allowed in proximity to lower residential uses, if it is determined that the high density site can
address the site and area factors provided here.
(3) Architectural compatibility and building massing.
(a) In the vicinity of lower density residential areas, R-4 District buildings need to be lower profile with regards to size
and mass, or need to be screened or buffered by distance and natural features.
(4) Requirement for adequate public facilities. High density residential development shall be located to provide for the
following essential services and amenities:
(a) Access to public parks, pathways, and open space, without overburdening them. R-4 development may be
required to provide additional facilities to meet the city's open space planning policies.
(b) Connection to public utilities.
(c) Access to major streets, or at the very minimum, avoidance of traffic generation that would utilize local streets in
lower density residential areas.
(d) Proximity to commercial and/or medical services.
(5) Minimum and maximum density: ten units minimum – 25 dwelling units maximum per acre.
TABLE 3-9: R-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
TABLE 3-9: R-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PUD Options for
Multi-Family
Buildings
R-4 District Multi-Family (13+ units/building)
Base Lot Area 30,000 sf.
Gross Density 10-25 du/acre
Max Density w/o
PUD NA
Net lot area per du Max 1,750 sf/du
Front setback 100 feet
Corner side
setback 40 feet
Interior side
setback 30 feet
Rear setback to
building 40 feet
Clear open space
setback from
ROW
60 feet
Clear open space
setback from
Property Line
40 feet - no more than 50% of any yard facing a street covered with
parking/drive aisles
Buffer Req. to
Single-family C buffer
Common open
space per du 500 sf/du
Landscaping 2 ACI/ 2,500 sf. open space + 4 shrubs /10 feet bldg. perimeter
Parking
requirements 1.2 spaces/bedroom, with max 1.1 space/du uncovered
Architecture 20% street min frontage covered with enhanced materials, horizontal siding
of steel or cement-board only (no vinyl or aluminum)
Roofs
5:12 pitch, plus roof ridge line articulation of 3 feet min. or roofline or
building line articulation, including flat and/or varied rooflines, parapets,
canopies or other similar features which increase architectural interest and
variability.
Unit square feet 800 sf. minimum finished floor area per unit average, with no more than
10% of the units as studio units
Garages
Attached or Underground Detached accessory garages allowed only after
base requirements are met; requires authorization through Conditional Use
Permit
Garage Setback May not access street directly – must be served by interior driveway
Garage Doors Must include glass and decorative panels if visible from public street or
adjoining residentially zoned property
Landscaping
Increased landscape quantities and/or sizes beyond code minimums;
Special landscape features including water features, recreational
structures, patios, etc
Open Space Increased open space areas per unit beyond code minimums of 10% or
more
Parking All required garage parking underground
Building Materials Increased use of stone, brick beyond front, or on other exterior walls
Architecture
Extensive use of ornamental features, building and/or roofline articulation,
fenestration and building wall undulation atypical of other buildings in
similar zoning districts
Site Work Use of decorative paving materials in parking, sidewalks, etc.;
Extensive use of ornamental site lighting or similar features.
Housing for
Seniors restricted
to 55 years of age
or more
Accommodations to design and density through PUD process only
(J) Mobile and Manufactured Home Park District (M- H). The purpose of the “M-H” manufactured home park district is to
provide for manufactured home users and directly related uses.
(1) Base density: 4,000 sq ft per unit (10.9 units per gross acre).
(2) Base lot area. Minimum: 5 acres.
(3) Base lot width. Minimum: 200 ft.
Typical M-H Lot Configuration
TABLE 3-10: M-H DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Required Yards (in feet)
Max Height
(stories/
Minimum
Floor
Area
Minimum Building
Width (ft.)
Minimum Roof
Pitch & Soffit
(vertical
rise/horizon tal
Front
Interior
Side
Street
Side
Rear
ft.)
(sq. ft.)
run)
Manufactured
Home
Building See § 153.091(C)(4) for all regulations governing manufactured home parksDetached
Accessory
Structures
(Ord. 799, passed 2-27-2023; Ord. 806, passed 8-14-2023)
§ 153.070 BUILDING MATERIALS.
(A) Purpose. The purpose of these regulations is to enhance the quality and longevity of buildings in all zoning districts of
the city, and to protect citizen investments in property value by ensuring complementary building style, construction, and
appearance.
(B) General requirements.
(1) Consistency required. In all districts, all buildings shall be finished on all sides with consistent architectural quality,
materials, and design.
(2) New materials. In recognition of the ever-changing marketplace for new finishing materials, the Community
Development Department may authorize the use of materials not listed herein if it is determined that such a material is
substantially similar or superior to one or more of the approved building materials.
(C) Residential district requirements.
(1) All residence districts. No metal siding shall be permitted wider than 12 inches or without a one-half inch or more
overlap and relief.
(2) R-1 and R-2 Districts. A minimum of 15% of the front building façade of any structure in the R-1 or R-2 Districts, less
the square footage area of windows and garage doors, shall be covered with brick or stone. Any attached or major detached
accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard when consistent with the principal
structure. Structures with front facades covered by at least 70% stucco or real wood may reduce the brick or stone coverage
to 5%. The Planning Commission may approve optional facade treatments prior to building permit through site plan review
when additional architectural detailing so warrants. Such detailing may include usable front porches, extraordinary roof pitch
or other features.
(3) R-A and T-N Districts. A minimum of 20% of the front building façade of any structure in the R-A or T-N zoning
district, less the square footage area of windows and garage doors, shall be covered with brick or stone. Any attached or
major detached accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard when consistent with the
principal structure. Structures with front facades covered by at least 70% stucco or real wood may reduce the brick or stone
coverage to 10%.
(4) R-3 District and other districts with multiple-family housing. The R-3 and R-4 District and other districts with multiple-
family housing shall be subject to building material standards as follows:
(a) All building walls facing a public street shall be covered with stone, brick, cultured masonry simulating brick or
stone, or other enhanced materials to an extent not less than 20% of the exposed wall silhouette area; and
(b) Multiple-family structures of 13 or more units shall, when using lap horizontal siding, be constructed of heavy
gauge steel or cement-board, with no use of vinyl or aluminum permitted. Natural wood or species that is resistant to decay
may be permitted.
(5) Roofing materials. Roofing materials in residential districts, including for principal and accessory buildings, shall
consist of shingles made of asphalt, fiberglass, durable rot-resistant wood (such as cedar), stone (such as slate) or
architectural metal (including steel and copper). Heavy gauge steel or copper may be used for standing-seam roofing. Steel
may be used only when designed to resemble traditional residential architectural roofing materials.
(D) Business district requirements. In all Business Zoning Districts (see table 3-1), the following building materials
standards shall apply.
(1) No galvanized or unfinished steel, galvalum, or unfinished aluminum buildings, except those specifically designed to
have a corrosive designed finish such as“corten” steel, shall be permitted in the districts listed herein.
(2) Buildings in these zoning districts shall maintain a high standard of architectural and aesthetic compatibility with
conforming surrounding properties to ensure that they will not adversely impact the property values of the abutting
properties and shall have a positive impact on the public health, safety, and general welfare, insofar as practicable.
(3) Exterior building finishes in the districts subject to this section shall consist of materials compatible in grade and
quality to the following:
(a) Brick.
(b) Natural stone.
(c) Decorative rock face or concrete block.
(d) Cast-in-place concrete or pre-cast concrete panels.
(e) Wood, provided that the surfaces are finished for exterior use and wood of proven exterior durability is used, such
as cedar, redwood, or cypress.
(f) Glass.
(g) Exterior insulated finish systems, where said system is manufactured to replicate the look of one of the approved
building materials in this section.
(h) Stucco.
(4) Metal exterior finishes shall be permitted only where coordinated into the overall architectural design of the
structure, such as in window and door frames, mansard roofs or parapets, and other similar features, and in no case shall
constitute more than 15% of the total exterior finish of the building.
(5) Metal roofing. Metal shall be an allowed roofing material in the “B”, Business Districts, provided such material is
designed to resemble traditional commercial architecture and/or is designed to complement the architectural design of the
building.
(6) Building materials and design for the CCD District. All buildings within the CCD shall meet the materials and design
standards of the Comprehensive Plan as defined by the Downtown Monticello Small Area Plan Amendment, the
requirements of the CCD District, as well as the standards in § 153.070 for Business District requirements. In the case of a
conflict between these standards, the stricter of the standards shall be applied.
(E) Industrial requirements.
(1) In the Industrial and Business Campus District (IBC), the following building materials and standards shall apply:
(a) Buildings shall maintain a high standard of architectural and aesthetic compatibility with conforming surrounding
properties to ensure that they will not adversely impact the property values of the abutting properties and shall have a
positive impact on the public health, safety, and general welfare, insofar as practicable.
(b) Exterior building finishes shall not consist of galvanized or unfinished steel, or unfinished aluminum.
(c) Exterior building finishes shall consist of materials compatible in grade and quality to the following:
1. Brick;
2. Natural stone;
3. Decorative rock face block or burnished block;
4. Wood, provided that the surfaces are finished for exterior use and wood of proven exterior durability is used,
such as cedar, redwood, or cypress;
5. Glass;
6. Stucco or substantially similar finish product;
7. Exterior insulated finish systems, where said system is manufactured to replicate the look of one of the approved
building materials in this section;
8. Cast in place concrete or pre-cast concrete panels.
(d) Metal exterior finishes shall be permitted only where coordinated into the overall architectural design of the
structure, such as in window and door frames, mansard roofs or parapets, and other similar features, and in no case shall
constitute more than 15% of the total exterior finish of the building.
(e) Any exterior wall adjacent to a public street must have a higher level of aesthetics. This could be accomplished by
architectural design features. increased use of stone and/or brick across 15% of the facade area, combination of glass and
architectural metals, or a wall plane articulation across 15% of the facade area. Such articulation must extend at least five
feet from the primary building line of the principal building structure.
(2) In the Light Industrial District (I-1), the following building material standards shall apply:
(a) Exterior building finishes shall not consist of galvanized or unfinished steel, or unfinished aluminum.
(b) Any exterior wall adjacent to a public street must have a higher level of aesthetics. This could be accomplished by
architectural design features, increased use of stone and/or brick across 25% of the façade area, combination of glass and
architectural metals, or a wall plane articulation across 25% of the façade area. Such articulation must extend at least five
feet from the primary building line of the principal building structure.
(c) Exterior building finishes shall consist of materials compatible in grade and quality to the following:
1. Brick;
2. Natural stone;
3. Decorative rock face block or burnished block;
4. Glass;
5. Stucco or substantially similar finish product;
6. Exterior insulated finish systems. where said system is manufactured to replicate the look of one of the approved
building materials in this section;
7. Cast in place concrete or pre-cast concrete panels;
8. Textured finishes on metal panels to simulate stucco or other similar treatments;
9. Commercial-grade siding made of cement board. composition board, or other durable material. not including
vinyl.
(3) In the Heavy Industrial (I-2) districts, the following building material standards shall apply:
(a) Exterior building finishes shall not consist of galvanized or unfinished steel, or unfinished aluminum.
(b) Any exterior wall adjacent to a public street must have a higher level of aesthetics. This could be accomplished by
architectural design features, increased use of stone and/or brick across 15% of the façade area, combination of glass and
architectural metals, or a wall plane articulation across 15% of the façade area. Such articulation must extend at least five
feet from the primary building line of the principal building structure.
(c) Exterior building finishes shall consist of materials compatible in grade and quality to the following:
1. Brick;
2. Natural stone;
3. Decorative rock face block or burnished block;
4. Glass;
5. Stucco or substantially similar finish product;
6. Exterior Insulated Finish systems. where said system is manufactured to replicate the look of one of the
approved building materials in this section;
7. Cast n place concrete or pre-cast concrete panels;
8. Textured finishes on metal panels to simulate stucco or other similar treatments;
9. Commercial-grade siding made of cement board, composition board, or other durable material, not including
vinyl.
(F) Institutional requirements. All institutional uses shall adhere to the building materials requirements spelled out for
commercial districts in § 153.070(D) above.
(Ord. 791, passed 11-14-2022; Ord. 799, passed 2-27-2023)
§ 153.090 USE TABLE.
(A) Explanation of use table structure.
(1) Organization of Table 5-1. Table 5-1 organizes all principal uses by use classifications and use types.
(a) Use classifications. The use classifications are: agricultural uses; residential uses; civic and institutional uses;
commercial uses; and industrial uses. The use classifications provide a systematic basis for assigning present and future land
uses into broad general classifications (e.g., residential and commercial uses). The use classifications then organize land uses
and activities into specific “use types” based on common functional, product, or physical characteristics, such as the type and
amount of activity, the type of customers or residents, how goods or services are sold or delivered and site conditions.
(b) Use types. The specific use types identify the specific uses that are considered to fall within characteristics identified in
the use classifications. For example; detached dwellings, parks and recreational areas, and schools are “use types” in the
Single-family Residence District.
(2) Symbols used in Table 5-1.
(a) Permitted Uses = P. A “P” indicates that a use is permitted by right, subject to compliance with all other applicable
provisions of this chapter. Uses may be subject to special regulations as referenced in the “additional requirements” column.
(b) Conditionally Permitted Uses = C. A “C” indicates that a use is permitted provided the city can establish conditions
necessary to ensure the use is compatible to the proposed location and surrounding properties. Inability of the city to establish
conditions to adequately control anticipated impacts is justification for denial of a conditionally permitted use. Conditional uses
may also be subject to special regulations as referenced in the “additional requirements” column.
(c) Interim Permitted Uses = I. An “I” indicates that a use may be permitted for a brief period of time provided certain
conditions are met, and a specific event or date can be established for discontinuance of the use. Inability of the city to establish
conditions to adequately control anticipated impacts is justification for denial of an interim permitted use. Interim permitted uses
may also be subject to special regulations as referenced in the “additional requirements” column.
(d) Prohibited Uses = Shaded cells. A shaded cell indicates that the listed use is prohibited in the respective base zoning
district.
(e) Uses not provided for within zoning districts. In any zoning district, whenever a proposed use is neither specifically
allowed nor denied, the use will be considered prohibited in which case an amendment to the ordinance text would be required
to clarify if, where and how a proposed use could be established.
TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT
Use Types
“P” = Permitted
“C” = Conditionally
Permitted
“I” = Interim
Permitted
Base Zoning Districts Additional
Requirements
AO RA R1 R2 TN R3 R4 MH B1 B2 B3 B4 CCD PCD IBC I1 I2
TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT
Use Types
“P” = Permitted
“C” = Conditionally
Permitted
“I” = Interim
Permitted
Base Zoning Districts Additional
Requirements
AO RA R1 R2 TN R3 R4 MH B1 B2 B3 B4 CCD PCD IBC I1 I2
Agricultural Uses
Agriculture P P P P P P P P P P P P
P P P § 153.091 (B)
(1)
Agricultural Sales P § 153.091 (B)
(2)
Community Gardens P P P P P P P P P § 153.091 (B)
(3)
Stables C § 153.091 (B)
(4)
Residential Uses § 153.091(C)(1)
Attached Dwelling Types § 153.091 (C)
(2)(a)
Duplex P C
See
Table
5- 1A
See
Ordinance
No.
§ 153.091 (C)
(2)(b)
Townhouse C P § 153.091 (C)
(2)(c)
Multiple- family C P C C § 153.091 (C)
(2)(d)
Detached Dwelling P P P P P P None
Group residential
facility, single-family P P P P P § 153.091 (C)
(3)
Group residential
facility, multi- family C C C § 153.091 (C)
(3)
Mobile and
manufactured home
park
C C C P C § 153.091 (C)
(4)
Civic and Institutional Uses
Active park facilities
(public)P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P None
TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT
Use Types
“P” = Permitted
“C” = Conditionally
Permitted
“I” = Interim
Permitted
Base Zoning Districts Additional
Requirements
AO RA R1 R2 TN R3 R4 MH B1 B2 B3 B4 CCD PCD IBC I1 I2
TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT
Use Types
“P” = Permitted
“C” = Conditionally
Permitted
“I” = Interim
Permitted
Base Zoning Districts Additional
Requirements
AO RA R1 R2 TN R3 R4 MH B1 B2 B3 B4 CCD PCD IBC I1 I2
Civic and Institutional Uses
Active park facilities
(private)P P P P P P P
See
Table
5-1A
See
Ordinance
No.
§ 153.091(D)(1)
Assisted living
facilities C P C C P § 153.091(D)(2)
Cemeteries C C C C C C C § 153.091(D)(3)
Clinics/medical
services C P P C None
Essential services P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P None
Hospitals C P P C § 153.091(D)(4)
Nursing/
convalescent home C C C C C C C C C C P § 153.091(D)(5)
Passenger terminal C C C C None
Passive parks and
open space P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
Place of public
assembly C C C C C P C § 153.091(D)(6)
Public buildings or
uses C C C C C C C P C C P P C P P § 153.091(D)(7)
Public warehousing
temporary I I I § 153.091(D)(8)
Schools, K-12 C C C C C C I I § 153.091(D)(9)
Schools, higher
education C
Utilities (major)C C C § 153.091(D)
(10)
TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT
Use Types
“P” = Permitted
“C” = Conditionally
Permitted
“I” = Interim
Permitted
Base Zoning Districts Additional
Requirements
AO RA R1 R2 TN R3 R4 MH B1 B2 B3 B4 CCD PCD IBC I1 I2
TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT
Use Types
“P” = Permitted
“C” = Conditionally
Permitted
“I” = Interim Permitted
Base Zoning Districts Additional
Requirements
AO RA R1 R2 TN R3 R4 MH B1 B2 B3 B4 CCD PCD IBC I1 I2
Commercial Uses
Adult uses
See
Table
5-1A
See
Ordinance
No.
P P § 153.046(T)
Auction house C § 153.091(E)
(2)
Auto repair - minor C C P P § 153.091(E)
(3)
Automotive wash facilities P C § 153.091(E)
(4)
Bed and breakfasts C C C C C § 153.091(E)
(5)
Brew pub P P § 153.091(E)
(6)
Business support services P P P P P None
Commercial lodging P P P § 153.091(E)
(7)
Commercial self-storage C C § 153.091(F)
(3)
Communications/broadcasting P P P P § 153.091(E)
(8)
Convenience retail C P P P § 153.091(E)
(9)
Country club C § 153.091(E)
(10)
Day care centers C C C P P C § 153.091(E)
(11)
Entertainment/ recreation,
indoor commercial P P C C C § 153.091(E)
(12)
Entertainment/ recreation,
outdoor commercial C C C C § 153.091(E)
(13)
TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT
Use Types
“P” = Permitted
“C” = Conditionally
Permitted
“I” = Interim
Permitted
Base Zoning Districts Additional
Requirements
AO RA R1 R2 TN R3 R4 MH B1 B2 B3 B4 CCD PCD IBC I1 I2
TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT
Use Types
“P” = Permitted
“C” = Conditionally
Permitted
“I” = Interim
Permitted
Base Zoning Districts Additional
Requirements
AO RA R1 R2 TN R3 R4 MH B1 B2 B3 B4 CCD PCD IBC I1 I2
Commercial Uses
Animal
kennel/boarding
(commercial)
C C C C § 153.091(E)
(17)
Event center C C C
See
Table
5-1A
See
Ordinance
No.
§
153.091(E)14)
Financial institution P P P § 153.091(E)
(15)
Funeral services P P § 153.091(E)
(16)
Landscaping/
nursery business P § 153.091(E)
(18)
Offices, commercial
and professional
services
P P P P P P P § 153.091(E)
(20)
Personal services C P P P § 153.091(E)
(22)
Production brewery
or micro- distillery
without taproom
P P § 153.091(F)
(12)
Production brewery
or micro- distillery
with taproom or
cocktail room
C C C C C
§ 153.091(E)
(23)
§ 153.091(F)
(13)
Recreational vehicle
camp site C § 153.091(E)
(24)
Repair
establishment C P P P P § 153.091(E)
(25)
Restaurants C P P C § 153.091(E)
(26)
TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT
Use Types
“P” = Permitted
“C” = Conditionally
Permitted
“I” = Interim
Permitted
Base Zoning Districts Additional
Requirements
AO R
A R1 R2 TN R3 R4 MH B1 B2 B3 B4 CCD PCD IBC I1 I2
TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT
Use Types
“P” = Permitted
Base Zoning Districts Additional
Requirements
“C” = Conditionally
Permitted
“I” = Interim
Permitted
AO R
A R1 R2 TN R3 R4 MH B1 B2 B3 B4 CCD PCD IBC I1 I2
Commercial Uses
Retail commercial
uses (other)
buildings less than
10,000 sq. ft.
P P P
See
Table
5-1A
See
Ordinance
No.
§ 153.091(E)
(27)
Retail commercial
uses (other)
buildings over
10,000 sq. ft.
C P P § 153.091(E)
(27)
Retail service P P P § 153.048
Specialty eating
establishments C P P P § 153.091(E)
(28)
Vehicle fuel sales C C C § 153.091(E)
(29)
Vehicle sales and
rental C § 153.091(E)
(30)
Veterinary facilities
(rural)C § 153.091(E)
(31)
Veterinary facilities
(neighborhood)C C C § 153.091(E)
(31)
Wholesale sales P P P None
Industrial Uses
Auto repair - major C P P § 153.091(F)(1)
Bulk fuel sales and
storage C § 153.091(F)(2)
TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT
Use Types
“P” = Permitted
“C” = Conditionally
Permitted
“I” = Interim
Permitted
Base Zoning Districts Additional
Requirements
AO RA R1 R2 TN R3 R4 MH B1 B2 B3 B4 CCD PCD IBC I1 I2
TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT
Use Types
“P” = Permitted
“C” = Conditionally
Permitted
“I” = Interim
Permitted
Base Zoning Districts Additional
Requirements
AO RA R1 R2 TN R3 R4 MH B1 B2 B3 B4 CCD PCD IBC I1 I2
Industrial Uses
Contractor's yard,
temporary I I I § 153.091(F)(4)
Extractive use I I I I I § 153.091(F)(5)
General
warehousing C P P § 153.091(F)(6)
Heavy
manufacturing C § 153.091(F)(7)
Industrial services C P None
Industrial self-
storage facilities
See
Table
5-1A
See
Ordinance
No.
C C § 153.091(F)(8)
Land reclamation C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C § 153.091(F)(9)
Light manufacturing P P P § 153.091(F)
(10)
Machinery/truck
repair and sales C § 153.091(F)
(11)
Recycling and
salvage center C § 153.091(F)
(14)
Truck or freight
terminal C § 153.091(F)
(15)
Waste disposal and
incineration C § 153.091(F)
(16)
Wrecker and towing
services C P § 153.091(F)
(17)
TABLE 5-1A: CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT (CCD) USES SUB-AREA
Riverfront (A)Broadway (B)Walnut &
Cedar (C)Pine (D)General CCD Notes
Use Types
Entertainment
and open
space,
supported by
retail
Retail,
supported by
entertainment;
housing 2nd
Retail,
supported by
housing and
services
Office, large
space retail
users, and
retail service
Housing,
supported by
limited retail
and services
TABLE 5-1A: CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT (CCD) USES SUB-AREA
Riverfront (A)Broadway (B)Walnut &
Cedar (C)Pine (D)General CCD Notes
Use Types
Entertainment
and open
space,
supported by
retail
Retail,
supported by
entertainment;
housing 2nd
Retail,
supported by
housing and
services
Office, large
space retail
users, and
retail service
Housing,
supported by
limited retail
and services
Additional use requirements applicable per § 153.091
Uses:
Residential Uses
Single- family P*CUP *Upper floors
only
Multi 3 du or under P*CUP*P *Upper floors
only
Townhouse CUP CUP*CUP P
*Townhous es
on Broadway
east of Pine
only
Multi 4-12 du CUP CUP CUP CUP
Multi 13+ du CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Ground floor CUP*P P
*Allowed on
ground floor for
townhouses on
Broadway east
of Pine
Commercial
Brew Pub <10,000 sq. ft.P P P P
Brew Pub >10,000 sq. ft.CUP P CUP P
Commercial Day Care CUP CUP P
Commercial Lodging P CUP CUP P
Entertainment/Recreation, Indoor
Commercial (including theaters)CUP*CUP*CUP*CUP <10,000 sq. ft.
only
Entertainme nt/Recreation Outdoor
Commercial
Event centers CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Subject to §
153.091(F)(14
)
Funeral services CUP
Personal services P P P P CUP
Places of public assembly CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Production brewery/ taproom P P P P
Micro- distillery/ cocktail room P P P P
Professional office - services and retail CUP*P P P P Upper floors
preferred
Commercial office
CUP* - not
allowed on
ground floor
P/CUP* on
ground floor
P/CUP* on
ground floor P Upper floors
preferred
Financial P P P P Drive thru by
CUP
Restaurants, bars <10,000 sq. ft.P P P P CUP
Restaurants, bars > 10,000 sq. ft.CUP P CUP P CUP
Retail Sales <10,000 sq. ft.P P P P P
Retail Sales >10,000 sq. ft.CUP CUP CUP P CUP
Retail with service CUP P P P P
Specialty Eating Establishments <10,000
sq. ft.P P P P CUP
Vehicle fuel sales CUP
Veterinary facilities < 10,000 sq. ft.CUP CUP CUP CUP No outdoor
uses
Industrial Uses
Industrial PUD PUD Only PUD Only
Civic and Institutional Uses
Clinics/ medical services CUP CUP P P
Public buildings or uses (incl. public
parks)P CUP P CUP CUP
Schools Pre- K-12 CUP CUP CUP
TABLE 5-1B THE POINTES AT CEDAR DISTRICT (PCD)
See § 153.048
TABLE 5-1C: CANNABIS BUSINESS USES
Use Types
"N" = Not Allowed
“P” = Permitted
“C” = Conditional
“I” = Interim
"A" = Administrativ e
Base Zoning Districts Additional
Requirements
AO RA R1 R2 TN R3 R4 B1 B2 B3 B4 CCD PCD IBC I1 I2
TABLE 5-1C: CANNABIS BUSINESS USES
Use Types
"N" = Not Allowed
“P” = Permitted
“C” = Conditional
“I” = Interim
"A" = Administrativ e
Base Zoning Districts Additional
Requirements
AO RA R1 R2 TN R3 R4 B1 B2 B3 B4 CCD PCD IBC I1 I2
Commercial Uses
Cannabis retailer N N N N N N N
N N P P N N N N N § 153.091(E)(3 3)
A O RA R
1
R
2
T
N
R
3
R
4
B
1
B
2 B3 B4 CCD PCD IBC I 1 I
2
Commercial Uses
Cannabis microbusiness -
retail location only N N N N N N N
N N P/C*P/C*N N N N N
§ 153.091(E)(3 3)
*CUP required for on-
site consumption
CUP
Cannabis mezzobusiness -
retail location only N N N N N N N
N N P P N N N N N § 153.091(E)(3 3)
Medical cannabis retailer N N N N N N N
N N P P N N N N N § 153.091(E)(3 3)
Medical cannabis
combination business - retail
location only
N N N N N N N
N N P P N N N N N § 153.091(E)(3 3)
Lower-potency hemp edible
retailer N N N N N N N
N P P P N N N N N § 153.091(E)(3 3)
Temporary cannabis event N N N N N N N
N N A A N N N N N
§ 153.093(E)(1 2)
§§ 96.21 - 96.25
Industrial Uses
Cannabis cultivator N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N C P § 153.091(F)(1 9)
Cannabis manufacturer N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N C P § 153.091(F)(1 9)
Cannabis microbusiness N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N C P § 153.091(F)(1 9)
Cannabis mezzobusiness N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N C P § 153.091(F)(1 9)
Cannabis wholesaler N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N C P § 153.091(F)(1 9)
Cannabis transporter N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N C P § 153.091(F)(1 9)
Cannabis testing facility N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N C P § 153.091(F)(1 9)
Cannabis delivery service N N N N N N N
N N C*C*N N N C P
§ 153.091(F)(1 9)
*Accessory only to
licensed cannabis or
lower-potency hemp
retail in B-3 or B-4
Medical cannabis processor N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N C P § 153.091(F)(1 9)
Medical cannabis
combination business N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N C P § 153.091(F)(1 9)
Lower-potenc y hemp edible
manufacturer N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N C P § 153.091(F)(1 9)
(Ord. 762, passed 8-23-2021; Ord. 780, passed 7-25-2022; Ord. 791, passed 11-14-2022; Ord. 797, passed 2-13-2023; Ord.
799, passed 2-27-2023; Ord. 804, passed 8-14-2023; Ord. 830, passed 7-22-2024; Ord. 835, passed 11-25-2024)
§ 153.091 USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS.
(A) General regulations applicable to all uses.
(1) Combination uses. In commercial and industrial base zoning districts, combination uses may be allowed within the
principal building with each use subject to all regulations in this chapter.
(2) Nuisances prohibited. In addition to any nuisance provisions within city code, the following shall apply:
(a) Refuse and garbage.
1. In all districts, all refuse, rubbish, or garbage shall be kept in an enclosed building or properly contained in a
closed container designed for such a purpose.
2. The owner of vacant land shall be responsible for keeping the land free of refuse, rubbish, or garbage.
(b) Glare.
1. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking area, sign, or other structure, shall be arranged as to deflect light
away from any adjoining residential zone or from the public streets.
2. Direct or sky-reflected glare, where from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or
welding, shall not be directed into any adjoining property.
3. The source of lights shall be hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to cast light on adjacent property.
4. Bare incandescent light bulbs shall not be permitted in view of adjacent property or public right-of-way.
5. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on a public street shall not exceed one foot candle (meter
reading) as measured from the center line of said street.
6. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on residential property shall not exceed 0.4 foot candles (meter
reading) as measured from said property.
(c) Smoke. The emission of smoke by any use shall be in compliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota
Pollution Control Standards, Minnesota Regulation APC 1-15.
(d) Dust and other particulated matter. The emission of dust, fly ash, or other particulated matter by any use shall be
in compliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota Pollution Control Standards, Minnesota Regulation APC 1-15.
(e) Noise. Noises emanating from any use shall be in compliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota
pollution control standards and rules. In no case shall noise emanations constitute a nuisance as defined and regulated by
this code.
(3) Building and structure location. All buildings and structures shall be so placed so that they will not obstruct future
streets which may be constructed by the city in conformity with existing streets and according to the system and standards
employed by the city.
(4) Cannabis-related businesses.
(a) Findings and purpose.
1. The City of Monticello (hereinafter "city") makes the following legislative findings: The purpose of this division is
to implement the provisions of M.S. Ch. 342, as amended from time to time, which authorizes the city to protect the public
health, safety, welfare of city residents by regulating cannabis businesses within the legal boundaries of city.
2. The city finds and concludes that the proposed provisions are appropriate and lawful land use regulations for city,
that the proposed amendments will promote the community's interest in reasonable stability in zoning for now and in the
future, and that the proposed provisions are in the public interest and for the public good.
(b) Authority and jurisdiction. The city has the authority to adopt this division pursuant to:
1. M.S. § 342.13(c), as amended from time to time, regarding the authority of a local unit of government to adopt
reasonable restrictions of the time, place, and manner of the operation of a cannabis business provided that such
restrictions do not prohibit the establishment or operation of cannabis businesses.
2. M.S. § 342.22, as amended from time to time, regarding the local registration and enforcement requirements of
state-licensed cannabis retail businesses and lower-potency hemp edible retail businesses, subject to any Joint Powers
Agreement with Wright County which explicitly supersedes these regulations.
3. M.S. § 152.0263, subd. 5, as amended from time to time, regarding the use of cannabis in public places.
4. M.S. § 462.357, as amended from time to time, regarding the authority of a local authority to adopt zoning
ordinances.
(c) Any cannabis-related business or lower-potency hemp edible business licensed by the State of Minnesota under
M.S. Ch. 342, as amended from time to time, shall be subject to the following requirements, in addition to any specific
standards in this section, and other reasonable regulations required as a condition of any zoning permit issued for such
uses.
1. No cannabis-related business use shall operate outside of the hours of operation established by M.S. Ch. 342, as
amended from time to time, or those established by the city, whichever is more restrictive.
2. No cannabis-related business use shall operate or occur on property used for residential purpose.
3. No cannabis-related business use shall create odors that are detectable beyond the property lines of such use.
4. The facility shall display its state-issued license on the interior of the facility, visible to the public, at all times.
5. No person or facility shall dispose of cannabis or cannabis- containing products in an unsecured waste
receptacle not in possession and control of the licensee and designed to prohibit unauthorized access.
6. All cultivation, processing, storage, display, sales or other distribution of cannabis shall occur within an enclosed
building and shall not be visible from the exterior of the building.
7. Outdoor storage is prohibited for all cannabis-related uses.
8. Cannabis-related business uses shall comply with the city's sign regulations.
9. Cannabis-related business uses shall comply with all other applicable standards of the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance and city code.
10. Buffers. No cannabis-related business use shall be located closer to any property occupied by any of the
following uses, measured as a horizontal distance from the closest point of the property on which the cannabis business is
located to the closest point of the property occupied by:
a. School: 1,000 feet.
b. Daycare: 500 feet from any day care facility that is located in a zoning district where cannabis businesses are
not allowed. This buffer shall not apply to day care facilities that are located in a zoning district in which a cannabis business
is allowed.
c. Residential treatment facility: 500 feet.
d. Public park: 500 feet from attractions within a public park regularly used by minors. Public parks included shall
be as identified in the city's most currently adopted park system or master plan. This buffer shall not apply to sidewalks or
trails, or other public lands.
(B) Regulations for agricultural uses.
(1) Agriculture.
(a) Agricultural related buildings and structures including farm dwellings shall be subject to Minnesota Pollution
Control Standards.
(b) Agricultural uses shall not include commercial feed lots or other commercial operations.
(c) The keeping and/or raising of livestock raising shall be prohibited in all zoning districts except for the A-O District.
(2) Agricultural sales. All agricultural sales businesses shall adhere to the following:
(a) Activities shall be limited to those listed within the definition for an agricultural sales business.
(b) The agricultural sales business shall be located on land owned or leased by the producer or the operator of the
business, and not within or on any public rights-of-way or easements.
(c) The operator must be able to demonstrate at all times to the city that there is sufficient access, parking and
maneuvering space, that the location and adequacy of approaches are sufficient, that there is suitable and safe access for
pedestrians, and that customer parking is away from the travel way and in close proximity to the agricultural sales business.
(d) All waste materials shall be enclosed in containers provided on the site, and shall not generate any nuisance
impacts on adjacent properties.
(e) All sidewalks, roadways, and parking areas shall be treated as necessary to eliminate dust nuisance impacts on
adjacent properties.
(3) Community garden.
(a) Prior to a parcel being utilized as a community garden, the landowner shall be required to secure an annual
community garden permit from the Community Development Department.
(b) Each community garden must have two or more gardeners as a prerequisite for obtaining a permit to ensure code
and permit guidelines are followed.
(c) Unused plots and common areas shall be maintained and kept free of weeds, dead plant materials, and other
debris/garbage.
(d) Containers, including water bins, and planters, shall not hold standing water unless they are completely covered.
(e) Composting of vegetative matter is allowed (leaves, plants, wood chips, etc.); composting of meat, human or pet
waste is prohibited.
(f) Overhead lighting is prohibited.
(g) Signage is limited to a single, non-illuminated, single sided sign of four square feet.
(4) Stables.
(a) Animal building, holding, grazing, and exercise areas are located a minimum of 1,000 feet from any residential,
commercial, or industrial use district.
(b) The land area of the property containing such use of activity meets the minimum established for the district.
(c) All applicable requirements of the State Pollution Control Agency are complied with.
(C) Regulations for residential uses.
(1) General regulations for all dwellings. All dwellings located in any residence district shall conform to the following
minimum requirements in addition to the specific requirements applicable to the individual residence districts:
(a) Except for in the M-H zoning district, all dwellings shall be placed on a permanent foundation which complies with
the Minnesota State Building Code, and which are solid for the complete circumference of the dwelling.
(b) All dwellings shall have a minimum width and depth of 20 feet, exclusive of porches, entryways, or attached
storage sheds.
(c) All dwellings shall be served by public sanitary sewer and water.
(d) Direct vehicular access to residential units from arterial or collector roadways shall be prohibited unless no other
reasonable alternative exists as determined by the Community Development Department.
(e) In addition to standards applicable to all houses in residential districts, manufactured homes, as defined by
Minnesota Statutes, shall be built in compliance with the Minnesota Manufactured Homes Building Code and all statutory
requirements (see M.S. §§ 327.31 through 327.35, as they may be amended from time, on manufactured homes).
(f) No cellar, basement, garage, tent, trailer, motor vehicle or accessory building shall at any time be used as an
independent residence or dwelling unit, either temporarily or permanently. Tents, play houses or similar structures may be
used for play or recreational purposes.
(g) Except for dwellings classified as elderly (senior citizen) housing, the minimum floor area per dwelling unit shall be
as prescribed in individual zoning district regulations.
(h) Apartment and condominium dwelling units shall only be located in multiple-family buildings or in buildings within
the CCD district as regulated by this chapter.
(2) Attached dwelling.
(a) Regulations applicable to all attached dwelling types.
1. Size of development. All attached dwelling developments that contain more than two structures with dwelling
units and/or having a structure containing more than ten dwelling units shall require a conditional use permit.
2. Usable open space. Except for mixed use projects in the CCD District, each multiple-family dwelling site or
townhouse site shall contain at least 500 square feet of usable open space for each dwelling unit contained thereon, or a
minimum of 30% green space, whichever is greater. For the purposes of this chapter, green space shall include lawn,
shrubs, trees, or other planted open space usable for gardens, shade, or recreation and shall not include planted areas
between parking areas or sidewalks and parking areas which are less then ten feet in width, nor shall it include any part of
the public right-of-way, delineated wetland(s), or required stormwater ponding areas below the ten-year flood elevation.
(b) Duplex and two-family dwellings.
1. A minimum of two off-street parking spaces per unit shall be provided within an enclosed garage of at least 400
square feet.
2. All driveways and required off-street parking spaces shall be surfaced with concrete, bituminous or approved
equivalent.
3. Legal nonconforming single-family dwellings located within R-3 Zoning Districts may be converted to duplex
dwellings by conditional use permit where environmental conditions on the property support preservation of trees, drainage
patterns, or other related features.
(c) Townhouse.
1. No building shall contain more than eight dwelling units.
2. Each dwelling unit shall have separate and individual front and rear entrances.
3. Private driveways for garages in townhouse developments shall provide a minimum of 20 feet worth of parking
space which does not interfere with the use of public sidewalks or trails.
4. Setbacks:
a. Buildings in townhouse developments shall be located at least 20 feet apart and 20 feet from the back of the
curb of a private roadway.
b. The applicable setbacks required in the underlying zoning district shall be met along the perimeter lot lines of
the development and along all public roadways.
(d) Multiple-family.
1. Development of a multiple-family building shall be compatible with the existing and planned land use of the area
and conflicts shall not be created between commercial and residential use and activities.
2. If in the R-2 district, multiple-family buildings shall be limited to four dwelling units.
3. If in the B-2 District, multiple-family buildings shall be adequately served by a collector or arterial street.
4. If in the B-1, B-2 or CCD district, multiple-family units shall be in the form of apartments or condominiums located
above the first floor of the building, unless otherwise authorized to be on the first floor by a conditional use permit meeting
the following additional standards:
a. The proposed site for residential use is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive
Plan and detailed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment entitled "Downtown Monticello Small Area Plan."
b. The proposed site does not interrupt the flow of commercial pedestrian traffic in the “CCD” district.
c. Density for ground floor residential units shall not exceed one unit per 9,000 square feet of lot area, exclusive of
land area utilized by, or required for, permitted uses on the property.
5. Multiple-family housing in the R-3, B-1, B-2 or CCD zoning districts shall be subject to the requirements found in
Table 3-8 of § 153.043.
6. Multiple-family housing in the R-4 zoning district shall be subject to the requirements found in Table 3-9 of §
153.043.
(3) Group residential facility.
(a) Licensed day care facilities qualifying as group residential facilities shall adhere to the following:
1. No overnight facilities are provided for the children served. Children are delivered and removed daily.
2. All state laws and statutes governing such use are strictly adhered to and all required operating permits are
secured.
(b) Group residential facility, multi-family.
1. Group residential facility, multi-family shall require authorization through a conditional use permit following the
provisions of § 153.028(D), subject to the following conditions:
a. Density of residents shall equal no more than one person per 520 square feet of total net livable area in the
principal dwelling.
b. Living accommodations for on-site resident staff shall be deducted from the principal dwelling square footage
for purposes of determining density in division (1) above.
c. The property shall be developed to provide two off-street parking spaces for staff and one space per three
residents for visitors.
d. Parking areas shall be paved with concrete or bituminous surface, and shall meet all other standards of parking
lot design in this chapter, with the exception that the use shall be exempt from curb requirements.
e. The property shall maintain a minimum of 30% landscaped green space based on the gross area of the
property.
f. The building shall be designed and constructed to be consistent with the architectural character of the
neighborhood in which it is located.
(4) Manufactured homes/manufactured home park.
(a) Manufactured homes in general. All manufactured homes within the City of Monticello shall be built in
conformance with the manufactured home building code and comply with all provisions of this chapter.
(b) Manufactured home parks. Development of new manufactured home parks shall be encouraged to use the
planned unit development (PUD) process to allow the city to vary or modify the strict application and requirements for
manufactured home parks to more readily accommodate this type of development. However, absent development through a
PUD, the following requirements shall apply:
1. In general:
a. The minimum total manufactured home park area shall be five acres.
b. Each designated manufactured home site shall not be less than 2,500 sf.
c. Notwithstanding the type of development concept used, the maximum density shall be 13 manufactured homes
per acre.
d. Manufactured homes shall be the only permitted dwelling type in a manufactured home park.
e. No tents shall be used for other than recreational purposes in a manufactured home park.
f. There shall be no outdoor camping anywhere in a manufactured home park.
g. Laundry and clothing shall be hung out to dry only on lines located in Council approved areas established and
maintained exclusively for that purpose.
h. Adequate storm shelters for all residents of the manufactured home park shall be provided on-site.
i. No part of any manufactured home park shall be used for non-residential purposes, except such uses that are
required for the direct servicing and well-being of park residents and for the management and maintenance of the park.
j. All manufactured homes must be securely anchored in a manner which meets shoreland district requirements (if
within a shoreland district) and applicable state requirements for resisting wind forces.
2. Grading, drainage and groundcover:
a. Condition of soil, ground water level, drainage, topography shall not create hazards to the property or the
health and safety of the occupants.
b. The ground surface in all parts of every manufactured home park shall be graded and equipped to drain all
surface water in a safe, efficient manner.
c. Exposed ground surfaces in all parts of every manufactured home park shall be paved or covered with stone,
screening or other solid material, or protected with a grass that is capable of preventing soil erosion and of eliminating
objectionable dust.
d. No portion of a manufactured home park shall be subject to unpredictable or sudden flooding.
3. Setbacks and lot requirements:
a. Manufactured homes shall be separated from each other and from other buildings and structures by at least 15
feet.
b. An accessory structure such as an awning, cabana, storage cabinet, carport, windbreak, and porch which has
an opaque top or roof, shall, for purposes of all separation requirements, be considered to be part of the manufactured
home. However, applicable building code separation requirements shall still apply as applicable.
c. There shall be a minimum distance of twenty feet between the manufactured home stand and abutting park
street.
d. All manufactured homes, off-street parking spaces, and structures shall be located at least thirty feet from any
property boundary line abutting upon a public street or highway and at least thirty feet from other property boundary lines.
e. Each manufactured home site shall have frontage on an approved roadway and the corner of each
manufactured home site shall be marked and each site shall be numbered.
f. Dedicated storage area(s) and building(s) shall be for the sole use of the residents of the manufactured home
park and are not available for use by non-residents.
4. Screening and open space:
a. All manufactured home parks located adjacent to residential, recreational, commercial or industrial land uses
shall provide screening such as fences, shrubs, trees along the property boundary line separating the park and such uses,
and shall be maintained by the state license holder in a neat and orderly manner.
b. A minimum of 2,000 sf. for every acre, or part thereof, in a manufactured home park shall be provided for
definable play areas and open space. Such areas of open space and play area shall not be areas included within any
setback nor shall they include any areas of less than twenty feet in length or width.
5. Parking. Each manufactured home site shall be served by two off-street parking spaces for automobiles.
6. Utilities:
a. All manufactured homes shall be connected to a public water and sanitary sewer system or a private water and
sewer system approved by the State Department of Health.
b. All installations for disposal of surface stormwater must be approved by the city.
c. All utility connections shall be as approved by the city.
d. The source of fuel for cooking, heating, or other purposes at each manufactured home site shall be as
approved by the city.
e. All utilities shall be underground; there shall be no overhead wires or supporting poles except those essential
for street or other lighting purposes.
f. No obstruction shall be permitted that impedes the inspection of plumbing, electrical facilities, and related
manufactured home equipment.
g. The method of garbage, waste, and trash disposal must be approved by the city.
h. Owner shall pay any required sewer and connection fees to the city.
7. Lighting:
a. Artificial light shall be maintained during all hours of darkness in all buildings containing public toilets, laundry
equipment, and the like.
b. The manufactured home park ground shall be lighted as approved by the city from sunset to sunrise.
8. Accessory structures:
a. Accessory storage buildings serving the overall park and not an individual unit in manufactured home parks, if
not reviewed and approved as part of a PUD, shall be conditionally permitted subject to the following additional
requirements:
(i) The storage building and any accompanying outdoor storage area shall be for the sole use of the residents of
the manufactured home park and shall not be used by non-residents.
(ii) Accompanying outdoor storage areas shall be fully screened from surrounding manufactured home units and
adjacent properties.
b. For individual residential units within a mobile or manufactured home park, the following standards shall apply:
(i) Only one detached accessory structure, major or minor, shall be allowed.
(ii) The maximum area of a detached accessory structure shall be 300 square feet.
(iii) The maximum height of the structure shall be 15 feet as measured at the median height of the roof.
(iv) The detached accessory structure may not be located between the front line of the residential unit and the
park access road.
(v) Such structure shall be located five feet from any other structure.
(vi) The location of accessory structures shall be permitted only with the permission of the manufactured home
park owner.
(vii) Detached accessory structures exceeding 300 square feet shall require authorization through conditional
use permit, which shall be subject to the following requirements:
A. Permission of the park owner.
B. Detached accessory structure shall have access to the park road.
C. No other detached accessory structure shall be permitted.
D. The maximum height of the structure shall be 15 feet as measured at the median height of the roof.
(D) Regulations for civic and institutional uses.
(1) Active park facilities – private. Private park facilities must be operated only for the enjoyment and convenience of
the associated residents and their guests.
(2) Assisted living facilities.
(a) The development must be contained on an single parcel; 30% of the parcel must be preserved as open space at
least two-thirds of which shall be useable.
(b) To continue to qualify for the senior citizen housing classification, the owner or agent shall annually file with the
Community Development Department a certified copy of a monthly resume of occupants of such a multiple dwelling, listing
the number of tenants by age.
(c) One off-street loading space shall be provided in compliance with § 153.068, Off-Street Loading Spaces.
(d) Elevator service shall be provided to each floor level which contains senior housing units.
(e) Efficiency units shall be a minimum floor area of 440 square feet, and shall not exceed 20% of the total number of
apartments in a multiple dwelling, or the maximum established in the district, whichever is less.
(f) One bedroom units shall be a minimum floor area of 520 square feet.
(3) Cemeteries.
(a) New cemeteries shall be located on a site or parcel with an area of at least two and one-half acres.
(b) New cemeteries shall be located on a site or parcel that fronts an arterial or collector street.
(c) Cemeteries shall include adequate space for the parking and maneuvering of funeral processions.
(d) Interments shall take place at least 50 feet from any lot line.
(e) Cemeteries shall not be located within one-half mile of Interstate Highway 94.
(4) Hospitals. A hospital shall:
(a) Be located on a site of at least five acres.
(b) Be located on a parcel that fronts or has direct access to an arterial or collector street.
(c) Be served by public water and wastewater systems.
(d) Side yards shall be double the minimum requirements established for the applicable district.
(e) When abutting a residential use in a residential use district, the property shall be screened with an aesthetic buffer
(Table 4-2, Buffer Type "B") in accordance with § 153.060(G).
(f) Adequate off-street parking and access is provided in compliance with § 153.067 and that such parking is
adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with § 153.060(F).
(g) Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are considered and satisfactorily provided in accordance with §
153.068.
(h) Exterior lighting standards outlined in § 153.063 shall be met.
(5) Nursing or convalescent home.
(a) Side yards shall be double the minimum requirements established for the applicable district.
(b) When abutting a residential use in a residential use district, the property shall be screened with an aesthetic buffer
(Table 4-2, Buffer Type “B”) in accordance with § 153.060(G).
(c) One off-street loading space in compliance with § 153.067 is installed.
(6) Places of public assembly.
(a) Institutions on parcels exceeding 20,000 square feet in area shall be located with direct frontage on, and access
to, a collector or arterial street.
(b) The buildings are set back from adjoining residential districts a distance no less than double the adjoining
residential setback.
(c) When abutting a residential use in a residential use district, the property shall be screened with an aesthetic buffer
(Table 4-2, Buffer Type “B”) in accordance with § 153.060(G).
(d) Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting or directly across a
public street or alley to the principal use in compliance with § 153.067 of this chapter and that such parking is adequately
screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with § 153.060(F).
(e) Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are considered and satisfactorily provided.
(f) Public assembly in the B-3 District:
1. Shall only be allowed on properties of ten acres in size or more, except that the city may consider such uses on
smaller properties by interim use permit, subject to the following requirements:
a. The applicant for an IUP would enter into a development agreement specifying the duration of the IUP, with a
time limitation.
b. The applicant would be able to demonstrate that the interim occupancy would not interfere with other
commercial uses of the property, either in the nature of the use, the times of operation, or demand for services, such as
parking or other impacts.
c. The IUP would expire upon the end of the specified term, or when the applicant vacates the property, and
would not be transferable to another similar public assembly use.
d. Changes in scope or nature of the proposed use, operation, or other elements would require amendment to the
IUP and the development contract, or a new IUP, depending on the change.
e. No such IUP, subsequent amendment, or reapplication may result in a duration of the subject use for more
than ten years of cumulative and continuous occupancy.
2. Public assembly uses in the B-3 District must occupy buildings of at least 20,000 gross square feet of area.
3. Public assembly uses in the B-3 District shall provide off-street parking areas that are designed to meet their
unique traffic patterns and parking accumulation ratios. For the B-3 district, the requirement shall be one parking space per
two and one-half seats in the main assembly area, based on the building code calculation for maximum occupancy.
4. Proposed public assembly applications in the B-3 District will be required to provide a traffic study demonstrating
peak traffic periods, and the ability to manage traffic loads without negatively impacting the adjoining public streets. Private
and/or public street improvements may be required to ensure no negative impacts.
5. CUP applications for public assembly uses in the B-3 District will require the identification of the principal use,
and those other uses of the subject property that are proposed as accessory uses. All such uses must be allowed in the B-3
District.
(g) In the CCD, the following conditions shall apply:
1. Building architecture shall be designed to reflect retail street-level architecture as defined in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, and detailed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment entitled “Downtown Monticello Small Area Plan.”
2. Site planning shall minimize parking lot development adjacent to public area in the district, including streets,
pathways, and open spaces.
(7) Public buildings or uses:
(a) When abutting a residential use in a residential use district, the property shall be screened with an aesthetic buffer
(Table 4-2, Buffer Type “B”) in accordance with § 153.060(G).
(b) Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained and required setbacks and side yard requirements
are met.
(c) Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting the principal use in
compliance with § 153.067 and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting
residential uses in compliance with § 153.060(F).
(d) Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are considered and satisfactorily provided in accordance with §
153.068.
(e) Exterior lighting standards outlined in § 153.063 shall be met.
(8) Public warehousing, temporary.
(a) The use shall be allowed by interim use permit, with a termination date of no later than five 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.
(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.
(9) Pre-K-12 schools (public or private):
(a) Educational institutions on parcels exceeding 20,000 square feet in area shall be located with direct frontage on,
and access to, a collector or arterial street.
(b) The buildings are set back from adjoining residential districts a distance no less than double the adjoining
residential setback.
(c) When abutting a residential use in a residential use district, the property shall be screened with an aesthetic buffer
(Table 4-2, Buffer Type “B”) in accordance with § 153.060(G).
(d) Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site or on lots directly abutting or directly across a
public street or alley to the principal use in compliance with § 153.067 and that such parking is adequately screened and
landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with § 153.060(F).
(e) Adequate off-street loading and service entrances are considered and satisfactorily provided in accordance with §
153.068.
(f) Exterior lighting standards outlined in § 153.063 shall be met.
(g) If locating within an industrial zoning district:
1. A specified termination date is documented.
2. The proposed parcel has adequate improved parking to accommodate the student capacity.
3. The proposed building is constructed or altered only in ways which do not interfere with future refitting for
industrial use.
(h) Buildings and structures must comply with building code requirements as adopted by the City of Monticello.
(10) Utilities (major).
(a) An electrical power facility, substation, or transmission station as a principal use of property shall be set back at
least 100 feet from all lot lines. Service or storage yards shall be prohibited.
(b) All commercial WECS systems shall adhere to the requirements of § 153.071.
(E) Regulations for commercial uses.
(1) Adult uses: See § 153.046(T).
(2) Auction house.
(a) The architectural appearance and function plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing
buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of
the lot.
(b) When abutting a residential use, the property shall be screened with at least a semi-opaque buffer (Table 4-2,
Buffer Type “C”) in accordance with § 153.060(G).
(c) Parking areas shall be landscaped and screened from view in compliance with § 153.060(F).
(d) Off-street parking shall comply with § 153.067.
(e) Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict through traffic movements, and shall be
subject to the approval of the Community Development Department.
(f) All lighting shall be in compliance with § 153.063.
(g) The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the Community Development
Department.
(h) All signing and information or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with § 153.064.
(i) The use shall require authorization through a conditional use permit following the provisions of § 153.028(D).
(j) All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when the Council, upon investigation in relation to
a formal request, finds that the general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or better by modifying the
conditions.
(k) No pets or livestock may be sold at this auction sales facility.
(l) Provisions must be made to control and reduce noise when adjacent to a residential zoning district.
(m) All outside storage and outdoor sales and display, if allowed, shall be effectively screened from public view in
accordance with § 153.060(I) and limited to 10% of the gross floor area of the principal use building.
(3) Auto repair – minor.
(a) The use shall be designed to ensure proper functioning of the site as related to vehicle stacking, circulation, and
turning movements.
(b) Repair of all vehicles shall occur within an enclosed building. Temporary outdoor vehicle storage may be allowed
in an outdoor storage area that is no larger than 25% of the buildable area of the lot, is located behind the front building line
of the principal structure, and is screened with a wooden fence, maintenance free vinyl or masonry wall in accordance with §
153.062, Fences & Walls.
(c) If gasoline is sold on-site, the use shall also comply with the standards for vehicle fuel sales as regulated by this
chapter.
(d) Vehicles not being repaired but used as a source of parts shall be prohibited unless full enclosed within a building.
(e) Vehicles that are repaired and are awaiting removal shall not be stored or parked for more than 30 consecutive
days. In cases where a vehicle is abandoned by its lawful owner before or during the repair process, the vehicle may remain
on site as long as is necessary after the 30-day period, provided the owner or operator of the establishment demonstrates
steps have been taken to remove the vehicle from the premises using the appropriate legal means.
(f) When abutting a residential use, the property shall be screened with at least a semi-opaque buffer in accordance
with (Table 4-2, Buffer Type "C") in accordance with § 153.060(G).
(4) Automotive wash facilities.
(a) All automotive wash facilities shall adhere to the following standards:
1. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall be consistent with the existing
buildings and area to avoid impairment in property values and blight within a reasonable distance of the lot.
2. Magazining or stacking space is constructed to accommodate that number of vehicles which can be washed
during a maximum 30-minute period and shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department.
3. When abutting a residential use, the property shall be screened with at least a semi-opaque buffer (Table 4-2,
Buffer Type “C”) in accordance with § 153.060(G).
4. All lighting shall be in compliance with § 153.063.
5. Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance
with § 153.060(F).
6. The entire area other than occupied by the buildings or plantings shall be surfaced with material which will control
dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the Community Development Department.
7. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the Community Development
Department.
8. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement, and
shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department.
9. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with § 153.064.
10. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
11. Car wash facility shall have direct access to major thoroughfare via driveway or frontage road.
12. Intermittent sounds produced by car wash operation such as the sound of a vacuum or warning signal shall not
be audible to adjoining residential properties.
(5) Bed and breakfast facilities.
(a) Bed and breakfast operations shall be limited to residential structures existing prior to the date of this chapter.
(b) The property shall be landscaped with at least a basic buffer (Table 4-2, Buffer Type “A”) in accordance with §
153.060(G).
(c) Food served on the premises may be served only to overnight guests of the bed and breakfast.
(d) The owner, operator, or manager of the bed and breakfast shall reside on the premises.
(e) Activities shall be limited to those customary to the operation of a bed and breakfast facility. Commercial use of
the property for other activities not normally associated with the operation of a bed and breakfast such as wedding
receptions, parties, etc., are not allowed.
(f) Operation of the bed and breakfast facility shall comply with all state regulations governing such facilities.
(6) Brew pubs.
(a) Brew pubs shall be permitted in the CCD, B-3 and B-4 Districts provided that:
1. The brew pub sells 85% or more of its beer on-site.
2. The beer is brewed primarily for sale in the restaurant and bar, and may be dispensed directly from the brewery’s
storage tanks.
3. Brewpubs may also sell beer for off-sale consumption in growler containers provided the conditions are met.
(7) Commercial lodging.
(a) All hotels and motels shall adhere to the following:
1. A hotel or motel shall have its principal frontage, access, and orientation direction on an arterial street or collector
street.
2. Vehicular access from a local residential street is prohibited.
3. No more than one security or caretakers quarters may be provided on the site, and such quarters shall be
integrated into the building’s design.
(b) In the CCD District, the following additional standards shall apply:
1. The principal building lot coverage is no less than 50% of the property, exclusive of easements devoted to public
pedestrian use or other outdoor public spaces.
2. The building, site, and signage meet the standards for the “CCD” District.
3. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and as
detailed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment entitled “Downtown Monticello Small Area Plan.”
(8) Communications/broadcasting. All communication antennas, antenna support structures and satellite dishes shall
adhere to the applicable accessory use requirements for such outlined in § 153.092.
(9) Convenience retail. In the B-1 zoning district, the following conditions shall apply:
(a) The site is adequately served by a collector street.
(b) Access point to the site shall be limited to a collector street.
(c) Conformity with the surrounding neighborhood is maintained.
(d) Adequate screening and landscaping from neighborhood residential districts is provided in accordance with this
chapter.
(e) Traffic generated by the proposed use does not exceed the capacity of surrounding streets and intersections to
accommodate it.
(f) The site shall conform to parking requirements as provided in this chapter.
(g) Building setback from residential uses must be 30 feet or greater.
(h) Parking lot setback from residential uses must be 15 feet or greater.
(i) The site shall conform to signage requirements as recommended by the city. At no time shall the signage exceed
the requirements as provided in this chapter.
(j) The site shall conform to lighting requirements as provided in this chapter. The lighting shall be restricted to be
consistent with the hours of operation, within one half hour of open and close times.
(k) The hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., except as may be approved by conditional use
permit.
(l) In addition to the above requirements, if in the CCD, the following conditions shall apply:
1. Building architecture shall be designed to reflect retail street-level architecture as defined in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, and detailed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment entitled “Downtown Monticello Small Area Plan.”
2. Site planning shall maximize building exposure to the street.
3. Drive-through facilities shall be located to minimize their exposure to the street.
4. Accessory structures, including canopies, menu boards, pay windows, and other structures supporting drive-
through functions shall be constructed of materials to match those of the principal building.
5. Site planning shall be designed to emphasize connections to pedestrian facilities.
(10) Country club.
(a) The principal use, function, or activity is open, outdoor in character.
(b) Not more than 5% of the land area of the site be covered by buildings or structures.
(c) When abutting a residential use, the property shall be screened with at least an aesthetic buffer (Table 4-2, Buffer
Type “B”) in accordance with § 153.060(G).
(d) The land area of the property containing such use or activity meets the minimum established for the districts.
(11) Day care center.
(a) No overnight facilities shall be provided for children served by the daycare. Children must be delivered and
removed from the facility daily.
(b) An outdoor recreational facility:
1. Shall be appropriately separated from the parking lot and driving areas by a fence not less than four feet in
height;
2. Shall be located continuous to the day-care facility;
3. Shall not be located in any yard abutting a major thoroughfare;
4. Shall not have an impervious surface for more than one-half of the playground area;
5. Shall extend at least 60 feet from the wall of the building or to an adjacent property line, whichever is less, or
shall be bound on not more than two sides by parking and driving areas; and
6. Shall be a minimum size of 2,000 sq. ft., or in the alternative 75 sq. ft. per child at licensed capacity, whichever is
the greater figure.
(c) All state laws and statutes governing such use are strictly adhered to and all required operating permits are
secured.
(d) In addition to divisions (a) through (c) above, day care centers in the I-1 district shall adhere to the following
additional requirements:
1. Only be allowed as a secondary combination use which complements a primary business;
2. Only be conducted in the principal building, and not exceed 20% of the total principal building square footage;
3. Be physically separated from the other activities occurring in the principal building;
4. Not have a dedicated entrance (other than emergency exits) from the exterior of the principal building;
5. Not have dedicated off-street parking or signage.
(12) Entertainment/recreation – indoor commercial.
(a) No auctions shall take place on the premises.
(b) Outdoor storage shall be prohibited.
(c) Noise shall be controlled consistent with the standards of this chapter.
(d) When abutting a residential use, the property shall be screened with an aesthetic buffer (Table 4-2, Buffer Type
“B”) in accordance with § 153.060(G).
(13) Entertainment/recreation – outdoor commercial.
(a) When abutting a residential use, the property shall be screened with at least a semi-opaque buffer (Table 4-2,
Buffer Type “C”) in accordance with § 153.060(G).
(b) Adequate measures to contain the proposed activity on the subject site shall be provided.
(c) Dust and noise are controlled consistent with City Ordinance.
(d) No auctions shall take place on the premises.
(e) Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m..
(f) All lighting shall be in compliance with § 153.063.
(14) Event centers.
(a) Proximity to residential uses. Property upon which event centers are located shall not abut residentially zoned
property, with the exception of R-3 and R-4 zoned properties.
(b) Parking. Off-street parking for event centers shall be provided in accordance with § 153.067.
(c) Event size. Event centers shall be allowed a maximum event size as specified by the conditional use permit.
(d) Number of events.
1. Event centers in the B-3 and B-4 District are not restricted in the number of events allowed unless restricted by
the conditional use permit.
2. Event centers in the B-2 District may be limited to certain days or number of events by the City Council per the
conditional use permit.
(e) Hours of operation. Event center hours of operation shall be as established by the City Council per the conditional
use permit.
(f) Noise regulations. Event centers shall be subject to the noise-related provisions of City Code.
(g) Food regulations. Event centers may serve food and beverages as an accessory activity in accordance with all
applicable federal, state, and city regulations.
(h) Overnight accommodations. Overnight accommodations are not allowed.
(i) Accessibility. All buildings used in conjunction with event centers shall meet applicable accessibility requirements
imposed by state or federal law.
(j) Code compliance. The building(s) used for the event center shall meet any and all applicable federal, state, and
local codes, including those which apply to sanitary facilities.
(k) Outdoor events. All events shall take place within the event center building(s), unless otherwise allowed in the
zoning district or City Code.
(15) Financial institutions. Drive-thru service, if approved as an accessory use to a financial institution, shall be located
to the side or rear of the principal building whenever feasible.
(16) Funeral services.
(a) Funeral homes shall have its principal frontage, access, and orientation direction on an arterial or collector street.
(b) All structures shall be located so as not to require access from an interior residential street.
(17) Animal kennel/boarding (commercial):
(a) The kennel shall be sufficiently insulated so no unreasonable noise or odor can be detected off the premises.
(b) Outdoor kennels or cages and any outdoor storage uses are prohibited.
(c) The facility’s minimum floor area size must provide for 75 square feet per dog and 20 square feet per cat or other
animal at any one time, exclusive of office or storage area. The facility must provide one cage or air kennel per animal.
(d) Animal wastes shall be immediately cleaned with solid wastes being enclosed in a container of sufficient
construction to eliminate odors and organisms. All animal waste must be properly disposed of daily by a contracted refuse
service.
(e) For all areas for animal care or keeping, wall finish materials below 48 inches in height shall be impervious,
washable materials such as sealed masonry, ceramic tile, glassboard, or marlite. Floor finish shall be sealed concrete or
other approved impervious surface.
(f) If an outdoor exercise area is provided, it shall be at least 100 square feet in size for each animal that occupies that
area at any time.
(g) Outdoor areas used for animal training or exercise shall be enclosed or fenced in such manner as to prevent the
running at large or escape of animals confined therein and must fully screen the activity from public right-of-way and
adjacent property.
(h) If adjacent to residential uses, outdoor animal use areas must be set back at least 50 feet from all property lines,
and 75 feet from residential property lot lines.
(i) Outdoor use areas must be located in side or rear yards of the property.
(j) Fencing materials must be at least six feet in height, must be fully opaque and must consist of durable,
maintenance-free materials.
(k) Use of outdoor areas is limited to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
(l) Outdoor use areas shall be limited to no more than six animals outside at any one time.
(m) Animals must be supervised at all times when outdoors.
(n) No more than four animals shall be outside the fenced area per supervising staff person and all animals must be
leashed.
(o) Related accessory services including grooming, veterinary services, and accessory retail sales may be conducted
or provided at the facility, provided that:
1. Veterinary services are limited to annual checks and vaccination services and shall not exceed 30% of the total
building area.
2. Retail component of kennel facility shall not exceed 15% of total building area.
(p) The facility ventilation system must be completely separate and independent of other tenant space within the
building.
(q) All city code, State Health Department and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency licenses and requirements for
such facilities are current and compliant.
(18) Landscaping/nursery business.
(a) The business shall be located next to a collector or arterial street as identified in the comprehensive plan, or
otherwise located so that access to the site will not conduct significant traffic on local residential streets.
(19) Medical/clinical services. In the CCD, the following conditions shall apply:
(a) Building architecture shall be designed to reflect retail street-level architecture as defined in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, and detailed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment entitled “Downtown Monticello Small Area Plan.”
(b) Street-level floor planning designed to accommodate use by or conversion to future use as retail land uses.
(20) Offices (commercial).
(a) Outdoor storage and accessory building - major shall be prohibited.
(b) Buildings or structures with less than 51% of office space shall not be classified as an office use and shall be
regulated by the other use of the structure.
(c) If in the B-1 district, the following shall apply:
1. The traffic generated will not raise traffic volumes beyond the capacity of the surrounding area.
2. The architectural appearance of the building housing the office use shall reflect the building character of the area
and shall not be so dissimilar as to cause impairment of property values or constitute a blighting influence within the
neighborhood.
3. The provisions of this chapter are considered and satisfactorily met.
4. The site shall conform to signage requirements provided under § 153.064.
5. The site shall conform to lighting requirements as provided in this chapter. The lighting shall be restricted to be
consistent with the hours of operation, within one half hour of open and close times.
(d) In the CCD, the following conditions shall apply:
1. Building architecture shall be designed to reflect retail street-level architecture as defined in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, and detailed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment entitled “Downtown Monticello Small Area Plan.”
2. Street-level floor planning designed to accommodate use by or conversion to future use as retail land uses.
3. Parking areas shall be situated so as to minimize their exposure to public areas, or shall be landscaped and
screened to minimize large expanses of open pavement.
(21) Offices (professional) including financial institutions.
(a) Outdoor storage and accessory building - major shall be prohibited.
(b) Buildings or structures with less than 51% of office space shall not be classified as an office use and shall be
regulated by the other use of the structure.
(c) If in the B-1 district, the following shall apply:
1. The traffic generated will not raise traffic volumes beyond the capacity of the surrounding area.
2. The architectural appearance of the building housing the office use shall reflect the building character of the area
and shall not be so dissimilar as to cause impairment of property values or constitute a blighting influence within the
neighborhood.
3. The provisions of this chapter are considered and satisfactorily met.
4. The site shall conform to signage requirements provided under § 153.064.
5. The site shall conform to lighting requirements as provided in this chapter. The lighting shall be restricted to be
consistent with the hours of operation, within one half hour of open and close times.
(d) In the CCD, the following conditions shall apply: Building architecture shall be designed to reflect retail street-level
architecture as defined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and detailed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment entitled
“Downtown Monticello Small Area Plan.”
(e) Street-level floor planning designed to accommodate use by or conversion to future use as retail land uses.
(f) Parking areas shall be situated so as to minimize their exposure to public areas, or shall be landscaped and
screened to minimize large expanses of open pavement.
(g) Parking supply shall be calculated at the same rate as retail sales.
(22) Personal services.
(a) Outdoor storage and accessory building - major shall be prohibited.
(b) Drive-thru service shall require authorization through conditional use permit in accordance with § 153.091.
(c) In the B-1 district, the following shall apply:
1. Outdoor lighting shall be restricted to be consistent with the hours of operation, within one half hour of open and
close times.
2. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
(d) Establishments engaged in dry cleaning shall be held to the following requirements:
1. Dry cleaning processing shall be restricted to the B-4 district.
2. Dry cleaning operations shall be self-contained in terms of noise and fumes with no venting to outside of building.
3. Dry cleaning facilities shall have direct access to major thoroughfare via driveway or frontage road.
(e) Tattoo facilities and providers shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Minnesota Department of
Health licensing requirements and regulations, and display evidence of such compliance in a conspicuous location within the
establishment.
(23) Production breweries and micro-distilleries with accessory taproom or cocktail room. Production breweries and
micro-distilleries with accessory taproom or cocktail room shall be allowed by conditional use permit in the CCD, B-3 and B-4
Districts, provided that:
(a) The owner of the brewery qualifies for and receives a brewer license and a malt liquor wholesale license from the
State of Minnesota, according to M.S. § 340A.301, as it may be amended from time to time.
(b) The brewery or micro-distillery includes an accessory brewer's taproom or cocktail room for the on-sale of
products produced on-site, and such room shall require the applicable license from the City of Monticello, according to City
Code.
(c) On-site sale of beer in the form of growlers shall require a brewery license for off-sale of malt liquor, according to
City Code. Off-sale hours of sale must conform to hours of sale for retail off-sale licensees in the City of Monticello.
(d) Total production of malt liquor may not exceed 10,000 barrels annually. Of the 10,000-barrel production limit,
onsite taproom retail sales shall not exceed 3,500 barrels annually, 500 barrels of which may be sold off-sale as growlers.
The brewer shall annually submit production reports with the request to renew a brewer taproom or off-sale malt liquor
license.
(e) A micro-distillery may be issued a license for off-sale of distilled spirits. The license may allow the sale of one 375-
milliliter bottle per customer per day of product manufactured on-site, subject to the following requirements:
1. Off-sale hours of sale must conform to hours of sale for retail off-sale licensees in the City of Monticello.
2. No brand may be sold at the micro-distillery unless it is also available for distribution by wholesalers.
(f) Total production of liquor may not exceed 40,000 proof gallons annually. Of the 40,000 proof gallon production
limit, onsite cocktail retail sales shall not exceed 3,500 proof gallons annually, 500 proof gallons of which may be sold off-
sale in 375 milliliter bottles. The distiller shall annually submit production reports with the request to renew a cocktail room or
off-sale liquor license.
(g) The brewery or micro-distillery facility provides adequate space for off-street loading and unloading of all trucks
greater than 22 feet in length. In the absence of off-street loading, the city may impose limits on deliveries or shipments
using the public rights-of-way, including regulating the number of trucks per day and the hours that deliveries are permitted.
(h) Loading docks shall be located and designed so they are not visible from adjoining public streets or adjoining
residential zoning.
(i) No outdoor storage is permitted on the site, with the exception that waste handling (refuse and/or recycling) may
occur in an enclosure that is fully screened from adjoining streets and residential zoning.
(j) No odors from the business may be perceptible beyond the property line.
(k) The business must be housed in a building that utilizes building design similar to, or compatible with, common
commercial architecture, and shall avoid large wall expanses which contribute to an industrial environment.
(l) The brewer must demonstrate the capacity for producing, processing and storing malt liquor on the commercial site
through the provision of a building floor plan illustrating production, bottling, and storage areas.
(m) All exterior lighting shall be compliant with § 153.063.
(24) Recreational vehicle camp site.
(a) The land area of the property containing such use or activity meets the minimum established for the district.
(b) The site shall be served by a major or arterial street capable of accommodating traffic which will be generated.
(c) All driveways and parking areas shall be surfaced with a dustless material.
(d) Plans for utilities and waste disposal shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Department,
and all applicable requirements of the State Pollution Control Agency are complied with.
(e) Not more than 5% of the land area of the site shall be covered by buildings or structures.
(f) The locations of such use shall be at minimum 100 feet from any abutting residential use district.
(25) Repair establishments.
(a) Outdoor storage and accessory building - major shall be prohibited.
(b) Outdoor storage shall be prohibited in the B-1, B-2 and CCD districts.
(c) No process involved in a repair operation shall produce noise, vibration, air pollution, fire hazard, or noxious
emission which will disturb or endanger neighboring properties.
(26) Restaurants.
(a) For all restaurants, if the establishment (building) or outdoor seating area is located within 300 feet of a residential
zoning district, the following standards shall apply:
1. The use shall require authorization through a conditional use permit.
2. Primary access from local residential streets shall be prohibited.
(b) Restaurants having outdoor seating (including, but not limited to, seating for dining or listening to live or recorded
acoustic or amplified entertainment outside of the building) shall comply with the following standards:
1. The outdoor portions of the restaurant shall not operate after 10:00 p.m. unless a special event permit for such
events has been approved by the City Council. Such a permit supersedes the provisions of City Code.
2. The outdoor seating area shall not obstruct the movement of pedestrians along sidewalks or through areas
intended for public use.
3. The outdoor portions of the restaurant shall not operate after 10:00 p.m. unless a special event permit for such
events has been approved by the City Council. Such a permit supersedes the provisions of City Code.
4. The outdoor seating area shall not obstruct the movement of pedestrians along sidewalks or through areas
intended for public use.
(c) Restaurants having drive-through facilities shall require a conditional use permit and comply with the following
standards:
1. All requirements for an accessory drive-through facility shall be met.
2. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing
buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of
lot.
3. When abutting a residential use, the property shall be screened with at least a semi-opaque buffer (Table 4-2,
Buffer Type “C”) in accordance with § 153.060(G).
4. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot landscaped or covered.
5. Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with § 153.060(F).
6. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movements, and
shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department.
7. If in the CCD District, the following standards shall also apply:
a. The design of the site promotes pedestrian access adjacent to and along the property.
b. Site lighting shall utilize fixtures similar in style to that designated by the city for use in public areas of the
“CCD” district.
c. The building, site, and signage meet the standards for the “CCD” district and design review is conducted by the
Planning Commission.
d. Drive through facilities comply with the requirements of § 153.092(D)(14).
e. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and as
detailed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment entitled “Downtown Monticello Small Area Plan.”
(27) Retail commercial uses (other).
(a) If the retail sales includes consignment sales, the following standards shall apply:
1. No auctions shall take place on the premises.
2. There shall be no outside storage.
(28) Specialty eating establishments.
(a) Drive through service shall be reviewed through the conditional use permit process and shall be located to the
side or rear of the building whenever feasible.
(b) For all specialty eating establishments, if the establishment (building) or outdoor seating area is located within 300
feet of a residential zoning district, the following standards shall apply:
1. The use shall require authorization through a conditional use permit.
(c) Restaurants having outdoor seating (including, but not limited to, seating for dining or listening to live or recorded
acoustic or amplified entertainment outside of the building) shall comply with the following standards:
1. The outdoor portions of the restaurant shall not operate after 10:00 p.m.
2. The outdoor seating area shall not obstruct the movement of pedestrians along sidewalks or through areas
intended for public use.
(d) In addition to the above requirements, if in the CCD, the following conditions shall apply:
1. Building architecture shall be designed to reflect retail street-level architecture as defined in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, and detailed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment entitled “Downtown Monticello Small Area Plan.”
2. Site planning shall maximize building exposure to the street.
3. Drive-through facilities shall be located to minimize their exposure to the street.
4. Accessory structures, including canopies, menu boards, pay windows, and other structures supporting drive-
through functions shall be constructed of materials to match those of the principal building.
5. Site planning shall be designed to emphasize connections to pedestrian facilities.
(29) Vehicle fuel sales.
(a) Regardless of whether the dispensing, sale, or offering for sale of vehicle fuels including gasoline, diesel, natural
gas, or other petroleum fuels and oils, electric charging stations of more than two such stations, hydrogen, or any other fuel
intended to power motor vehicles of any sort is the principal use of the property or is accessory to the conduct of the use or
business, the standards and requirements imposed by this chapter for vehicle fuel sales shall apply. These standards and
requirements are, however, in addition to other requirements which are imposed for other uses of the property.
(b) A principal building is required wherever fuel pumps are to be installed, which square footage shall be a minimum
of 10% of the total lot area.
(c) If the facility is in a Business Zoning District and/or associated with a business use in another district, such as a
PUD district, the dispensing of such fuels shall be associated with a principal building accessible to the public, in which retail
transactions of such fuels and/or other goods may occur.
(d) Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed, pump islands shall be installed.
(e) All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized and shall be in compliance with
§ 153.064.
(f) Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
(g) If in the CCD District, the following standards shall also apply:
1. The design of the site promotes pedestrian access adjacent to and along the property.
2. No more than two curb cuts of 24 feet in width or less shall be permitted.
3. Site lighting shall utilize fixtures similar in style to that designated by the city for use in public areas of the “CCD”
district.
4. The building, site, and signage meet the standards for the “CCD” district and design review is conducted by the
Planning Commission.
5. The proposed use demonstrates compatibility and consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and as
detailed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment entitled “Downtown Monticello Small Area Plan.”
(g) Electric vehicle charging facilities of more than two charging stations may be permitted in any zoning district on
parcels on which a public use or building is also present. Such use shall require authorization through conditional use permit
and subject to all provisions of § 153.091(E)(29).
(30) Vehicle sales or rental.
(a) The minimum building size for any vehicle sales or rental use shall comply with the standards in Table 5-3.
TABLE 5-3: MINIMUM BUILDING SIZE FOR VEHICLE SALES/RENTAL USES
Parcel Size Lot Coverage Percent*Minimum Building Size*
Less than 2 acres 5%2,500 sq. ft.
2 acres to less than 4 acres 7%10,000 sq. ft.
4 acres to less than 8 acres 9%20,000 sq. ft.
8 acres or more 9%40,000 sq. ft.
*Whichever requires the larger building
(b) When abutting a residential use, the property shall be screened with an opaque buffer (Table 4-2, Buffer Type “D”)
in accordance with § 153.060(G).
(c) All lighting shall be in compliance with § 153.063.
(d) The outside sales and display area shall be hard surfaced.
(e) The outside sales and display area does not utilize parking spaces which are required for conformance with this
chapter.
(f) Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement and shall be subject to
the approval of the Community Development Department.
(g) There is a minimum lot area of 22,500 square feet and minimum lot dimensions of 150 feet by 130 feet.
(h) A drainage system subject to the approval of the Community Development Department shall be installed.
(31) Veterinary facilities.
(a) Treatment shall be limited to small household pets unless the facility is conditionally permitted as a rural veterinary
facility.
(b) In the CCD district, animals shall only be housed overnight if they are undergoing medical treatment or
observation. Overnight boarding for non-medical reasons shall be prohibited.
(c) The site shall be designed to prevent animal waste from being exposed to stormwater or entering the stormwater
system, streams, lakes, or conveyances. If an area is provided for animals walking, it shall not be exposed to stormwater
and the waste shall immediately be picked up and disposed of properly.
(d) Animals shall not be kept outdoors or be allowed to remain outside unsupervised.
(e) All animals must be leashed.
(f) No outside storage of carcasses.
(g) The facility shall be subject to an annual inspection by a City Health Officer at owner's expense.
(h) In the CCD, F-1 sub-district, the following additional standards shall apply:
1. Building architecture shall be designed to reflect retail street-level architecture as defined in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, and detailed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment entitled “Downtown Monticello Small Area Plan.”
2. Street level floor planning designed to accommodate use by or conversion to future use as retail uses.
3. Overnight animal boarding shall only be allowed as an accessory use to clinic services, and shall be situated so
as to prohibit exposure, noise, or other nuisance conditions.
(32) Retail service.
(a) Repair of all goods shall occur within an enclosed building.
(b) Outdoor sales and display shall be conducted in accordance with this chapter.
(c) Off-street loading and delivery shall be in accordance with this chapter and shall not reduce the required off-street
parking required for the site and use.
(d) Outdoor storage shall be prohibited.
(e) No process involved in a service operation shall produce noise, vibration, air pollution, fire hazard, or noxious
emission which will disturb or endanger neighboring properties.
(f) If adjacent to a residential property, the use shall require installation of a buffer yard in accordance with this
chapter.
(33) Cannabis retail business. Including cannabis retailer, medical cannabis retailer, medical cannabis combination
business with retail location, cannabis microbusiness retail location, and cannabis mezzobusiness retail location shall be
subject to the following standards:
(a) Cannabis retailers as enumerated above shall comply with all of the requirements of § 153.091(C).
(b) Any location of a cannabis retailer, medical cannabis retailer, medical combination business retail location,
cannabis microbusiness retail location or cannabis mezzobusiness retail location in a B-3 or B-4 zoning district shall have a
license or endorsement allowing for retail sales at that location from the State of Minnesota OCM.
(c) The combination of retail cannabis sales and any other cannabis business as a "microbusiness" or
"mezzobusiness" shall be considered a single business entity for purposes of signage allowances.
(d) No cannabis-related business shall permit consumption of any product on- site, except by conditional use permit,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The facility shall only be located in the B-3 or B-4 zoning district.
2. If the facility is a part of a multi-tenant building, the facility shall ensure that no odors from smoke or other on-site
activities can be detectable outside of the facility.
3. Consumption may be allowed only indoors, located in a specified area physically separated from other retail floor
space.
(e) No cannabis-related business with a retail component or endorsement shall provide delivery of its product to retail
customers unless expressly allowed by a state license, except that medical cannabis retailers may make deliveries to their
customers with valid medical prescriptions.
(f) Receipt of cannabis products by a retail customer shall only occur within the building establishment and shall not
occur through any outside pick-up or drive-through delivery process.
(F) Regulations for industrial uses.
(1) Automobile repair - major.
(a) Door opening to service area garage must not face street frontage.
(b) Vehicle storage area limited to 50% of floor space of the structure housing the auto body shop.
(c) All vehicles being serviced and all vehicle parts must be stored inside or in vehicle storage area.
(d) Vehicle storage area shall be enclosed by enclosure intended to screen the view of vehicles in storage from the
outside. Enclosure shall consist of a six-foot high, 100% opaque fence designed to blend with the auto body shop structure
and consisting of materials treated to resist discoloration.
(e) The floor of the vehicle storage area shall consist of asphalt or concrete paving.
(f) All work on vehicles or vehicle parts shall be conducted within an enclosed building.
(g) No conditional use permit shall be granted for an auto body shop located within 600 feet of a residential zone
existing at the time the conditional use permit is granted.
(2) Bulk fuel sales and storage.
(a) Gas storage shall be limited to quantities not exceeding 500,000 cubic feet and not located within 100 feet from
any lot line.
(b) Gas storage with quantities not exceeding 200 cubic feet, if the pressure is greater than 100 pounds per square
inch, shall not be located within 50 feet of any lot line.
(3) Commercial self-storage facilities.
(a) Site layout.
1. The minimum lot area shall be at least two acres.
2. If separate buildings are constructed, there shall be a minimum separation of ten feet between buildings.
(b) Operation.
1. The only commercial uses permitted on-site shall be the rental of storage bays and the pickup and deposit of
goods or property in cold storage. Storage bays shall not be used to manufacture, fabricate, or process goods, to service or
repair vehicles, small engines or electrical equipment, or conduct similar repair activities, to conduct garage sales or retail
sales of any kind, or to conduct any other commercial or industrial activity on the site.
2. Individual storage bays or private postal boxes within a self-service storage facility use shall not be considered
premises for the purpose of assigning a legal address.
3. No more than one security or caretaker quarters may be developed on the site, and shall be integrated into the
building’s design.
4. Except as otherwise authorized in this division, all property stored on the site shall be enclosed entirely within
enclosed buildings.
5. If buildings or driving lanes are within 200 feet of a residential dwelling, the hours of public access to the self-
storage use shall be restricted to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
(c) Parking and circulation.
1. The one- or two-way traffic flow patterns in aisleways shall be clearly marked. Marking shall consist, at a
minimum, of standard directional signage and painted lane markings with arrows.
2. Appropriate access and circulation by vehicles and emergency equipment shall be ensured through the design of
internal turning radii of aisleways.
3. All access ways shall be paved with asphalt, concrete, or comparable paving materials.
(d) Building appearance.
1. Garage doors serving individual storage units shall be perpendicular to a public or private street so as to not be
visible from adjacent streets.
2. Outdoor lighting shall be the minimum necessary to discourage vandalism and theft, and shall be provided in
accordance with § 153.063, Exterior Lighting.
3. The exterior facades of all structures facing a public street shall adhere to § 153.070, Building Materials.
4. Windows may not exceed 20% of any street-facing façade and shall not be reflective.
5. A maximum of two colors (excluding roof colors) shall be used on wall facades visible from off-site areas. Colors
shall be neutral, and shall not be used to call attention to the use.
6. Perimeter or exterior walls visible from a public street or detached residential dwelling shall not include metal as a
primary material.
7. All mechanical equipment and dumpsters shall be fully screened from off-site views.
(e) Fencing. All areas adjacent to a street frontage not occupied by a building shall include fencing designed in
accordance with the following standards:
1. Fences shall be no shorter than six feet or taller than eight feet.
2. Fencing shall be masonry, wrought iron, steel, or aluminum and shall be painted or vinyl coated with colors that
complement the buildings.
3. Chain link fencing is prohibited except where the use abuts lots with a business zoning designation, but in no
instance shall chain link fencing be visible from a public street.
4. Metal fences shall include brick pilasters or supports located with consistent on-center spacing.
5. Wooden or chain link entry gates into the use are prohibited.
(4) Temporary contractor's yards.
(a) Temporary contractor's yards shall be allowed only by interim use permit, subject to the standards of §
153.028(E).
(b) Temporary contractor's yards shall be accommodated only in association with the construction of public
infrastructure projects on public property, rights-of-way, or public easements.
(c) Temporary contractor's yards shall be located only on property directly abutting a county, state or federal highway,
and shall minimize use of local streets. No local streets may be used by temporary contractor equipment, with the exception
of streets or utilities currently under construction or reconstruction for that purpose, or which are deemed necessary for such
use by the City Engineer to provide access to a permitted construction site.
(d) Such yards shall provide haul routes for approval by the City Engineer.
(e) Such yards shall provide adequate securities, as determined by the City Council, for the restoration of any
municipal infrastructure damaged due to the operation of the yard.
(f) Such yards shall provide, as a condition of their permit, for adequate stormwater management, dust control, traffic
control, and other requirements of the City Engineer.
(g) Interim use permits for temporary contractor's yards shall include a restoration plan ensuring the restoration of the
property to a condition meeting the zoning and nuisance standards of the city.
(5) Extractive uses.
(a) All regulations in this chapter shall be met.
(b) Plans shall be provided to illustrate how the land will be left in a usable condition upon cessation of extraction
activities, shall prove that the finished grade will not adversely affect the surrounding land or future development of the site
on which the mining is being conducted, and the route of trucks moving to and from the site.
(c) The interim use permit authorizing the extraction of materials shall regulate:
1. The type(s) of material being mined on the site;
2. A program for rodent control;
3. A plan for fire control and general maintenance of the site;
4. Controls for vehicular ingress and egress, and for control of material disbursed from wind or hauling of material to
or from the site;
5. A calendar of specific dates when mining operations will be conducted, including specific beginning and ending
dates, but not for a period exceeding five years from beginning to end of permit; and
6. The submission of a surety by the applicant in an amount determined by the Community Development
Department to be equal to 100% of the value of the cost of restoring land whereupon mining is to occur and repairing the
degradation of roadways used to transport soils.
(d) On-site sales may be allowed as part of the interim use permit subject to all conditions established by the City
Council to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of those visiting the site and of surrounding property owners.
(e) For extraction of materials under this section within the Pointes at Cedar Zoning District, no such permit shall be
issued except where:
1. The city has an interest in the subject property ownership;
2. The city is conducting the extraction under a contract with the fee title owner or representative; or
3. The city approves such a permit for another government agency and/or its contractor for a public project.
(f) In the Pointes at Cedar (PCD) or A-O Districts, and at the city's sole discretion, the IUP under this section may
include screening, concrete mixing, asphalt plant operation, or other activities utilizing the raw materials being extracted
from the site, provided the city finds that no adverse impact on adjoining property use will occur, including, but not limited to,
noise, odors, dust, or other particulate matter.
(g) For the purposes of this section, mining or excavation shall mean solely the removal of minerals, including sand,
stone, clay, gravel, or soil in quantities of more than 100 cubic yards, and hauling of said materials from the site. For
quantities of less than 100 cubic yards, or for projects that extract and relocate the materials on the same project site
regardless of quantity, administrative grading permits may be issued without need for an IUP.
(h) For extraction operations which will last only one season, such as for public road construction projects, the City
Council may issue a temporary extraction permit. Such permit may include the placement of a bituminous hot mix plant and
other accessory equipment. Said permits shall only apply if the extraction site is to be opened, closed and reclaimed within
one year. The Zoning Administrator may waive some of the information required by division (5)(k) below in the case of a
temporary extraction permit. A temporary extraction permit shall be administered as an interim use permit.
(i) For extraction operations issued an interim use permit under this section, the city may, at its sole discretion,
approve the import of recyclable concrete or asphalt materials for the purpose of crushing and re-use of those materials off-
site. No crushing, washing, refining, processing, or other recycling machinery shall be operated within 500 feet of any
residential property boundary, nor shall such machinery be operated for more than two weeks in any calendar year. Any
such crushing or similar activity shall be operational only during the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
(j) Any extraction IUP issued under this division (F)(5) shall include, as a component of the IUP, a mandatory land
reclamation permit, as regulated under division (F)(10).
(k) Information required. The following information shall be provided by the person requesting the permit:
1. Name and address of person requesting the extraction permit;
2. The exact legal property description and acreage of area to be mined;
3. The following maps of the entire site and to include all areas within 100 feet of the site.
a. Map A, existing conditions to include:
(i) Contour lines at five two-foot intervals;
(ii) Existing vegetation;
(iii) Existing drainage and permanent water areas;
(iv) Existing structures; and
(v) Existing wells.
b. Map B, proposed operations to include:
(i) Structures to be erected;
(ii) Location of sites to be mined showing depth of proposed excavation;
(iii) Location of tailings deposits showing maximum height of deposits;
(iv) Location of machinery to be used in the extraction operation;
(v) Location of storage of mined materials, showing height of storage deposits;
(vi) Location of vehicle parking, truck staging, queueing, or stacking area, access roads and local truck routes;
(vii) Location of storage of explosives, equipment, and other equipment materials;
(viii) Erosion and sediment control structures;
(ix) Screening, berms, and proposed plantings; and
(x) Location of leak containment structures, in the event of a petrochemical leak or spill.
c. Map C, reclamation plan to include:
(i) All of the information required in division (F)(10).
(l) Financial guarantee. The city shall require a cash escrow, or irrevocable letter of credit in a form and from a
financial institution acceptable to the city, to guarantee compliance with this division and terms and specifications of the
interim use permit. The city shall have the right to use the financial guarantee to remove stockpiles, complete site
rehabilitation, and correct other deficiencies or problems, in the event the owner or operator is in default of the permit
obligations. The amount of financial guarantee shall be equal to $5,000 for every permitted acre or any other amount
deemed acceptable by the City Council. The financial guarantee may be adjusted periodically to reflect ongoing progress, at
the discretion of the Zoning Administrator, and shall remain in full force and effect until all conditions of the permit have been
met, including site restoration.
(m) Exceptions. An extraction permit shall not be required for any of the following:
1. Excavation for a foundation, basement, or other building activity, if such work has been properly permitted.
2. Excavation by city authorities or their contractors in connection with construction and maintenance of roads,
highways, bridges, stormwater management projects, parks or utilities within the city limits, conducted solely within the
related easement areas or rights-of-way.
3. Grading and removal of materials in accordance with the development of an approved plat or development, if the
activity was reviewed as part of the approval process.
(6) General warehousing.
(a) The use shall be located at least 500 feet from any residential district, school, or day care center.
(b) The use shall not locate storage areas within a required setback or perimeter buffer.
(c) The use shall locate outdoor storage areas to the rear of the principal structure. All such outdoor storage shall be
screened from view of adjacent properties in conformance with the requirements of § 153.060(I).
(d) The use shall be designed to ensure proper functioning of the site as related to vehicle stacking, circulation, and
turning movements.
(e) The use shall have direct access onto an arterial or collector roadway.
(7) Heavy manufacturing.
(a) The use shall be located at least 500 feet from any residential district, school, or day care center.
(b) The use shall locate outdoor storage areas to the rear of the principal structure and be screened with a fence or
wall in accordance with § 153.060(I). The height of materials and equipment stored shall not exceed the height of the
screening fence or wall.
(c) The use shall be designed to ensure property functioning of the on-site transportation circulation system.
(d) The use shall have direct access onto an arterial or collector roadway.
(8) Industrial services.
(a) The entire site other than that taken up by a building, structure, or plantings shall be paved.
(b) A drainage system subject to the approval of the Community Development Department shall be installed.
(c) The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source of light visible from adjacent land in
residential use or from the public right-of-way and shall be in compliance with § 153.063.
(d) When abutting a residential use, the property shall be screened with an opaque buffer (Table 4-2, Buffer Type "D")
in accordance with § 153.060(G).
(e) Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of abutting properties and the public right of
way in compliance with § 153.060(F).
(f) All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized and shall be in compliance with §
153.064.
(g) Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
(h) No outside storage except as permitted or conditionally permitted in compliance with § 153.092(D)(26).
(i) If the business requires the use of large commercial vehicles or other large machinery, a specific area shall be
designated for the exterior storage of the vehicles and equipment.
(9) Industrial self-storage facilities.
(a) Such facilities shall occupy no less than 2,000 square feet per individual storage unit in any complex or building.
(b) All individual units shall have overhead door access and service access separate from other units, and no
common access shall be permitted.
(c) Such use shall be authorized by conditional use permit.
(d) Site layout:
1. The minimum lot area shall be at least two acres.
2. If separate buildings are constructed, there shall be a minimum separation of ten feet between buildings.
(e) Operation:
1. The only commercial uses permitted on-site shall be the rental of storage bays and the pickup and deposit of
goods or property in cold storage. Storage bays shall not be used to manufacture, fabricate, or process goods, to service or
repair vehicles, small engines or electrical equipment, or conduct similar repair activities, to conduct garage sales or retail
sales of any kind, or to conduct any other commercial or industrial activity on the site.
2. Individual storage bays or private postal boxes within a self-service storage facility use shall not be considered
premises for the purpose of assigning a legal address.
3. No more than one security or caretaker quarters may be developed on the site, and shall be integrated into the
building’s design.
4. Except as otherwise authorized in this division, all property stored on the site shall be enclosed entirely within
enclosed buildings.
5. If buildings or driving lanes are within 200 feet of a residential dwelling, the hours of public access to the self-
storage use shall be restricted to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
(f) Parking and circulation.
1. The one- or two-way traffic flow patterns in aisleways shall be clearly marked. Marking shall consist, at a
minimum, of standard directional signage and painted lane markings with arrows.
2. Appropriate access and circulation by vehicles and emergency equipment shall be ensured through the design of
internal turning radii of aisleways.
3. All access ways shall be paved with asphalt, concrete, or comparable paving materials.
(g) Building appearance.
1. Garage doors serving individual storage units shall be perpendicular to a public or private street so as to not be
visible from adjacent streets.
2. Outdoor lighting shall be the minimum necessary to discourage vandalism and theft, and shall be provided in
accordance with § 153.063, Exterior Lighting.
3. The exterior facades of all structures facing a public street shall adhere to § 153.070, Building Materials.
4. Windows may not exceed 20% of any street-facing façade and shall not be reflective.
5. A maximum of two colors (excluding roof colors) shall be used on wall facades visible from off-site areas. Colors
shall be neutral, and shall not be used to call attention to the use.
6. Perimeter or exterior walls visible from a public street or detached residential dwelling shall not include metal as a
primary material.
7. All mechanical equipment and dumpsters shall be fully screened from off-site views.
(h) Fencing. All areas adjacent to a street frontage not occupied by a building shall include fencing designed in
accordance with the following standards:
1. Fences shall be no shorter than six feet or taller than eight feet.
2. Fencing shall be masonry, wrought iron, steel, or aluminum and shall be painted or vinyl coated with colors that
complement the buildings.
3. Chain link fencing is prohibited except where the use abuts lots with a business zoning designation, but in no
instance shall chain link fencing be visible from a public street.
4. Metal fences shall include brick pilasters or supports located with consistent on-center spacing.
5. Wooden or chain link entry gates into the use are prohibited.
(i) Open storage. Open storage of recreational vehicles and travel trailers of the type customarily maintained by
persons for their personal use shall be permitted within a self-service storage facility use, provided that the following
standards are met:
1. No outdoor storage shall be visible from off-site views.
2. The storage shall occur only within a designated area, which shall be clearly delineated.
3. The size of the storage area shall not exceed 25% of the buildable area of the site.
4. Outdoor storage areas shall be located to the rear of the principal structure and be screened with a wooden
fence or masonry wall at least eight feet high.
5. Storage shall not occur within the areas set aside for minimum building setbacks.
6. No dry stacking of boats shall be permitted on-site.
7. Vehicles shall be allowed on the premises for storage only.
(10) Land reclamation. The interim use permit authorizing land reclamation shall require:
(a) A finished grade plan which will not adversely affect the adjacent land;
(b) The type of fill permitted;
(c) A program for rodent control;
(d) A plan for fire control and general maintenance of the site;
(e) Controls for vehicular ingress and egress, and for control of material disbursed from wind or hauling of material to
or from the site;
(f) A soil erosion and sediment control plan;
(g) A calendar of specific dates when land reclamation operations will be conducted, including specific beginning and
ending dates;
(h) The submission of a surety by the applicant in an amount determined by the Community Development Department
to be equal to 100% of the value of the cost of restoring land whereupon land reclamation is to occur and repairing the
degradation of roadways used to transport soils; and
(i) Unless otherwise required by the City Council, a minimum of four inches of clean, uncontaminated topsoil shall be
placed on all final graded and rehabilitated areas. The peaks and depressions of the area shall be graded and backfilled to a
surface which will result in a gently rolling topography in substantial conformity to the land area immediately surrounding
area, and which will minimize erosion due to rainfall. No finished slope shall exceed 25% in grade.
(11) Light manufacturing. Light manufacturing uses may include a commercial component provided the following
standards are met:
(a) The commercial component is directly related to the products being created by the light manufacturing use.
(b) The commercial component shall not exceed 30% of the gross floor area of the principal use.
(12) Machinery/trucking repair & sales and industrial services.
(a) A drainage system subject to the approval of the Community Development Department shall be installed.
(b) The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source of light visible from adjacent land in
residential use or from the public right-of-way and shall be in compliance with § 153.063.
(c) When abutting a residential use, the property shall be screened with an opaque buffer (Table 4-2, Buffer Type “D”)
in accordance with § 153.060(G).
(d) Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance
with § 153.060(F).
(e) All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized and shall be in compliance with
§ 153.064.
(f) Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
(g) Any such facility shall include a principal building of no less than 30,000 square feet in floor area. The square
footage shall be increased by 15% of each acre of the parcel size above five acres.
(h) Additional accessory buildings related to the principal use may be provided on the site as a part of essential
operations of this use without the need for PUD approvals but shall be limited to no more than 15% of the gross square
footage of the principal use. Leasing of such buildings to other business entities or operations would require the processing
of a PUD per § 153.028(O).
(i) Any outdoor storage (separate from approved sales and display area) of vehicles and/or equipment awaiting repair
accessory to the principal use shall be limited to an area of the site no greater than the footprint of the principal building.
(j) Any outdoor storage of vehicles and/or equipment awaiting repair, repair vehicles and/or equipment must be kept
on a paved surface such as bituminous or concrete, screened from view of adjoining public rights-of-way and residentially
zoned property. Such outdoor storage area must be designated on an approved site plan. Sites utilizing heavy equipment
shall rely on reinforced concrete to ensure long-term durability of the paved surface.
(k) Any outdoor display of for-sale vehicles or equipment must be paved with a hard surface such as bituminous or
concrete and occupy an area of the site no greater than 200% of the footprint of the principal building, not including areas
dedicated to required parking and general circulation on the site. Such outdoor display area must be designated on an
approved site plan.
(l) Sites utilizing heavy equipment shall rely on reinforced concrete to ensure long-term durability of the paved
surface.
(m) All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when the Council, upon investigation in relation to
a formal request, finds that the general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or better by modifying the
conditions.
(n) If the business repairs semi-trucks or other large machinery, a specific area shall be designated for the exterior
storage of the things being repaired and/or other vehicles and equipment accessory and incidental to the vehicle or
machinery being repaired or serviced.
(13) Production breweries and micro-distilleries. Production breweries and micro-distilleries shall be allowed as a
permitted use in the I-1 and I-2 District, provided that:
(a) The owner of the brewery qualifies for and receives a brewer license and a malt liquor wholesale license from the
State of Minnesota, according to M.S. § 340A.301, as it may be amended from time to time.
(b) Total production of malt liquor may not exceed 250,000 barrels annually.
(14) Production breweries and micro-distilleries with accessory taproom or cocktail room. Production breweries and
micro-distilleries with accessory taproom or cocktail room shall be allowed by conditional use permit in the IBC, I-1 and I-2
Districts, provided that:
(a) The facility is located in an area that includes and/or serves commercial traffic.
(b) The facility is not located within 500 feet of a residential zoning district.
(c) The owner of the brewery qualifies for and receives a brewer license and a malt liquor wholesale license from the
State of Minnesota, according to M.S. § 340A.301, as it may be amended from time to time.
(d) Total production of malt liquor may not exceed 250,000 barrels annually.
(15) Recycling and salvage center.
(a) The center shall be on a parcel with an area of at least four acres.
(b) The center shall be located at least 250 feet from any residential district, school, or day care.
(c) Except for a freestanding office, no part of the center shall be located within 25 feet of any property line, or the
minimum buffer yard setbacks required in § 153.060(G), whichever requires the greater setback.
(d) All recycling activities and storage areas shall be effectively screened from view by walls, fences, or buildings.
Such screening shall be designed and installed to ensure that no part of recycling activities or a storage area can be seen
from rights-of-way or adjacent lots.
(e) All outdoor storage areas shall be surrounded by a solid fence or wall that is at least eight feet high, located no
less than 30 feet from any public right-of-way, and located no less than 15 feet from any adjacent property.
(f) Recyclable materials shall be contained within a leak-proof bin or trailer, and not stored on the ground. In the
alternative, the outdoor storage of recyclable materials may occur on the ground, provided that the ground is surfaced with a
suitable material acceptable to the city to control dust and drainage in a manner that is consistent with the city’s stormwater
management requirements, and is fenced and screened to ensure that no storage is taller in elevation than the height of the
screening.
(g) The facility shall at all times comply with the terms of the MCPA permitting for the site, and shall promptly comply
with any order of mitigation or correction issued by the MPCA when an inconsistency or violation is found. The city may
require additional improvements to protect the city’s stormwater management system resulting from operation of the facility,
including but not limited to, additional stormwater treatment, reporting, and notifications as appropriate.
(h) There shall be no collection or storage of biodegradable wastes (as defined by the PCA) on the site. The storage
of hazardous wastes shall be, at all times, found to be in compliance with the requirements and permitting of the MPCA as
applicable to the site and the material in question.
(i) Space shall be provided to park each commercial vehicle operated by the center.
(j) The facility shall be administered by on-site persons during the hours the facility is open.
(k) The site shall be maintained free of fluids, odors, litter, rubbish, and any other non-recyclable materials. The site
shall be cleaned of debris on a daily basis and shall be secured from unauthorized entry and removal of materials when
attendants are not present.
(l) Noise levels shall be controlled in accordance with § 153.091(A)(2)(e).
(m) Signage shall include the name and phone number of the facility operator and indicate any materials not
accepted by the center.
(n) Access to the center shall be from a collector or arterial street.
(o) No dust, fumes, smoke, vibration or odor above ambient level shall be detectable on abutting properties.
(16) Truck or freight terminal.
(a) The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing,
conforming buildings or areas as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within the district
in which the proposed use is located.
(b) Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts and public streets in compliance with §
153.060(I). Trucks and trailers stored on the site shall be screened from adjoining residential areas and public streets with a
combination of trees, shrubs, and fencing to ensure that no view of the trailers is possible from abutting residential property
to a height of no less than 12 feet.
(c) The entire site, other than that taken up by a building, structure, or plantings, must be paved with a hard surface
such as bituminous or concrete sites utilizing heavy equipment shall rely on reinforced concrete to ensure long-term
durability of the paved surface. All surfaces shall be developed with a stormwater management system approved by the City
Engineer.
(d) The site shall meet minimum lot dimension requirements of the District.
(e) No outside storage except as permitted or conditionally permitted in compliance with § 153.092(D)(26).
(f) Parking areas accessible to the public, including customers and employees shall be paved.
(g) No more than 6,000 square feet of the site shall be devoted to the storage, parking, and/or circulation of semi-
tractors and trailers, as illustrated on a site plan submitted in connection with an application for a conditional use permit.
(h) All service activities shall occur within the principal building or approved accessory buildings.
(17) Waste disposal and incineration.
(a) Disposal must be in accordance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulations.
(b) The facility must secure applicable local, county, state, and/or federal permits.
(18) Wrecker and towing services.
(a) All outside storage shall be enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence of up to eight feet in height. The fence and the
materials used to construct it shall be approved of by the city.
(b) No vehicles shall be stored within the 100-year floodplain.
(c) Upon receiving a motor vehicle which will not be repaired, the applicant will take measures to ensure that no
discharge of any fluids from any motor vehicle shall be permitted into or onto the ground.
(d) No dismantling of motor vehicles shall be allowed.
(e) No vehicles shall be stored within 300 feet of a well that serves as a public or private water supply unless such
well serves the business.
(f) Towed vehicles shall be stored only in areas behind the front building line of the property, screened as required in
this section. Towing equipment and vehicles may be parked in specifically designated locations on an approved site plan.
(19) Industrial cannabis businesses. Including the following cannabis-related uses: cultivator; manufacturer; wholesaler;
transporter; testing facility; delivery service; mezzobusiness; microbusiness; any such business that conducts these
activities for lower-potency hemp enterprises; any such business that conducts these activities for medical cannabis
enterprises; or any other cannabis-related business enterprise that is not expressly and solely a retail business, shall be
subject to the following standards:
(a) Industrial cannabis businesses shall comply with all of the requirements of § 153.091(C).
(b) The entire site other than that taken up by a building, structure, or plantings shall be paved.
(c) A drainage system subject to the approval of the Community Development Department shall be installed.
(d) The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source of light visible from adjacent land in
residential use or from the public right-of-way and shall be in compliance with § 153.063.
(e) In an I-1 District, when abutting a residential use, the property shall be screened with an opaque buffer (Table 4-2,
Buffer Type "D") in accordance with § 153.060(G).
(f) In an I-2 District, no parcel may be used for cannabis-related business if such parcel abuts a residential district.
(g) All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized and shall be in compliance with
§ 153.064.
(h) Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
(i) Waste-handling equipment and processes shall be enclosed and indoors.
(j) No outside storage shall be allowed for any cannabis-related business. Parking of delivery or transport vehicles
shall occur only in designated spaces, and shall not be considered outside storage.
(k) Cannabis cultivation uses as part of any industrial cannabis business shall be subject to the following additional
requirements:
1. Cannabis cultivators shall limit site and/or building lighting to ensure that light at the property line is measured at
0.0 footcandles.
2. All lighting shall be hooded, downcast, and not create glare to any other property.
3. All buildings shall comply with the city's zoning and building regulations, and be adaptable to other non-
cultivation use.
(Ord. 762, passed 8-23-2021; Ord. 771, passed 2-28-2022; Ord. 780, passed 7-25-2022; Ord. 791, passed 11-14-2022;
Ord. 797, passed 2-13-2023; Ord. 799, passed 2-27-2023; Ord. 804, passed 8-14-2023; Ord. 827, passed 6-24-2024; Ord.
828, passed 6-24-2024; Ord. 830, passed 7-22-2024; Ord. 835, passed 11-25-2024)
Planning Commission Agenda: 01/06/2026
1
2C. Public Hearing – Consideration to adopt Resolution PC-2026-01
recommending adoption of the 2026 City of Monticello Official Zoning Map
Prepared by:
Community & Economic
Development Coordinator
Meeting Date:
01/06/2026
Council Date (pending
Commission action):
01/26/2026
Additional Analysis by:
Community Development Director
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to adopt Resolution PC-2026-01 recommending the adoption of
Ordinance No. 8XX for the adoption of the 2026 City of Monticello Official
Zoning Map and appendices, based on the findings in said resolution.
2. Motion of other.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed City of Monticello 2026
Official Zoning Map and consider recommending the map and companion appendix
maps for adoption by the City Council. The Zoning Map’s appendix maps include the
Central Community District (CCD) Sub-District Map, Pointes at Cedar (PCD) Sub-District
Map, and the Shoreland/Mississippi Wild Scenic and Recreational River
(MWSRR)/Floodplain Overlay Map.
The Official Zoning Map and appendix maps included for review reflect rezoning
actions that have occurred since the adoption of the last official map in January
2025. The map proposed includes those that were adopted in 2025, as follows:
• Ordinance No. 843 – Meadowbrook Planned Unit Development
• Ordinance No. 845 – Mastercraft Planned Unit Development
• Business Districts – Color updates for greater color contrast between B-2 and B-3
In recommending adoption of the 2026 Official Zoning Map, the Planning
Commission would also recommend adoption of the 2026
Shoreland/MWSRR/Floodplain Overlay District map, the CCD map, and the PCD
map.
There are no changes to the CCD and PCD maps for 2026. The
Shoreland/MWSRR/Floodplain map was updated in 2025 with Ordinance 825 to
reflect the June 2024 Floodplain mapping as required by FEMA. The 2025
Planning Commission Agenda: 01/06/2026
2
Shoreland/MWSRR/Floodplain map was also amended to include a shoreland
designation for a lake just south of the City’s southern municipal boundary,
consistent with DNR and Wright County Shoreland records.
A reminder that although the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 838 in 2024 for
rezoning of the Broadway Plaza Planned Unit Development, that rezoning is contingent
upon annexation and final plat, including resolution of all conditions of approval, which
is not yet complete. As such, the rezoning of Broadway Plaza PUD zoning is not effective
at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the adoption of the 2026 Official Zoning Map and companion
appendix maps. The updated Official Zoning Map is reflective of the map amendment
actions taken by the City over the prior year. The CCD, PCD, and
Shoreland/MWSRR/Floodplain maps are consistent with the prior 2025 adoption.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution PC-2026-01
B. Ordinance 8XX, Draft – Adoption of Official Zoning Map and Appendix Maps
C. 2026 Proposed Official Zoning Map
D. 2026 Shoreland/MWSRR/Floodplain Map
E. 2026 CCD Subdistrict Map
F. 2026 PCD Map
G. 2025 Official Zoning Map and Appendices
H. Ordinances for Rezoning, 2025
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP AND ITS APPENDICES IN ITS ENTIRETY
WHEREAS, the Zoning Map of the City of Monticello requires amendment; and
WHEREAS, the proposed map and its appendices accommodates and furthers the intentions
and policies of the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning map is consistent with the intent of the City’s Comprehensive
land use plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello finds that the proposed zoning
map and its appendices will be consistent with the intent of the proposed zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on January 6th, 2026 to
review the requests and receive public comment on the zoning map amendment including
appendices; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed zoning map and its appendices
has met the requirements for adoption as found in the zoning ordinance and state law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the amendment to the
zoning map and its appendices to be identified as Ordinance No. 8XX.
ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 2026 by the Planning Commission of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
By: _______________________________
Andrew Tapper, Chair
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-01
ATTEST:
____________________________________________
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
ORDINANCE NO. 8XX___
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND ADOPTING THE 2026 OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP AND ITS APPENDIX MAPS FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. The zoning map amendments attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit “A” are adopted as the Official Zoning Map under Title XV, Chapter
153, Section 153.040 of the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Monticello.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its
passage and publication. Revisions will be made online after adoption by
Council. Copies of the complete Zoning Ordinance are available online and
at Monticello City Hall upon request.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION BY the Monticello City Council this ___ day of
January, 2026.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
_____________________________
Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Rachel Leonard, City Administrator
VOTING IN FAVOR:
VOTING IN OPPOSITION:
ORDINANCE NO. 8XX___
EXHIBIT “A”
Following are the approved amendments to the Official Zoning Map and its Appendix Maps
• Ordinance No. 843 – Mastercraft
• Ordinance No. 845 – Meadowbrook
Cou
n
t
y
H
w
y
7
5
Chels
e
a
R
d
Sta
t
e
H
w
y
2
5
85th St NE
90th S
t
N
E
Lin
n
S
t
Pin
e
S
t
E 7th
S
t
School Blvd
Riverview Dr
Ced
a
r
S
t
W Ri
v
e
r
S
t
M
a
r
v
i
n
R
d
Jason Ave NE
Dundas Rd
W Br
o
a
d
w
a
y
S
t
H
a
r
t
B
l
v
d
Co
u
n
t
r
y
L
n
Ha
u
g
A
v
e
N
E
Elm
S
t
W 4t
h
S
t
Fe
n
n
i
n
g
A
v
e
N
E
Oa
k
w
o
o
k
D
r
Mallard Ln
95th St NE
Fa
l
l
o
n
A
v
e
N
E
Ed
m
o
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
N
E
Mississi
p
p
i
D
r
W 5t
h
S
t
W
7
t
h
S
t
Sa
n
d
b
e
r
g
R
d
Pe
l
i
c
a
n
L
n
Falcon Dr
Fe
n
n
i
n
g
A
v
e
N
E
Waln
u
t
S
t
Oa
k
R
i
d
g
e
D
r
N
Or
i
o
l
e
L
n
Club View Rd
Br
o
a
d
w
a
y
S
t
Hillcrest Rd
E Riv
e
r
S
t
Hedm
a
n
L
n
Mi
l
l
T
r
a
i
l
L
n
Fa
l
l
o
n
A
v
e
N
E
Wrig
h
t
S
t
New
S
t
Ma
r
v
i
n
E
l
w
o
o
d
R
o
a
d
Ram
s
e
y
S
t
W 6t
h
S
t
River Mill
D
r
Wildwood Way
Hilltop Dr
Mill Run Rd
Oakview Ln
Fa
r
m
s
t
e
a
d
A
v
e
Martin Dr
E 3rd
S
t
E 3rd
S
t
Re
d
R
o
c
k
L
n
Gil
l
a
r
d
A
v
e
N
E
Map
l
e
S
t
Fallon Dr
Will
o
w
S
t
Eas
t
w
o
o
d
L
n
Gr
a
y
s
t
o
n
e
A
v
e
Ma
r
v
i
n
E
l
w
o
o
d
R
d
Fie
l
d
c
r
e
s
t
C
i
r
Fa
i
r
w
a
y
D
r
Jaso
n
A
v
e
N
E
Vin
e
S
t
Meadow Ln
Jer
r
y
L
i
e
f
e
r
t
D
r
Praire Road
Starling Dr
Palm
S
t
Fa
l
l
o
n
A
v
e
N
E
Golf Course Rd
Fall
o
n
A
v
e
N
E
Kevin Longley Dr
Cra
i
g
L
n
Re
d
O
a
k
L
n
Fron
t
S
t
W 5
t
h
S
t
Thomas Park Dr
Loc
u
s
t
S
t
Mockingbird Ln
W 3r
d
S
t
Ea
s
t
w
o
o
d
C
i
r
Briar Oaks Blvd
F
a
r
m
s
t
e
a
d
D
r
Hen
n
e
p
i
n
S
t
Ei
d
e
r
L
n
Oak
L
n
River Forest Dr
Meadow Oak Ave
Kampa Cir
O
a
k
R
i
d
g
e
C
i
r
Mill Ct
River Ridge Ln
Oa
k
v
i
e
w
C
t
Du
n
d
a
s
C
i
r
Ke
n
n
e
t
h
L
n
Ot
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
R
d
Min
n
e
s
o
t
a
S
t
Ea
g
l
e
C
i
r
Cro
c
u
s
L
n
M
e
a
d
o
w
O
a
k
L
n
Stoneridge Dr
Che
s
t
n
u
t
S
t
120th St
N
E
Da
r
r
o
w
A
v
e
N
E
Diamond Dr
Pebblebrook Dr
Wi
d
g
e
o
n
L
n
Wash
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
Bu
n
k
e
r
C
i
r
Hom
e
s
t
e
a
d
D
r
Th
o
m
a
s
C
i
r
E
n
d
i
c
o
t
t
T
r
Ce
n
t
e
r
C
i
r
Oak
v
i
e
w
C
i
r
Sa
n
d
t
r
a
p
C
i
r
Country Cir
Cheyenne Ct
Te
r
r
i
t
o
r
a
l
R
d
Ta
n
a
g
e
r
C
i
r
Hillc
r
e
s
t
C
i
r
Osprey Cir
Ac
o
r
n
C
i
r
Ba
l
b
o
u
l
C
i
r
S
w
a
l
l
o
w
C
i
r
Riverside
C
i
r
Me
a
d
o
w
O
a
k
C
t
Ma
t
t
h
e
w
C
i
r
East Oak Dr
Stonerid
g
e
C
i
r
Oa
k
w
o
o
d
D
r
Mea
d
o
w
O
a
k
D
r
Co
u
n
t
y
H
w
y
7
5
Har
t
B
l
v
d
Mi
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
S
t
Elm
S
t
Wri
g
h
t
S
t
90th St NE
Ced
a
r
S
t
Min
n
e
s
o
t
a
S
t
1
2
3
4
7
5
8
9
10
11
12
6
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
20
22
23
2426
25
27
28
City of Monticello
Official Zoning Map
:Legend
BASE ZONING DISTRICTS
PUD Districts
Residential Districts
-- Low Residential Densities
A-O
R-A
R-1
Business Districts
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
CCD*
-- Medium Residential Densities
T-N
R-2
R-PUD
-- High Residential Densities
R-3
R-4
M-H
Mills Fleet Farm
Red Rooster
Swan River
Monticello High School
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Spaeth Industrial Park
Camping World
Affordable Storage
Autumn Ridge Villas
OTHER
Water
Industrial Districts
IBC
I-1
I-2
OVERLAY DISTRICTS
Shoreland District**
Special Use Overlay District
!
!!
!!
Freeway Bonus Sign District
09 Rivertown Suites
10 Monticello RV
11 Deephaven
12 Twin Pines
13 UMC
14 Edmonson Ridge
18 Monticello Lakes
17 Stony Brook Village
16 Storagelink Monticello
15 Nuss Truck and Equipment Addition
1 inch = 2,500 feet
0.2% Floodplain Boundary**
19 Hoglund Bus Park
20 Block 52
21 Country Club Manor 2nd Addition
22 Haven Ridge 2nd Addition
23 Great River Addition
Mississippi Wild, Scenic & Rec Overlay District**
27171C0170D, 27171C0190D
PCD*
1% Floodplain Boundary**
24 Big River Addition
25 Haven Ridge West
26 Cedar Street Storage
Adopted January 12, 2026
*See CCD and Pointes at Cedar Sub-District Appendix Zoning Maps
**See Floodplain, Shoreland, and MWSRR Appendix Zoning Map
***Floodplain is established and effective per FIRM panels 27171C0155D, 27171C0160D, 27171C0160D,
27 Meadowbrook
28 Mastercraft Outdoors
!"b$
?¾A@
5HGIR U G /Q
WK6W1H
6W
D
W
H
+
L
J
K
Z
D
\
6
*
L
O
O
D
U
G
A
Y
H
1
H
5LYHU )R UHVW 'U
)HQ
Q
LQ
J
AYH 1 H
*ROI&RXUVH5G
0D
W
W
K
H
Z
&
L
U
+H
U
R
Q
&
W
:L
O
O
R
Z
6
W
6W
R
Q
H
U
LG
J
H
'U
,
Q
Q
V
E
U
R
R
N
&
W
6W
&
H
Q
W
H
U
&
L
U
U G 6 W 1H
+
D
X
J
A
Y
H
1
H
0
H
DGR
Z
2DN
'U
WK 6W
1
H
2VSUH\&W
0 H DGRZ
2
D
N A YH
6
Z
D
O
O
R
Z
&
L
U
*R OGH Q (DJ
OH
/
Q
:LOGZRRG&W
3H
OLFDQ
/Q
AOSLQH&W
%LVR
Q
AYH)D
U
P
V
W
H
D
G
&
W
'H
H
U
&
L
U
7
D
Q
D
J
H
U
&
L
U
(ON
AYH
)
R
[
6W
%DOER
X
O&LU
3
D
U
N
3
O
D
F
H
'
U
AOSLQ
H
'U
&
U
R
F
X
V
&
L
U
:R
R
GFU HV
W
&
W
7H
H
%
R
[
'
U
+L
O
O
F
U
H
V
W
&
L
U
6S LULW +LOOV
5G
0FNHQQD&W
*DWHZ DWH U 'U
(EEHQ
&LU
2
DN
5
LGJ
H
'
U
1
WK 6W 1H
(DVWZ
RRG
/
Q
0LOO&W
9L
Q
H
6
W
&
R
X
Q
WU\
A
YH
&RXQWU\
/Q
2WWHUFUHH
N
5G
2DN 5 LGJH 'U
%DGJHU&LU
(
Q
G
L
F
R
WW
7UO
0
D
UYLQ
(OZ
R
R
G
5G
2
U
FKDUG &L U
:
R
R
G
O
D
Q
G
&
W
7
U
R
\
0
D
U
T
X
H
W
W
H
'U
)
L
H
OGFUHVW &L U
7
K
R
P
D
V
&
L
U
%DOG(
D
J
O
H
&
W
:D
V
K
L
Q
J
W
R
Q
6
W
(LGH
U
/Q
%DN N H Q 6W
*R OGHQ
3R
Q
G
/Q
2
D
N
/
Q
(D
J
O
H
&
L
U
1
L
F
K
R
O
D
V
&
L
U
QG6W1H
+
D
Z
W
K
R
U
Q
H
3
O
6
6
D
Q
G
WUD
S
&
L
U
&KHOVHD
5
G
:
-
D
V
R
Q
A
Y
H
1
H
W
K
6
W
(
'H H J DQ &W
2ULROH /Q
:
L
G
J
H
R
Q
/
Q
)DUPV WH
D
G
'
U
'HH U 6W
:LQGHPHUH&W
5LYH U
5
LGJ H /Q
2DNOHDI&W
3UDLULH5G
2 DNY
LHZ
&
LU
0
LOO7UDLO
/
Q
U
G
6
W
(
3DUN'U
3
U
H
VFRWW
'U
6
X
P
P
L
W
&
W
%DGJHU 6W
+
DUW %OY
G
WK 6W :
AS
S
O
H
/
Q
0
LQ
Q
H
VR
W
D
6W
Q G 6W 1H
6W
D
W
H
+
L
J
K
Z
D
\
1
H
6DQ
G
E
H
U
J
5G
:D
O
Q
X
W
6
W
W
K
6
W
:
(EH
U
V
R
O
H
A
Y
H
WK
6W
:
3D
O
P
6
W
0D
S
O
H
6
W
%
U
R
D
G
Z
D
\
(
5L
Y
H
U
6
W
(
%
UR
D
GZ
D\
:
&
R
X
Q
W\
5RDG
:
/L
Q
Q
6
W
)URQW
6
W
5L
Y
H
U
6
W
:
U
G
6
W
:
W
K
6
W
:
/R
F
X
V
W
6
W
6FKRRO%OYG
&KHOVHD5G
&K
H
V
W
Q
X
W
6
W
+H
Q
Q
H
S
L
Q
6
W
5D
P
V
H
\
6
W
:U
L
J
K
W
6
W
1H
Z
6
W
'
X
Q
G
D
V
&
L
U
W
K
6
W
(
'XQGDV5G
VW 6W
1
H
%
U
H
Q
W
Z
R
R
G
'
U
,QQV
E
U
R
R
N
'
U
7H UULWRULD
O
5
G
9LQH
/Q
)DOORQ
AYH
1H
2DNYLH
Z
&
W
&U
D
L
J
/
Q
.HQQHWK
/
Q
6W
RQH ULG
JH
/Q
6DYDQQ DK AY H
%H
D
U
A
Y
H
WK 6 W 1 H
&REEOHVWR Q H &W
0 H D GR Z
2
D
N
/
Q
2
D
N
Z
R
R
G
'
U
(
3HEEOH EUR R N
'
U
6WDUOLQ J 'U
.DP SD
&LU
%ULDU 2DNH
V
%OY
G
3
U
DLULH 3 LQH
&
W
(O P
6 W
0 DOOD UG /Q
*UD\
VWR
Q
H
AYH
W K 6 W 1H
(DJ
OH
&W
2 DN
5LG
J
H
&LU
'
D
O
WR
Q
:
D
\
2UFKDUG
/
Q
-
H
UU\/LHIHUW 'U
*
D
U
Y
H\
&W
.
H
Y
L
Q
/
R
Q
J
O
H
\
'
U
)DLU
K
LO
O
/Q
WK 6W
1H
5LYH UYLHZ
'
U
*
R
R
G
ULF K 'U
0H DGR Z /Q
&H G D U 6W
+RO\
6S
L
ULW
7
UO
'
D
O
W
R
Q
&
W
WK6W1H
*
L
I
I
R
UW &W
'DOW R Q A Y H 1 H
+LOOWRS'U
3ULYDWH
'
U
(GP
RQ V R Q :D\1H
)DLU
Z
D
\'U
WK 6W
1
H
3L
Q
H
6
W
(DVWZ
R
R
G
&LU
5
H
G2 DN /Q
+D\Z DUG &W 6
(D W RQ &LU 1
H
(LVHOH
AYH
1H
+D \Z DUG &W 1
6
D
Q
G
\
/
Q
0R
FN
LQ
J
ELUG
/Q
)DOORQ
'U
6W
D
W
H
+
L
J
K
Z
D
\
&U
RFXV
/Q
*DWHZ D \&
LU
7H
H
%
R
[
7
U
O
3
U
D
L
U
L
H
&UH HN
/
Q
5 H G5R
FN
/Q
)
D
U
P
V
W
H
D
G
A
Y
H
5LYHU
0
LOO'U
5LYHU 6W :
WK 6W
1
H
&OXE9LHZ'U
:R R G V LG H 'U
2DN Y LH Z /Q
WK 6 W 1H
:
L
OGZR R G :D\
+L J K O D Q G :D\
WK6W1H
:H
V
W
R
Q
'U
0 DUWLQ 'U
6SUXFH
'U
+H
G
P
D
Q
/Q
0
D
U
Y
L
Q
5
G
7K R P DV
3DUN
'
U
(DVW2DN'U
(G
P
R
Q
V
R
Q
A
Y
H
1
H
)DOFR Q AYH
'HH
JDQ
AYH
+LOOFUHVW 5G
(
D
N
H
UQ
&LU 1H
0LOO5 X Q 5
G
0L
V
V
L
V
V
L
S
S
L
'
U
WK 6W(
,QWHUVWDWH 1H
Floodway*
Flood Fringe*
500-Year Floodplain*
DNR Protected Waters
Wild and Scenic Boundary
Shoreland Overlay District
DNR Watercourse
City Boundary
MOAA
²
Date12/6/2024
Floodplain, Shoreland and MWSRR Overlay District Appendix Zoning Map
*Floodplain is established and effective per FIRM Panels
27171C0155D, 27171C0160D, 27171C0165D,
27171C0170D, 27171C0190D
1 inch = 1,500 feet
MN
T
H
25
MN
T
H
2
5
Vin
e
S
t
5th
S
t
Be
n
t
o
n
S
t
Pa
l
m
S
t
Lo
c
u
s
t
S
t
Min
n
e
s
o
t
a
S
t
Was
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
Wri
g
h
t
S
t
Elm
S
t
3rd
S
t
E
E R
i
v
e
r
S
t
Lin
n
S
t
Marv
i
n
R
d
O
l
d
T
e
r
r
i
t
o
r
a
l
R
d
Ma
p
l
e
S
t
M
a
r
v
i
n
R
d
Lo
c
u
s
t
S
t
Fa
l
l
o
n
Av
e
Wri
g
h
t
S
t
Pin
e
St
Wal
n
u
t
S
t
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
Pa
l
m
S
t
6th
S
t
Lin
n
S
t
Pin
e
S
t
5th
S
t
W
Min
n
e
s
o
t
a
S
t
Ra
m
s
e
y
S
t
Pin
e
S
t
W
R
i
v
e
r
S
t
W B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
S
t
Vin
e
S
t
Ce
d
a
r
S
t
He
n
i
p
i
n
S
t
W
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
S
t
Pin
e
S
t
E B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
S
t
W 4
t
h
S
t
W 3
r
d
S
t
4th
S
t
E
Fro
n
t
S
t
E B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
S
t
Sa
n
d
b
e
r
g
R
d
Ma
r
v
i
n
R
d
Pin
e
S
t
Golf Course Rd
Pin
e
S
t
7th
S
t
General CCD
Walnut
& Cedar
Riverfront
Broadway
Walnut
& Cedar
Pine
Street
General CCD
Walnut
& Cedar
General
CCD
Date: 12/18/2023
CCD Sub-Districts
Broadway
General CCD
Pine Street
Riverfront
Walnut & Cedar
MN Wild and Scenic
River Districts
Freeway Overlay
District
City of Monticello
CCD Sub-District
:
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t
P
a
t
h
:
J
:
\
g
i
s
\
c
i
t
y
\
M
O
N
T
\
A
r
c
G
I
S
P
r
o
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
\
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
.
a
p
r
x
D
a
t
e
S
a
v
e
d
:
1
2
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
3
1
0
:
4
2
A
M
1 inch = 550 feet
11
Pointes at Cedar Dis
t
r
i
c
t
The Pointes at Cedar District
Monticello, MN
March 28, 2022 | WSB #:019376-000K:
\
0
1
9
3
7
6
-
0
0
0
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
a
n
d
B
i
o
m
e
m
a
p
s
\
0
1
9
3
7
6
-
0
0
0
d
r
a
f
t
z
o
n
i
n
g
m
a
p
-
2
0
2
2
-
0
3
-
2
3
Scale in Feet
0’200’100’50’
MAJOR GATEWAY #4
MAJOR GATEWAY #1
MAJOR GATEWAY #2
SECONDARY GATEWAY
SECONDARY GATEWAY
SECONDARY GATEWAY
SCH
O
O
L
B
L
V
D
CE
D
A
R
S
T
HIG
H
W
A
Y
2
5
CHELSEA RD
ED
M
O
N
S
O
N
A
V
E
N
E
SECONDARY GATEWAY
MAJOR GATEWAY #3
CENTRAL BIOME:===============TILIA
SOUTHERN BIOME:===============QUERCUS
POWE
R
L
I
N
E
EASE
M
E
N
T
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
MIXED USE
LEGEND:
EXISTING
EXISTING
EXISTING
EXI
S
T
I
N
G
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
EXISTING
EXISTING
PARK
NORTHERN BIOME: =================POPULUS
PCD SUB-DISTRICTNORTHERN BIOME: POPULUS
PCD SUB-DISTRICTCENTRAL BIOME: TILIA
PCD SUB-DISTRICTSOUTHERN BIOME: QUERCUS
Cou
n
t
y
H
w
y
7
5
Chels
e
a
R
d
Sta
t
e
H
w
y
2
5
85th St NE
90th S
t
N
E
Lin
n
S
t
Pin
e
S
t
E 7th
S
t
School Blvd
Riverview Dr
Ced
a
r
S
t
W Ri
v
e
r
S
t
M
a
r
v
i
n
R
d
Jason Ave NE
Dundas Rd
W Br
o
a
d
w
a
y
S
t
H
a
r
t
B
l
v
d
Co
u
n
t
r
y
L
n
Ha
u
g
A
v
e
N
E
Elm
S
t
W 4t
h
S
t
Fe
n
n
i
n
g
A
v
e
N
E
Oa
k
w
o
o
k
D
r
Mallard Ln
95th St NE
Fa
l
l
o
n
A
v
e
N
E
Ed
m
o
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
N
E
Mississi
p
p
i
D
r
W 5t
h
S
t
W
7
t
h
S
t
Sa
n
d
b
e
r
g
R
d
Pe
l
i
c
a
n
L
n
Falcon Dr
Fe
n
n
i
n
g
A
v
e
N
E
Waln
u
t
S
t
Oa
k
R
i
d
g
e
D
r
N
Or
i
o
l
e
L
n
Club View Rd
Br
o
a
d
w
a
y
S
t
Hillcrest Rd
E Riv
e
r
S
t
Hedm
a
n
L
n
Mi
l
l
T
r
a
i
l
L
n
Fa
l
l
o
n
A
v
e
N
E
Wrig
h
t
S
t
New
S
t
Ma
r
v
i
n
E
l
w
o
o
d
R
o
a
d
Ram
s
e
y
S
t
W 6t
h
S
t
River Mill
D
r
Wildwood Way
Hilltop Dr
Mill Run Rd
Oakview Ln
Fa
r
m
s
t
e
a
d
A
v
e
Martin Dr
E 3rd
S
t
E 3rd
S
t
Re
d
R
o
c
k
L
n
Gil
l
a
r
d
A
v
e
N
E
Map
l
e
S
t
Fallon Dr
Will
o
w
S
t
Eas
t
w
o
o
d
L
n
Gr
a
y
s
t
o
n
e
A
v
e
Ma
r
v
i
n
E
l
w
o
o
d
R
d
Fie
l
d
c
r
e
s
t
C
i
r
Fa
i
r
w
a
y
D
r
Jaso
n
A
v
e
N
E
Vin
e
S
t
Meadow Ln
Jer
r
y
L
i
e
f
e
r
t
D
r
Praire Road
Starling Dr
Palm
S
t
Fa
l
l
o
n
A
v
e
N
E
Golf Course Rd
Fall
o
n
A
v
e
N
E
Kevin Longley Dr
Cra
i
g
L
n
Re
d
O
a
k
L
n
Fron
t
S
t
W 5
t
h
S
t
Thomas Park Dr
Loc
u
s
t
S
t
Mockingbird Ln
W 3r
d
S
t
Ea
s
t
w
o
o
d
C
i
r
Briar Oaks Blvd
F
a
r
m
s
t
e
a
d
D
r
Hen
n
e
p
i
n
S
t
Ei
d
e
r
L
n
Oak
L
n
River Forest Dr
Meadow Oak Ave
Kampa Cir
O
a
k
R
i
d
g
e
C
i
r
Mill Ct
River Ridge Ln
Oa
k
v
i
e
w
C
t
Du
n
d
a
s
C
i
r
Ke
n
n
e
t
h
L
n
Ot
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
R
d
Min
n
e
s
o
t
a
S
t
Ea
g
l
e
C
i
r
Cro
c
u
s
L
n
M
e
a
d
o
w
O
a
k
L
n
Stoneridge Dr
Che
s
t
n
u
t
S
t
120th St
N
E
Da
r
r
o
w
A
v
e
N
E
Diamond Dr
Pebblebrook Dr
Wi
d
g
e
o
n
L
n
Wash
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
Bu
n
k
e
r
C
i
r
Hom
e
s
t
e
a
d
D
r
Th
o
m
a
s
C
i
r
E
n
d
i
c
o
t
t
T
r
Ce
n
t
e
r
C
i
r
Oak
v
i
e
w
C
i
r
Sa
n
d
t
r
a
p
C
i
r
Country Cir
Cheyenne Ct
Te
r
r
i
t
o
r
a
l
R
d
Ta
n
a
g
e
r
C
i
r
Hillc
r
e
s
t
C
i
r
Osprey Cir
Ac
o
r
n
C
i
r
Ba
l
b
o
u
l
C
i
r
S
w
a
l
l
o
w
C
i
r
Riverside
C
i
r
Me
a
d
o
w
O
a
k
C
t
Ma
t
t
h
e
w
C
i
r
East Oak Dr
Stonerid
g
e
C
i
r
Oa
k
w
o
o
d
D
r
Mea
d
o
w
O
a
k
D
r
Co
u
n
t
y
H
w
y
7
5
Har
t
B
l
v
d
Mi
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
S
t
Elm
S
t
Wri
g
h
t
S
t
90th St NE
Ced
a
r
S
t
Min
n
e
s
o
t
a
S
t
1
2
3
4
7
5
8
9
10
11
12
6
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
20
22
23
24
26
26
25
City of Monticello
Official Zoning Map
:Legend
BASE ZONING DISTRICTS
PUD Districts
Residential Districts
-- Low Residential Densities
A-O
R-A
R-1
Business Districts
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
CCD*
-- Medium Residential Densities
T-N
R-2
R-PUD
-- High Residential Densities
R-3
R-4
M-H
Mills Fleet Farm
Red Rooster
Swan River
Monticello High School
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Spaeth Industrial Park
Camping World
Affordable Storage
Autumn Ridge Villas
OTHER
Water
Industrial Districts
IBC
I-1
I-2
OVERLAY DISTRICTS
Shoreland District**
Special Use Overlay District
!
!!
!!
Freeway Bonus Sign District
09 Rivertown Suites
10 Monticello RV
11 Deephaven
12 Twin Pines
13 UMC
14 Edmonson Ridge
18 Monticello Lakes
17 Stony Brook Village
16 Storagelink Monticello
15 Nuss Truck and Equipment Addition
1 inch = 2,500 feet
0.2% Floodplain Boundary**
19 Hoglund Bus Park
20 Block 52
21 Country Club Manor 2nd Addition
22 Haven Ridge 2nd Addition
23 Great River Addition
Mississippi Wild, Scenic & Rec Overlay District**
*See CCD and Pointes at Cedar Sub-District Appendix Zoning Maps
**See Floodplain, Shoreland, and MWSRR Appendix Zoning Map
***Floodplain is established and effective per FIRM panels 27171C0155D, 27171C0160D, 27171C0160D,
27171C0170D, 27171C0190D
PCD*
1% Floodplain Boundary**
24 Big River Addition
25 Haven Ridge West
26 Cedar Street Storage
Planning Commission Agenda – 1/06/2026
1
3A. 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:
1/06/26
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 to the regular Planning
Commission meeting of February 3, 2026.
Planning Commission Agenda – 1/06/2026
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.
JANUARY 6, 2026 UPDATE:
At the December 2, 2025 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission closed
the public hearing and postponed action on the decision for amendment to the zoning
ordinance to its regular January 6, 2026 meeting. The Commission requested an additional
joint workshop with City Council. That workshop date is scheduled for January 15th, 2026.
The Planning Commission is asked to postpone action on this amendment to the regular
meeting of February 3, 2026 to accommodate the additional workshop.
The report and supporting data from December 2, 2025 follows, with additional public
comment received after December 2, 2025.
Planning Commission Agenda – 1/06/2026
3
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.
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.
Planning Commission Agenda – 1/06/2026
4
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.
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.
Planning Commission Agenda – 1/06/2026
5
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.
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.
Planning Commission Agenda – 1/06/2026
6
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
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.
Planning Commission Agenda – 1/06/2026
7
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.
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.
Planning Commission Agenda – 1/06/2026
8
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.
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
Planning Commission Agenda – 1/06/2026
9
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
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.
Planning Commission Agenda – 1/06/2026
10
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
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.
Planning Commission Agenda – 1/06/2026
11
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.
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.
Planning Commission Agenda – 1/06/2026
12
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.
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.
Planning Commission Agenda – 1/06/2026
13
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
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. Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan - Light Industrial Park, Excerpt
E. Monticello Strategic Transition Plan, Excerpt
F. Setback, Height and Floor Area Ratio Examples
G. DCPUD Development Area Reference Graphics
H. MPCA Guide to Noise Control
I. DCPUD Review Process Graphic
J. Tax Impact Example & Analysis
K. Excerpt, MN House of Representatives File No. 16
L. Citizen Comments – December Public Hearing
M. Citizen Comments – Received After December Public Hearing Agenda Publication
N. Citizen Comments – August and September Public Hearings
O. 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
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: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
deadline
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Emily Devroy
Angela Schumann
AUAR Comment
Thursday, December 11, 2025 10:57:50 AM
Dear Angela,
I hope you are all doing well, and I want to begin by sincerely thanking you
for the work you do on behalf of our community. I’m writing today as a
resident who deeply values both the growth of our area and the natural
spaces that make Monticello such a special place to call home.
I would like to respectfully express my concern regarding the proposal to
build a data center next to Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park. Bertram
is more than just a park to many of us—it is a sanctuary. It is where
families gather, children learn to love the outdoors, and where countless
people go reconnect with nature. The stillness, the wildlife, the dark skies
at night, and the unspoiled feel of the land are part of what makes this place
irreplaceable.
Placing a large-scale industrial facility at the edge of this environment
threatens the very qualities that make Bertram so treasured. The increased
noise, traffic, lighting, and long-term environmental footprint of a data
center would inevitably affect the quiet homes that border the park, as well
as the wildlife that depends on those undisturbed spaces. Even subtle
changes can have a lasting impact on sensitive ecosystems—and once those
changes happen, they cannot be undone.
I fully understand the importance of economic development and the desire
to attract strong business opportunities to our area. Growth is vital. But not
all land is equal, and some places simply hold a deeper value to the
community than can be measured in dollars. Bertram Chain of Lakes is one
of those rare places—a place that enriches our mental health, supports local
wildlife, strengthens community identity, and offers future generations a
chance to experience the beauty of unspoiled nature close to home.
My hope is that we can find a solution that both supports economic
progress and protects the tranquil, natural character of Bertram. There are
likely many alternative sites better suited for a project of this scale—sites
that would allow Monticello to benefit without sacrificing one of its
greatest environmental and recreational assets.
Thank you sincerely for your time, your consideration, and your ongoing
service to our community. I truly appreciate the difficult decisions you
must weigh, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to share my perspective.
Please know this comes from a place of deep respect and care for the place
we all call home.
Warm regards,
Emily Devroy
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Paul Medlicott
Development Services
Data Center
Thursday, December 4, 2025 12:12:33 PM
NO DATA CENTERS. DONT WANT THEM. DONT NEED THEM.
Sent from my iPhone
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Paul Medlicott
Angela Schumann
Data Center
Thursday, December 4, 2025 12:13:54 PM
NO TO A DATA CENTER IN MINNESOTA. NO NEED FOR THAT GARBAGE. TELL THEM TO
OFF. NO NEED FOR IT AND NO ONE WANTS IT. YOU WANNA DESTROY MINNESOTA, DATA
CENTERS ARE THE WAY.
Sent from my iPhone
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Gabe & Hannah Graveldinger
Angela Schumann
Kip Christianson; Lloyd Hilgart; Tracy Hinz; Charlotte Gabler; Lee Martie; Development Services
Public comment on ordinance and zoning revisions for data centers
Tuesday, December 9, 2025 9:29:44 PM
Hello Councilmembers,
Please be sure to pass this on to the volunteers of the Planning/Zoning Commission! Thank
you!
I was present at the December 2nd meeting, and I want to give my thanks to the members
present there and applaud them for postponing approval of revised ordinance for data centers
in acknowledgement of needing a closer look at the potential impacts. A special thank-you to
the gentleman who proposed a joint meeting with the Council, and for his commitment to ask
the question if we should be changing anything to even allow data centers—this is the root of
public opposition!!
Regardless of whatever guardrails are put in place, our community—especially those of us
living in such close proximity to these proposed sites—do NOT want the data centers in any
capacity. The risks and dangers are simply too much, as evidenced through what other states
are experiencing. This does not belong in our community!!
Please stop any and all consideration of opening the door to data centers in Monticello!
Below I have attached a link for further thought.
Thank you, and God bless!
Merry Christmas to you and yours!
Gabe and Hannah Graveldinger
Georgia Utility Seeks Massive Grid Expansion To
Feed Data Centers
lists.theepochtimes.com
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Harlan Hamson
Development Services
Data Center
Thursday, December 11, 2025 10:04:30 AM
We moved to the city of Monticello 36+ years. Mostly because it
was a smaller town, like we came from. The
community had a very open, honest small-town atmosphere. We built
a home here and raised our family because of this. Many great parks
and lakes nearby to be enjoyed. We have seen many changes over the
years and there will be many more if we stay here.
But it seems the city officials of this city are confused or being lead a
stray. It was just over a year ago city Residents approved the 0.5% sales
tax to fund the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Athletic Park. But now
our city officials are like they don’t care if they build something
near there that will make it totally disgusting. They don’t seem to care
about the negative effects that result from Data
Centers. Water reliability, environmental impacts, property values,
neighborhood noise, No community benefits and the “boom-and-bust”
nature of rapidly evolving technology sectors. All they care about are
dollars$$$. I would bet if a vote could be held for the Data Center it
would fail big time. If you can’t read and understand all the problems
that come with these types of facilities, then you need to be aware that
your chance of reelection will not be very good. I will bet that all of you
will fail at reelection time if this Data Centers is allowed into this town.
There are many other ways this city could promote itself, instead of just
looking at the dirty dollars from the Data Center. We have many great
things to offer in this community and maybe that’s why we have stayed
here this long. Like I mentioned early we have great parks and lakes in
the area. Also, the Mississippi River is great. The number of jobs that
would be produced by the Data Center is nothing compared
to other industries or businesses that could be in these 2 locations
without such harmful results to the community. Versus, the chances of
the Data Center being of any long-term value for our community
are not very good.
My neighbors and the community of Monticello ask you to make the
right decision that would be best for all of us, not just a few people
just looking for dollar signs.
Regards,
Harlan & Kelly Hamson
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Charlotte Gabler
DJ
Rachel Leonard; Angela Schumann
Re: No Data Center
Tuesday, December 16, 2025 11:14:33 AM
Good Morning Dane-
Thank you for the email. I have included City Administrator Rachel Leonard and
Community Development Director Angela Schumann.
I appreciate information and feedback.
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: DJ
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2025 10:57 AM
To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>; Kip Christianson
<Kip.Christianson@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: No Data Center
Good Afternoon,
As a new member to the community of Monticello my wife and I were excited to buy our new house in the
featherstone community off of 85th. Specifically choosing our house due to the location, surrounding
community, close to work and beautiful neighborhood. I was shocked and disgusted to see that there is
any consideration of putting a data center right next to this new development without consideration to the
community development opportunities and the current brand new housing created.
This area has the opportunity to grow out (south) of town and provide a deep and growing community of
citizens and tax base that will provide economic opportunity for a larger retail base along with a tax base
to fund and create a very nice dynamic suburb alternative. It is a very quiet and appealing town.
However, these data centers simply syphon community resources such as water and electrical while
providing no community growth and actually is detrimental to your citizens health and welfare. You have
been elected to protect our health and welfare along with community development to grow our community
and this is a huge mistake.
I hope that you will consider alternative options and not approve the Data center. This is the real test to
see where your real motives and ambitions land. Is it with the almighty dollar or the people you
represent.
Dane Johnson
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
DAVID LOHSE
Angela Schumann
Data Center
Tuesday, December 16, 2025 2:42:51 PM
Hello,
In watching and attending the meeting last night, I heard discussions about the
responsibilities of the City of Monticello and the responsibilities of the developer.
It appears the developer has a lot more freedoms on choices and responsibilities
than the city. According to your slides, you showed the audience, it appears, that
the city is taking a backseat to this project. Did you actually plan it this way or
did someone talk you into this. I'm assuming that none of you, on the
council, live near 87th, one of the proposed sights or that any of you have watched
60 Minutes and or any of the other programs with regard to these data centers.
If you did, I'm certain you would change your mind. The people who live near them,
have testified about the many horrors about them. One of these is the terrible noise
generated by them which automatically, lowers the value of their property much less
going or doing anything outside with their families. What is the acceptable level of
noise?
What is the level of contamination of the water allowed? What would happen if
there was an accidental explosion from the proposed million gallons of fuel they
want to acquire and store? Will there be a neighborhood left? What is the cost to
all of us, realistically? Why would you even consider building a data center next to a
housing development. I certainly. was not told that when I built my house. Have you
told any of the new people purchasing homes here? I live approximately, three
blocks
from 87th. Now, do I sell? What are all of you doing to this town and to it's people?
Looking forward to your explanation.
David Lohse
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Charlotte Gabler
Lacie Metso
Rachel Leonard; Angela Schumann
Re: Data center
Tuesday, December 16, 2025 11:19:36 AM
Good Morning Lacie-
Thank you for the email. I have included City Administrator Rachel Leondard and
Community Development Director Angela Schumann.
I appreciate you sharing feedback on data centers. I also appreciate your passion about
our magic city and thank you for wanting it to be a better place.
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: Lacie Metso
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 11:34 AM
To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Data center
Good morning, Charlotte!
I hope you are well and Merry Christmas to your family.
I am obviously using your serious email for a reason. I am scared for our town and this data
center. I know you may be getting bombarded by community members but I also wanted to
voice my concerns and do my part to try and protect and town that I am very proud of.
Eric and I moved here in 2006. We loved the sweet small town with lovely potential and
willingness to grow, serve, encourage community involvement, the parks, Bertram, the dog
park, the community center, our amazing schools and their sports complexes, the businesses
that have comes in and how we have made a name for ourselves in the metro. Eric is also very
proud to represent Monticello in many ways from volunteering as a soccer ref, serving on the
board for hockey, soccer and helping find the new superintendent. He also is a part of the new
ice arena process.
Monticello is special. We are surrounded my beautiful water, trees, rivers, creeks, pathetic,
parks....and Bertram is booming!! I live by Harry Larsen, Maria State Park and Ney County
Park....we have the blandings turtle, trumpeter Swans, eagles and so many amazing
things.....WHAT ARE WE DOING!! ARE WE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING DATA
CENTERS???
Are we really putting our people at risk, our children, our elders, our babies, our pets, our
trees, water and wild life....really???
You know me....you know how I feel without even emailing you. God help us.
Thank you, Charlotte for all you do for us and I pray that the rest of the council have a heart,
stop with letting the devil take over and think about all that is really important.
I am not going to email stats, scientific evidence, articles, blah blah blah....that isn't me. I am
heart, kindness, love and feelings. This is me pleading for our city to have a heart.
Thank you for reading,
Lacie Metso
"Today is a good day to have a good day"
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Cutsforth, Scott M
Angela Schumann
Data Center Ordinance
Wednesday, December 17, 2025 12:49:31 PM
Afternoon Angela,
As the data center ordinance is still not final/approved by the planning commission. Wanted
to add my two cents on this again. My main thought is what can the city do to make sure what
is in the ordinance is followed.
Noise
I believe it’s set at 60-65 decibels for daytime and 50-55 decibels for night based
on state guidelines
I propose that it should not exceed 50-55 decibels at any time of the day.
What is the starting point for fines if they exceed this noise level?
I understand that if they are having a mechanical issue the noise level might
be exceeded
Under normal circumstances, what amount of time past the
maximum decibels is going to be excepted?
What is the start point for fines? I feel if they want to violate
ordinance on purpose the fine should start at $2M and increase
based on the severity. What’s to stop them from not caring about our
city ordinance?
Water Consumption / Cleaning the Water
Starting point of penalties / fines
Over consumption – Do we have anything as a city to stop them or are we
going to need state help and how long does that take?
Not cleaning the water – Do we have anything as a city to stop them or are
we going to need state help and how long does that take?
Ordinance
I would like it to state that the city will never make it more lenient, however we can
be more strict if needed
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: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 – 1/06/26
1
4A. Community Development Director’s Report
Council Action on/related to Commission Recommendations
• Consideration of a request for 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
The request for ordinance amendment and the IUP were approved by the City
Council on the December 8, 2025 consent agenda.
• Commissioner Robeck was appointed for a new 3-year term on the City Council
consent agenda on December 8, 2025.
Planning Services – 2026 Updates
On December 8, 2025, the City Council approved a 2026 contract with Grittman
Consulting for City planning services. The Council also adopted its annual levy and budget
on that date. As part of the 2026 City Budget, the Council approved a staff Senior Planner
position. Based on the budget allocation, the position is expected to be posted in
February of 2026, with a tentative hire date in April of 2026. Steve Grittman will remain
on retainer as the City Planner in 2026, with planning caseload and projects managed
between consulting and staff planners.
Joint City Council & Planning Commission Workshop
A joint workshop of the Planning Commission and City Council for Data Center Land Use
& Ordinance discussion is scheduled for 4:45 PM on Thursday, January 15th, 2026.
Development Customer Service Survey
The City continues to gather feedback from land-use applicants each year for the
Development Survey. The survey is sent to all land-use applicants and provides direction
for process improvement and communication between prospects and city departments.
A summary of the survey results is attached.
Development Project Update List
The project update list current through December 2025 is attached.
Website Project Page
A reminder to stay current with news and information by visiting:
Projects | Monticello, MN
DEVELOPMENT SURVEY
ABOUT THE SURVEY
Each year, the Development Services Department sends out a customer service survey
to all land use applicants to help us improve service to the public and stakeholders in
the development process.
FEEDBACK
For 2025, to attempt to increase engagement, instead of prior years where we would batch
all the applicants for the end-of-the-year survey outreach, we have staggered outreach
efforts to better align with the timeliness of their planning commission or city council action.
We received 8 responses from the prior year's 25 land use applicants (32%), despite multiple
attempts to encourage robust responses. This response rate is lower than last year’s 38%.
While the survey is anonymous, targeted outreach makes it challenging to know who has
completed and who is still outstanding.
The returned responses came from a broad spectrum of land use applicants - home builders,
property owners, local businesses, land developers, and development teams.
Survey responders were asked to provide feedback on multiple areas of the Land Use
process, with a response scale of “Excellent”, “Satisfactory”, and “Improvement Requested”.
The majority of responders provided feedback for all fields requested.
Highlights from the survey included positive reviews for several categories. All applicants
stating that the communication was satisfactory, 87% indicated that staff were proactive in
overcoming development or land use issues, and would recommend Monticello to other
builders and developers.
Survey responses also included comments on how the City can better improve the
planning/development/land use review process. A breakdown of this multi-response
question is included with this report. Comments requesting improvement in response time,
streamlining processes and consolidating and clearly communicating conditions of approval
were offered.
For 2026, we are striving to educate applicants at the time of submission that a survey will be
forthcoming at the conclusion of their application, in addition to existing outreach efforts.
2025
FEEDBACK
Although the process seems to be longer than expected, I
think they are being much more proactive in respect to the
city they work for.
The entire staff at the City of Monticello was wonderful to
deal with. Very professional and fair for all sides. I would
definitely be interested in continual investment in the city.
Municipal staff was outstanding, wish more municipalities
were like you guys.
Better quality of document reviews-ie DA, Finance plans (to
may corrections and back and forth needed)
Throughout the entire process the entire staff was
thorough, patient, encouraging, and showed genuine
interest in our project.
This was the 2nd request for my conditional use permit, and
the city took almost 2 months to review a proposal that
they had approved 18 months prior. Second, they did not
even update the materials from the first approval, since on
my permit they mention a 2nd story (which my 2nd request
does not have). Attention to detail and promptness of
coordination was lacking.
Thanks for all the staff did to assist with our approvals!
Fair and professional
All staff members and consultants were fantastic to work
with.
Concept Projects Project Type Address/Location Description Review Date & Info Progress Report
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
Twin Pines Residential School Blvd 96-unit multi-family development Joint City Council and Planning
Commission Concept Review 12/2/25
Plans to submit for Prelminary Plat, Develoment Stage, Final Plat, Final Stage in
Early 2026
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 , 9/8/2025 Approved; Project placed on hold by developer
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 BBQ 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