The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda - 02/03/2026AGENDA REGULAR MEETING – PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 3, 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 • Regular Meeting – January 6, 2026 • 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 Approved by the City Council on January 26, 2026 • Joint City Council & Planning Commission Workshop – January 15, 2026 To be approved by the City Council G. Citizen Comment 2. Public Hearings A. Consideration of Preliminary Plat and Development Stage Planned Unit Development of Twin Pines Apartments, a 96-unit multi-family residential project in a Planned Unit Development district, and amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development. Applicant: Brick by Brick Development, LLC 3. Regular Agenda Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda – 02/03/2026 2 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 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING – PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 2, 2025 – 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Chair Andrew Tapper, Vice-Chair Melissa Robeck, Rick Kothenbeutel, Teri Lehner, Rob Stark Council Liaison Present: Councilmember Kip Christianson Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Bob Ferguson, Tyler Bevier 1. General Business A. Call to Order Chair Tapper called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. B. Roll Call Mr. Tapper called the roll. C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items None D. Approval of Agenda ROB STARK MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. E. Approval of Meeting Minutes RICK KOTHENBEUTEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 3, 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. RICK KOTHENBEUTEL MOVED TO APPROVE NOVEMBER 3, 2025 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. F. Citizen Comment None 2. Public Hearings A. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Sections 153.012 Definitions, 153.045 Industrial Base Zoning Districts, 153.046 Overlay Zoning Districts, 153.090 Use Table, 153.091 Use-Specific Standards, 153.092 Accessory Use Standards and any other related sections of text necessary to define and regulate data center and technology campus land uses within the City Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – December 2, 2025 2 City Administrator Rachel Leonard addressed the board members regarding the extensive research, discussion, and meetings to bring the matter for establishing a zoning ordinance for data centers forward. She explained that engagement from the public assisted in revising the drafted ordinance. Ms. Leonard indicated that the potential benefits for infrastructure and tax base for any potential development are considered while also evaluating community programs and policies. She specifically addressed development cost responsibility, which is the applicant or developer’s responsibility. She explained the goal was to develop an ordinance specific to the City of Monticello. City Planner Steve Grittman reviewed the recent amendments to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan, which establish definitions and policies relating to data center development in future-growth areas guided for Light Industrial Park (LIP). Mr. Grittman spoke to the extensive background and research by staff and public officials, factoring citizen feedback into the amendments and for tonight’s opportunity to collect final comments from the public. Mr. Grittman described the components of the proposed data center planned unit development (DCPUD) ordinance, which is intended to align with the 2040 Plan. The intentional structure of DCPUD is to provide the City a greater framework for discretion on land use consideration. He spoke of how the ordinance creates a defined approach to external site mitigation by understanding the potential development use, locations, and minimum impacts while understanding that uses operate differently internally. Mr. Grittman provided background the workshops discussions and public hearings on the draft ordinance in August and September, which resulted in changes to the minimum performance standards. He then presented a timeline of events and details which led to the new public hearing for the additional ordinance amendments. Mr. Grittman reviewed the draft ordinance in summary, including approval criteria, general and specific performance standards, application requirements, review process, a site improvement plan agreement (SIPA; comparable to a development agreement), and enforcement for data center requirements and all other applicable zoning elements. Mr. Grittman highlighted each of the amended applicable Performance Standards in detail: development density; noise; setbacks and building height; site landscaping, screening and perimeter buffering; utility impacts; transportation and traffic; power consumption and internet capacity. Mr. Grittman explained when creating an ordinance, the city is anticipating application proposals; he spoke to the proposed review process for a proposed DCPUD. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – December 2, 2025 3 Mr. Grittman walked through each step of the Review Process, from Pre-Design to Concept Stage, then Development Stage (including three land use applications for development stage DCPUD permit, preliminary plat, and rezoning to DCPUD), leading to the final stage, final plat and SIPA. Following board review and approval, Mr. Grittman explained the Site Plan review process outlined in the draft ordinance. Mr. Grittman shared a list of the additional comments and discussion points for consideration in the draft amendment. Mr. Grittman stated that the staff recommendation is to approve the ordinance, with or without proposed amendments. He explained if the City were to deny the ordinance, it would need to consider other 2040 Plan discussion. Mr. Tapper confirmed that the ordinance requires floor-area ratio (FAR) by phase for review during the development stage. Commissioners addressed the evolutionary nature of technology for noise mitigation on generators and mechanical equipment, which is outside of City control. Mr. Tapper reminded the audience of the nature of the agenda item as a consideration of a zoning ordinance for regulating a data center. Mr. Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. • Shawn Oen, (4333 87th Street NE), requested more language regarding specific MPCA decibels be written into the ordinance. Mr. Oen also requested that water demand and supply “loop system” be written into the development agreement. • Alexander Cutchey, (9379 Edmonson Ave), explained his experience with utility regulation and with large energy infrastructure development. Mr. Cutchey spoke to the nuclear plant tax base as a benefit to the community and to the City’s goal to diversify the taxbase, as a data center may also benefit and alleviate past levy burdens. Mr. Cutchey suggested to Commissioners to move forward with a data center ordinance, creating a framework to address development, and credited the efforts put forth in the presented draft. • Bill Herzog, Eaton Circle, noted requirements for hearing protection in his occupational field in manufacturing and said surrounding homes will need sound protection. Mr. Herzog asked what benefit, beside tax base, will come to the City. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – December 2, 2025 4 • Joe Kraft, (4313 87th Street NE), stated concerns about the noise setbacks from residential, and concerns over wildlife issues if the Board approves data center development. • Tony Weiss, 4012 County Road 37 NE, Monticello Township, addressed concerns regarding the notice area and requirements on proposed data center sites. • Shawn Oen suggested to wait until Xcel Energy moves campus locations to consider data centers and locations. • Rylee Averill, Lake Street South, Big Lake, spoke of her concerns for diminishing farmland and asked how the City will mitigate drought and raising costs on food. Ms. Averill asked how the hypothetical data center will impact reservoir areas or bodies of water. She also noted concerns regarding contaminants and traffic. Mr. Tapper stated that the subject matter is not for decision on a particular project, but for the ordinance itself. • Dennis Dufrane, (4130 89th Street NE), expressed concerns regarding the potential for phased building over eight to ten years and concern on the proposed setbacks and screening measures for sound, equipment, and parking and potential impacts. Mr. Dufrane suggested the drafted DCPUD does not address potential hyperscale data centers from a real estate perspective and asked members to consider the effects to the residential neighborhoods’ surrounding the subject parcel. • Mark Quigley, 4269 87th Street NE, stated concern that data center development is becoming a done-deal noting the multiple discussions and meetings by Commission to date. Mr. Quigley asked if the data center will be taxed for resource consumption and what would occur if the site were vacated. He also expressed enforcement concerns. Councilmember Christianson emphasized the careful planning and considerations over the last year to ensure that both the end-user and developer cover all infrastructure costs related to the proposed project. • Bethany Olivares, 5175 87th Street NE, said the positives cited by the City are financially based and asked what other benefits might become from a data center. Councilmember Christianson highlighted discussions from the Q&A session regarding community values and financial impacts, noting Monticello’s unique amenities developed through decades of planning. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – December 2, 2025 5 He emphasized maintaining development diversity by establishing guidelines tailored specifically to the community. Mr. Christianson spoke to the need to address growth and form the most intuitive development measures while maintaining the community quality of life. Ms. Olivares cited pollution concerns and stated her preference to pay more taxes over allowing a data center and asked decision-makers to consider the residents’ health and overall wellbeing. • Nancy Kopff, 1490 75th Street NE, echoed questions presented by the previous citizens. Ms. Kopff explained her background in planning and land use and stated that the proposal does not align with community values as it favors developers over citizens and questioned decision- makers’ accountability and non-disclosure agreements. She also referenced online information regarding project proposals. Councilmember Christianson responded that no one from the City, nor board or committee serving member, is involved in any non-disclosure agreement to date. Ms. Kopff concluded her comments by expressing support for a more conservative approach to land use that considers property owner rights and economic impacts. She suggested the City should decline to proceed and allow the City’s legal staff to prepare findings of fact to support a denial. • Nakomi Redman Rudlong, 6239 Bakken Street expressed concern for plant and animal communities and encouraged education on data centers. • A participant addressed the Commission regarding Minnesota noise pollution guidelines and low-frequency noise. • Mary Haly, 9177 Orchard Ln., explained her concerns regarding the residual hearing effects caused by constant humming of equipment. • Christina Johnson-Koshiol, 2485 Briar Oakes Blvd., stated noise concerns and inquired how the public comments will be addressed. Ms. Johnson- Koshiol stated her preference in paying more tax dollars than allowing a data center to contribute to the tax base. She spoke to distrust against corporations, for the needed stewardship of government officials, and potential litigation to follow. • Terra Girard, 9414 Oriole Ln, Cardinal Hills Development, asked how the City will recoup the equity loss for homeowners given the potential noise. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – December 2, 2025 6 • Lisa Keenan, 8270 State Highway 25 NE, Monticello Township, suggested continuous construction on data center sites will become a nuisance. She asked about mitigation of private well impacts for surrounding township residents, suspecting potential issues to come. She also commented on the potential for chemical pollutants in farm soil during and following construction of a data center. She suggested reviewing the incidents of other communities for consideration. • Alexander Coady, 2760 Oakview Court, asked the Planning Commission to generally explain how City government processes are operated relative to the 2040 Plan and specifically for financial data centers contributing to community growth. Mr. Christianson clarified that the 2040 Plan is a comprehensive land-use plan. Data centers were not considered within the designated Light Industrial Park (LIP) at the time the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan was first approved by the Council. Amendments were established to position the City to exert authority to assess and regulate suitable data center development proposals. Mr. Tapper agreed, explaining an ordinance further supports regulation. Mr. Coady stated he recommended for denial of the request. • Traci Swanson, 5035 Martin Drive, referenced online employment postings for proposed data center projects. She cited concerns regarding vacated buildings, impact to the river, and long-term impact to the community. Mr. Tapper explained that these online activities are outside of City municipal authority. The City has seen concept proposals as part of public workshops that may come forward if the ordinance passes. • Scott Cutsforth, (8634 Fairhill Lane), a recognized the efforts by City staff and Board members. He spoke to favoring the proposal for tax base reasons at onset but is now opposed. He stated concern regarding low- frequency noise and construction issues on-site impacting neighboring residential. • Jami Vokaty, 2760 Oakview Ct., asked who specifically asked for data center language be placed into the 2040 Plan and requested additional ordinance discussion. Ms. Vokaty asked that residents receive clear and transparent information regarding future land use applications. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – December 2, 2025 7 Mr. Tapper explained the process to enact comprehensive plan amendments and the process to draft the most comprehensive and detailed ordinance possible. Mr. Tapper spoke generally regarding the Planning Commission’s purpose and advisory responsibility for the most appropriate mitigation measures. Administrator Leonard explained that the 2040 Plan was developed before data centers uses were evaluated as a potential land use. As questions regarding the possibility of the use came forward, the City reviewed how its guiding documents should address the use. Ms. Leonard said while a passage of an ordinance may or may not take place, approval of the ordinance creates the tools for review and consideration in formal public hearing forums. • Scott Crawford, 8674 Dalton Ave. NE, Monticello Township, asked if data centers might be allowed under the current light industrial development criteria if the data center ordinance is not adopted. Mr. Tapper said the City would likely revisit the Monticello 2040 Plan language to determine how to proceed. • Sam Murdoff, 9368 Golden Pond Lane N, stated that the role of the Planning Commission is to set standards for development given the public concerns for water, electricity, carbon emissions, and property values. Mr. Murdoff recommended strong standards and addressed other examples of health and finance impacts around data center development outstate. He also encouraged Commissioners to enforce stricter regulations for clean energy use and suggested language pertaining to scheduled mitigation. • Chelsea Dunlay, 9127 State Highway 25 NE, spoke about poor water quality experienced during well maintenance at a Monticello mobile home park. She suggested that the ordinance include stronger enforcement provisions to protect community values. Ms. Dunlay emphasized the need for accountability. She also discussed long-term sustainability following the initial increase in the tax base and highlighted the need for housing for individuals who work within the City. Ms. Dunlay recommended that developers be required to demonstrate their value to the community prior to development approval. • Ricky Yackel, (4345 86th Street NE), spoke generally about air, water, noise, and energy consumption concerns, and chemical and electronic Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – December 2, 2025 8 waste relating to health concerns. Mr. Yackel suggested for proposals to be further from residential areas. • Scott Harper, 4334 86th Street NE, stated that well owners did not receive notification of an alternative-use document. He suggested that deeper wells be drilled at the developer’s expense for both the proposed development and neighboring properties. He suggested that the proposal primarily served the City’s financial interests and encouraged consideration of alternative options rather than expedited action. Mr. Harper expressed concerns related to cooling system failures and well- drilling processes associated with large facilities, recommending the use of environmentally responsible practices. Mr. Harper commented on potential infrastructure, including power generation requirements and the use of diesel-fueled equipment. He also shared observations regarding the visual impacts of data center facilities. Mr. Harper referenced federal guidance related to water reuse, as well as state water-use guidelines. Mr. Harper acknowledged the efforts of City staff and board members but stated that he had not seen a comprehensive financial analysis related to the proposal. He also offered comments regarding land-use classification for data centers, potential legal considerations, and encouraged the City to research green-energy requirements adopted by other municipalities nationwide. Mr. Tapper called for a 10-minute recess at 9:34 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:44 p.m. • Jeremy Iverson, 3363 87th Street NE, Monticello Township, commented that data center developers may encounter significant financial challenges related to restitution and mitigation requirements. Mr. Iverson requested an amendment to the notification language to expand beyond the statutory requirement (350 feet) to a radius of two miles due to the nature of the request. He also asked the Commission to postpone consideration. Additionally, Mr. Iverson emphasized the importance of being a “good neighbor” through transparent communication with all parties who may be affected by the potential development of a data center in an adjacent community. • Jenna Van Den Boom, Featherstone [2nd] Development (4414 87th Street NE), echoed sentiments shared previously by others and urged the Commissioners not to move the ordinance forward. • Holly Neuman, 840 Powell Street N, Big Lake, asked if the Commissioners were aware of the construction of the I-94 corridor noise wall and asked if a tall wall surrounding a potential data center would be allowed. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – December 2, 2025 9 Councilmember Christianson responded that this consideration was one of many noise-related factors evaluated during the drafting of the ordinance. Ms. Neuman also asked questions regarding the future ownership of the Xcel Energy nuclear plant. Mr. Tapper stated that these questions were outside the scope of the Planning Commission. • Nita Ceron, 1129 River Street W., asked if eminent domain may be possible, either by the City or State. Mr. Grittman explained reservation of eminent domain practices for legitimate City public-use properties; he was unable to answer on behalf of the State’s authority. Ms. Ceron addressed the public comments received from a developer and asked if the ordinance will continue to be revised per the direction of the developer for their benefit, expressing concern that such changes could make the decision-making process appear inconsistent. Mr. Tapper clarified that all comments received as part of public comment, including those of the developer are considered. He also indicated that all serving board members, Council and Planning Commissioners, are residents of the City of Monticello and to the dedication of staff. Mr. Christianson concurred that anyone has the right to make a public comment for the record. Members of the Commission noted that the City Council makes the final decision and the Planning Commission is a recommending board. • Joe Holthaus, 7370 Cahill Avenue NE, Monticello Township spoke on behalf of residents generally opposed to data centers, and recommended the Board listen to their comments. • Scott Harper suggested MPCA review and evaluation per their required standards be added to the ordinance. Ms. Schumann explained that public comments received after the agenda was posted were made available to review in printed form and will become available on the City website the following business day. She listed the summary of items from those comments, including concerns for resource consumption, water, energy, impact on infrastructure, Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – December 2, 2025 10 potential for environmental impacts, questions about community benefits, questions about noise and impacts, permanent employment, costs to the community, proximity to residences and neighborhoods, power supply impacts, changes in technology and technology bubbles. She also noted comments received for technical clarification on the ordinance from potential developers and experts in the field. Mr. Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO POSTPONE ACTION ON 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 OTHER RELATED SECTIONS OF TEXT NECESSARY TO DEFINE AND REGULATE DATA CENTER AND TECHNOLOGY CAMPUS LAND USES WITHIN THE CITY. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. The Commission members referred to the comments taken at public hearing and those written comments received, indicating that they should be taken into consideration before moving forward. Mr. Tapper suggested an additional joint workshop with City Council before consideration and to discuss whether to move forward with the zoning ordinance for this land use. Commissioner Lehner confirmed that the item would come back to the Commission as part of the January Commission meeting, with action to postpone if necessary. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. City staff were asked to coordinate the next scheduled round of workshops for discussion. Mr. Stark recognized staff’s efforts and resources to obtain information and amendments to the zoning ordinance thus far. B. 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 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – December 2, 2025 11 Ms. Schumann explained the City’s Public Works request to extend an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for seasonal storage of equipment and materials on a temporary basis within The Pointes at Cedar District. She stated that the original IUP was approved for five years in November 2020. She outlined two considerations – an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow continuation of existing IUPs under the non-conformity clause of the PCD and for an IUP for temporary public warehousing with a five-year timeline for the City as it transitions storage facility options. Ms. Schumann provided high-level information on The Points at Cedar (PCD) ordinance adoption in 2022 and the proposed revisions for non-conforming uses to include an extension or renewal of IUPs. She shared the specificities of the temporary storage and facility - the nature of use, the location of the subject buildings, and the seasonal equipment storage components. Ms. Schumann outlined the applicable ordinance requirements for the prior IUP approval; stating the proposed storage continues to comply with the prior approval and the additional criteria to limit the term of the lease or 5 years, on the earlier of the two. Mr. Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Mr. Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. ROB STARK MOVED TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 8XX AMENDING THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 153.048, POINTES AT CEDAR DISTRICT TO ALLOW CONTINUATION OF EXISTING INTERIM USE PERMITS UNDER THE NON-CONFORMITY CLAUSE. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. MELISSA ROBECK MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2025-40, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR PUBLIC WAREHOUSING, TEMPORARY, IN THE WESTERN-MOST BUILDING AT 1305 EDMONSON AVE. NE, FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 5 YEARS, OR WHEN THE LEASE FOR SUCH STORAGE TERMINATES, WHICHEVER IS SOONER, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. Both matters for consideration will be placed on the January 6, 2026 City Council Consent Agenda. 3. Regular Agenda Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – December 2, 2025 12 A. Consideration of a recommendation of reappointment of Melissa Robeck to the Planning Commission Ms. Schumann explained that Commissioner Robeck’s term expires at the end of December 2025. Ms. Robeck has agreed to serve another three-year term, therefore, the Commission is asked to make a recommendation on the appointment to the City Council. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO RECOMMEND COMMISSIONER MELISSA ROBECK FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2026. ROB STARK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. 4. Other Business A. Community Development Director’s Report Ms. Schumann said no land use applications were received for November Planning Commission consideration; therefore, no decisions were made for City Council consideration. She provided info from the events taken place in November including the bi-annual Rental Connections meeting on the 19th and Downtown Rounds hosted by Cocoa Maas on November 20. She reported on the MOAA Board Meeting, held November 12, regarding two IUP requests submitted by Schafer Contracting for the proposed Broadway Plaza site - one IUP proposed locating a concrete batch plant on the site as part of the I-94 expansion project, for temporary use only and the second for a land alteration permit for site grading and depositing of excess fill at the subject site. Both IUPs were approved by the board. Ms. Schumann touched on updates to the 2017 Downtown Small Area Plan by the Economic Development Authority (EDA) and project updates, available to review in the agenda packet. Mr. Tapper asked for an update on the construction activities taking place next to Five Below within Union Crossings. Chief Building Official Bob Ferguson confirmed a Famous Footwear retailer is moving into the unit and should be opening for operation soon. 5. Adjournment ROB STARK MOVED TO ADJOURN THE DECEMBER 2, 2025 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:37 P.M. Recorded by: Anne Mueller__ Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – December 2, 2025 13 Approval Date: January 6, 2026 Attest: _______________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director MINUTES REGULAR MEETING – MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 6, 2026 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Chair Andrew Tapper, Vice-Chair Melissa Robeck, Rick Kothenbeutel, Rob Stark Commissioners Absent: Teri Lehner Council Liaison Present: Councilmember Kip Christianson Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Bob Ferguson, Tyler Bevier 1. General Business A. Call to Order – 6:00 p.m. Chair Andrew Tapper called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. B. Roll Call Mr. Tapper the roll. C. Appointment of Officers ROB STARK MOVED TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER ANDREW TAPPER AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2026. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER MELISSA ROBECK AS VICE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2026. ROB STARK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. D. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items None E. Approval of Agenda ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO AMEND THE JANUARY 6, 2026 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TO ADDRESS ITEM 3A. PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. F. Approval of Meeting Minutes Community Development Director Angela Schumann said review and consideration for the December 2025 Planning Commission meeting minutes will move forward to the February 2026 agenda. G. Citizen Comment None Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – January 6, 2026 2 2. 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 Ms. Schumann reviewed the series of public meetings leading to the December 2, 2025 regular Planning Commission hearing on the proposed ordinance. She noted that in December, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and postponed action on the decision for amendment to the zoning ordinance to its January meeting. The Commission also requested an additional joint workshop with City Council which is scheduled for January 15. She said staff’s recommendation is to postpone action on the recommendation to the regular meeting of February 3, 2026 to accommodate the additional workshop. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO POSTPONE ACTION ON RESOLUTION PC-2025-41 TO THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 3, 2026. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. Ms. Schumann reiterated the date of the next joint workshop with Council on January 15 at 4:45 p.m. 3. 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) City Planner Steve Grittman explained the applicant’s requests for a conditional use permit (CUP) to add Auto Repair—Major as an allowed use to the existing Vehicle Sales CUP, as well as a variance to permit service bay doors on the westerly side of the building, which is otherwise prohibited due to the site being surrounded by three public roads. Mr. Grittman explained the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit for Major Auto Repair in a B-3 District and the applicant adhering to all requirements. Mr. Grittman explained the unique circumstance of the site’s public street right of way, including MN Highway 25, which surround the property, creating difficulty for a service entrance. He explained the uses at the property are Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – January 6, 2026 3 reasonable and staff is recommending approval of both requests. He explained the conditions of approval. Mr. Tapper suggested the variance portion of the requests be considered first as it would be required before the CUP may be considered. Mr. Grittman agreed to the logic for Planning Commission consideration. Mr. Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Mr. Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED 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. ROB STARK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. ROB STARK MOVED 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. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. Ms. Schumann explained the CUP consideration will move to Council for consideration on the January 26, 2026 Consent Agenda; the approval of the variance stands as approved by the Planning Commission acting as Board of Adjustment, unless review of a received appeal is required. 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 Standards, and § 153.043 Residential Base Zoning Districts. Applicant: City of Monticello Ms. Schumann provided a summary of the amendments proposed with a brief description of the rationale for each. Mr. Tapper asked for clarification to the cannabis-related businesses within the section Use Specific Standards - § 153.091. Ms. Schumann provided context stating that the proposal is to apply a similar restriction on cannabis-related businesses adjacent to residential uses as that currently in place for industrial districts. Mr. Christianson said B-3 and B-4 parcels are limited and to ensure enough available parcels to ensure State compliance. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – January 6, 2026 4 Ms. Schumann explained that cannabis retailers are only allowed in B-3 and B-4 districts; some parcels do not directly abut residential, and the proposed language does not extend to mixed-use business districts. Members discussed the need to align commercial with industrial districts and maintain adherence to State standards. Mr. Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Mr. Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. MELISSA ROBECK MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-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. RICK KOTHENBEUTEL SECONDED THE MOTION. When asked for clarification to what constitutes a minor alteration within § 153.070 Building Materials, Ms. Schumann spoke about adding clarity to an ordinance while allowing flexibility for interpretation. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. C. Consideration for adoption of the 2026 Monticello Official Zoning Map, including appendices Applicant: City of Monticello Community Development Coordinator Tyler Bevier provided an overview of the annual consideration of the 2026 Monticello Official Zoning Map. He noted the consideration includes companion appendix maps including 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. He said the Official Zoning Map and appendix maps reflect rezoning actions which have occurred since the January 2025 adoption and included color updates to the business districts for better visual distinction between B-2 and B-3. Mr. Kothenbeutel inquired as for the procedure for changing light industrial area near Bertram. Staff clarified whether the question is to amend the zoning map or to the land use guidance, given the reference to land near Bertram. Mr. Tapper explained that the zoning map does not extend to the land that might be referenced. Ms. Schumann stated if the Commission wants to consider the land use in the noted area, it would need to call for a hearing to consider the designations on parcels on the future land use map. Ms. Schumann said the same process would be followed for rezoning an area located within the City. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – January 6, 2026 5 Mr. Kothenbeutel inquired how to call for a hearing on such matter. Ms. Schumann stated that the Commission could add the item to the agenda under the Added Items or direct the matter to the City Council. There was a brief discussion about how to call for a land use or zoning hearing, with the conclusion that the process discussion could continue if desired under the General Business item of the agenda. Mr. Tapper opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. • Scott Cutsforth, 8634 Fairhill Lane, asked for clarification on the discussion regarding rezoning near Otter Creek Business Park, including location. Mr. Christianson referred to a comment he made at a recent joint workshop regarding a suggestion to reguide prime property surrounding Bertram from Light Industrial Park (LIP) to Estate Residential (ER) as part of the Comprehensive Plan, given its characteristics. Mr. Tapper then confirmed that for that area, the consideration would be reguiding, not rezoning. Ms. Schumann referred to the recent Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) joint workshop, in which environmental impacts and relationship to those amenities desired for achieving housing goals was mentioned. During that discussion, staff suggested that those considerations could be reviewed as part of the Commission workshops goals and objectives for housing, including reserving land with high amenities for either low density or estate residential land uses. Ms. Schumann stated that Commission could review as part of a housing workshop, but that the Commission and Council also have the latitude to review the land use or zoning for individual parcels. Mr. Christianson explained that the Data Center PUD ordinance being considered places the burden for extension of utilities on the developer, with the idea that extended utilities are also then able to serve other areas. As utility extensions are not needed for this purpose in this area, but the land may serve other City goals for housing and that is worth additional discussion. Mr. Tapper closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. MELISSA ROBECK MOVED 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. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. 4. Other Business A. Community Development Director’s Report Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – January 6, 2026 6 Ms. Schumann reported on Council Action at the December 8, 2025 meeting for Planning Commission matters - recommendation for approval for an ordinance amendment and Interim Use Permit (IUP) for temporary Public Warehousing, in the Pointes at Cedar (PCD) District and reappointment of Commissioner Melissa Robeck to serve a three-year term (ending December 31, 2028). Council also adopted its annual levy and budget and approved a staff Senior Planner position expected to be posted in February of 2026, with a tentative hire date in April of 2026. Mr. Grittman was also approved to remain on retainer contract with Grittman Consulting for City planning services through the end of the year. Ms. Schumann included updates for an upcoming joint Council and Planning Commission workshop for Thursday, January 15, 2026, feedback received from the 2025 development customer service survey, and updates to development projects to date. 5. Adjournment ROB STARK MOVED TO ADJOURN THE JANUARY 6, 2026 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:52 P.M. Recorder by: Anne Mueller__ Date Approved: February 3, 2026 Attest: ___________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Development Director Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 1 2A. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat and Development Stage Planned Unit Development of Twin Pines Apartments, a 96-unit multi-family residential project in a Planned Unit Development district, and amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development. Applicant: Brick by Brick Development, LLC Prepared by: Grittman Consulting, Stephen Grittman, City Planner Meeting Date: 02/03/2026 Council Date (pending Commission action): 02/23/2026 Additional Analysis by: Assistant City Engineer, Community and Economic Development Coordinator ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for Twin Pines First Addition 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-05 recommending approval of a Preliminary Plat subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z and based on findings in said resolution. 2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-05 recommending denial of a Preliminary Plat 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-2026-05. Decision 2: Consideration of a Development Stage Planned Unit Development in the Twin Pines PUD District. 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-06 recommending approval of a Development Stage Planned Unit Development, subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z and based on findings in said resolution. 2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-06 recommending denial of a Development Stage PUD 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-2026-06. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 2 Decision 3: Consideration of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development in the Twin Pines PUD District. 1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-07 recommending approval of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development, subject to the conditions in Exhibit Z and based on findings in said resolution. 2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2026-07 recommending denial of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for PUD 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-2026-07. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND Property: Legal Description: Outlot A, Monticello Business Center 6th Addition PID #: 155221000010 Planning Case Number: 2026-04 Request(s): 1. Consideration of Preliminary Plat 2. Consideration of Development Stage Planned Unit Development 3. Consideration of Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Deadline for Decision: March 9, 2026 (60-day deadline) May 8, 2026 (120-day deadline) Land Use Designation: Commercial and Residential Flex Zoning Designation: Twin Pines Planned Unit Development District Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: n/a Current Site Uses: Vacant Surrounding Land Uses: Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 3 North: Residential / Pointes at Cedar East: Medium Density Residential South: Powerline Easement/Manufactured Residential West: Commercial Project Description: The project consists of site and building improvements resulting in a 96-unit multi-family residential development, four stories of units over an underground parking garage, surface parking, and private open space with amenities for the residential development. The project replats the exiting Outlot A of Monticello Commerce Center 6th Addition to a single lot containing the private (building and parking) improvements, and residual outlot area that serves as common parking and access for the remainder of the PUD. The project had received prior approvals, but the applicants had withheld recording of Final PUD and Final Plat approvals for some time. As those approvals have formally lapsed, the applicants are seeking reapproval of what is essentially the same project originally approved for the site. One note on process and application: The City Attorney has advised that since the original Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development was granted (even though plat and PUD approvals were not finalized), the PUD may proceed without need for signatures from the other PUD properties. Those property owners have been notified of the republished public hearing. ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Plan / Land Use: Prior to the initial Twin Pines PUD applications in 2020-2021, the site had been a part of a PUD which anticipated a series of commercial buildings which would share parking and a single access point to School Boulevard. The initial concept was approved under a Conditional use Permit for Planned Unit Development and the plan for the PUD envisioned as many as three additional commercial buildings around the perimeter of the site and a central parking area. The applicant came before the Planning Commission and City Council in Late 2021 for approval for a 93-unit multi-family development of 4-floors of residential use, with an underground parking facility as well as grade-level surface parking. Below is a summarized history of the previous approvals for this site Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 4 December 13, 2021 Approval of a Preliminary Plat and Development Stage for Twin Pines First Addition February 28, 2022 Approval of Final Plat, Rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1 to Planned unit Development, Final Stage Planned Unit Development October 24, 2022 Approved transfer of Development Contract from Kjellbergs Inc. to Apartments Monticello LLC and approval of PUD Adjustment February 27, 2023 Approved a 6-month extension of the final plat approval August 14, 2023 Approved a 6-month extension of the final plat approval January 22, 2024 Approved a 6-month extension of the final plat approval August 12, 2024 Approved a 6-month extension of the final plat approval to February 12, 2025 February 4, 2025 Applicant informs staff of no intention to extend the plat August 2025 Applicant re-engages with staff to restart entitlements December 2, 2025 Concept workshop on 96-unit multi-family development As noted above, the applicants returned to the City with a concept review of the updated plan and schedule this past December. At the concept review meeting, City officials expressed a general consensus that the plan continued to meet the expectations of the City and its PUD zoning, further noting that although the original plans anticipated commercial uses in this area, the general layout of the site, and lack of both direct access and visibility from School Boulevard, diminished the potential of the Twin Pines site as commercial property. The mixed land uses represented by the Comprehensive Plan designation of Commercial and Residential Flex supports the proposed residential project on the remaining PUD land. Ordinance Requirements & PUD Flexibility: Parking, Access and Circulation. Parking is an area of flexibility being sought by the use of PUD on this project. The ordinance would expect a standard minimum supply of 2.25 parking spaces per residential unit, with no more than 1.1 spaces per unit uncovered (the remaining required to be covered/underground). Applicant is seeking flexibility from the standard of 2.25 parking spaces per unit. The proposed building contains studios, one bed, two bed and a third bedroom unit options. The project contains 4 studios, 45 one-bed units, 4 one-bed units with a den, 42 two-bed units, and 1 three- bed unit (a total of 140 bedrooms in the building). The proposed parking for the 96-unit building is 78 surface-level stalls and 76 underground stalls for a total of 154 parking stalls, at an estimated 1.6 parking stalls per unit. This works out to 1.1 parking spaces per bedroom, a count which was approved as a part of the original project, and which is further a more reliable predictor of actual parking demand. It is important to note that although underground parking is often separately leased by apartment owners, leaving the potential that some of the spaces go unutilized, it is critical that all spaces are Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 5 utilized given the precise ratio of parking proposed. As an operational matter, the applicant will need to provide for full utilization of all enclosed parking spaces as a component of unit leases. A reciprocal driveway easement and maintenance agreement was recorded in 2012 between the Outlot A parcel and Lot 1, Block 1 of the Monticello Business Center sixth addition. A parking and access easement was recorded in 2023 between the proposed parking and circulation and Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Business Center, 5th addition. Landscaping The applicants have provided an extensive landscaping plan for the site, exceeding the minimum requirements of the code. The landscape plan indicates that all but one of the trees in the existing boundary plantings along the east border abutting the Autumn Ridge Townhomes will be removed, due primarily to required grading in that area. However, the planting plan shows an increase in overall replaced trees in that area, with 24 trees being removed, but as many as 40 new trees in that area. In the event that there are significant changes to the site plan due to other review notes, the landscaping plan would need to be revised to demonstrate compliance with these notes. Lighting The applicant’s submission includes a lighting plan of photometrics. The submitted plans do not appear to include details on the style and character of the proposed light posts. The photometric illustrates both façade lighting as well as pole mounted lighting for the surface parking lot. The City’s standard maximum illumination levels (footcandle) is 0.5 at the property line. The application shows lighting exceeding this standard on the east boundary, with values exceeding 1.0 footcandles. The plan requires modification to reduce this measurement, preferably to 0.0 footcandles given the proximity to the townhouse areas adjacent to this location. Staff notes that no lighting is shown for the public amenity common space on the interior of the building facing south. Any such lighting will be required to meet the City’s standards for glare, photometric illumination, and other requirements. Signage No signage plan has been submitted at this point. Staff notes that each of the two existing buildings has a freestanding monument-style sign in the front yard along School Boulevard. Staff would require a coordinated sign plan to avoid additional free-standing signs in this space, and to minimize sign clutter along School Boulevard at this entrance. Building Design Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 6 The plans illustrate a four-story building from the grade at the front (north) elevation. The lower-level parking garage is accessed via a descending driveway along the east boundary of the site. The applicants have noted that the proposed building is a “flat roof” design, although it shows a varied wall profile with projected columns that separate individual units and their balconies. Building materials include a dominant first floor covering of brick, with varied colors and textures of fiber-cement board treatments – come scored to mimic stone patterns, on the upper floors. Utilities, Grading and Drainage The City Engineer has provided comment on the grading, drainage, and utilities for the project in the Engineer’s Letter dated January 23, 2026 Fire Code The Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal has provided comment for the project in the Letter dated January 23, 2026 Accessory Use Requirements Trash Handling The applicants have shown an exterior trash enclosure near the south end of the easterly office building. This enclosure is intended to handle trash for the commercial use. The applicants indicated that the trash handling for the proposed residential project will be indoors, consistent with other residential projects in the City. Plat Standards Preliminary/Final Plat The project requires a plat to convert the current Outlot into a numbered lot and block for the development parcel, with an outlot remaining to serve the existing commercial office building. The applicant has provided a preliminary plat drawing which illustrates the replatting of Outlot A into a lot and block of approximately 2.5 acres and an outlot surrounding Lot 1, Block 1 of Twin Pines First Addition. The plat is subject to the City Engineer’s review comments. The Plat does not appear to alter the boundaries of the existing lots. However, as a part of the plat review, it will be important to reconfirm the required cross-easements for access and other services throughout the site. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 7 Required plat perimeter easements are not shown. The preliminary plat is required to be revised to illustrate the required easements per the City Engineer. A vacation of the drainage and utility easement over the current outlot will also be required. The applicant shall petition for this vacation as part of the platting process, with new easements as required by the Subdivision Ordinance to be platted. As noted previously, the project anticipated joint access, parking, and utility services for commercial uses. The introduction of a residential use into the commercial PUD and/or its management association will require review to ensure that the site continues to be properly managed over the long term. Therefore, a condition requiring the submittal of association and/or common area easement documents is required. The documents shall be subject to the review and comment of the City Attorney. Park Dedication As a residential subdivision, the development is subject to park dedication requirements. As of the time of this report, the PARC Commission had not yet met to provide a recommendation on dedication requirements for the new application. The PARC Commission had recommended a cash-in-lieu dedication with the 2019 approvals. Given the site layout and constraints, a cash dedication is likely to be recommended by staff to the Commission, in addition to the pedestrian connections noted earlier in this report. This will be verified prior to the final plat and PUD approvals. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION Planning staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat, Development Stage PUD, and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for PUD, based on findings in the attached resolutions, which include the observation that the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for land use purposes, and with the original CUP/PUD provisions. As also noted, the site itself is more suited to residential uses than commercial, and the proposed building and site development plans are consistent with the expectations of the City’s applicable zoning requirements, as well as with the requirements for PUD consideration and flexibility. Because the site is already zoned as “Twin Pines PUD District”, there is no rezoning action to consider as a part of this hearing. Finally, it is noted that the applicants have requested approvals as noted for the Planning Commission’s public hearing, as well as for Final Plat and Final Stage PUD to run concurrently for City Council consideration with the Preliminary Plat and PUD, pending Planning Commission recommendations. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 8 SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2025-05 B. Resolution PC-2025-06 C. Resolution PC-2025-07 D. Aerial Site Image E. Applicant Narrative F. Certificate of Survey G. Preliminary Plat H. Final Plat I. Plans, Including: a. Architectural b. Survey c. Tree Removals d. Site Plan e. Grading Plan f. Utility Plan g. Civil Plan h. Landscaping Plan i. SWPPP (Existing, Temporary & Proposed) j. Stormwater Report k. Lighting J. Monticello 2040 excerpts K. City Engineer’s Letter, dated January 23, 2026 L. Chief Building Official’s Letter, dated January 23, 2026 M. Citizen Comment Letter, Z. Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 9 EXHIBIT Z Conditions of Approval Preliminary Plat, Development Stage PUD, Amendment to CUP/PUD Outlot A, Monticello Business Center 6th Addition 1. All construction is consistent with the approval Final Stage PUD Plans. 2. Site plan additions are made per the staff report (primarily signage and sign monumentation) to reinforce the entry and circulation to the residential area. 3. The Preliminary and Final Plat are found consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, including verification that all easements and association maintenance aspects of the mixed-use Outlot A area are addressed. 4. The Preliminary and Final plat shall include all easements, including perimeter easements per the direction of the City Engineer. 5. Submittal of association and/or common area easement documents is required. The documents shall be subject to the review and comment of the City Attorney. 6. The property owner submit any required petition for vacation of drainage and utility easements over Outlot A, to be re-established on the plat per the City Engineer’s direction. 7. The approved PUD provides attached or internal trash handling for the residential use as noted in the plans and this report. 8. In the event that site plan modifications are required at Final Stage, the landscaping plan is revised consistent with any changes to the site plan to maintain plant quantities and buffering, particularly toward the east residential boundary. 9. The circulation routes through the project are reviewed to ensure safe travel for residents and commercial tenants in all areas of the project site, including directional signage related to discouraging traffic through the veterinary office building to the west. 10. Enclosed parking on the site is required to be included in unit leases to ensure they are fully utilized, and not left underutilized through separate leasing. 11. The applicant prepare and submit signage plans that incorporate existing signage, providing for consolidated entrance monument signage and avoiding additional freestanding sign displays. 12. The applicant prepare and submit updated lighting plans, including attention to proposed site lighting that acknowledges the minimizing of site lighting impacts along the easterly site boundary. 13. Cross parking and access rights and agreements are verified between the subject parcel and adjoining parcels, the applicant amends and execute as required any Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 10 required cross-access and cross-parking agreements required for the site and adjoining parcels, and the applicant further verifies commitment to any future reasonable modifications as adjoining parcels develop or redevelop. 14. Site landscaping is completed as approved, with required maintenance securities as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Compliance with the approved landscaping plan is an ongoing requirement of CUP and site plan approval. Materials that are removed or fail to survive shall be replaced, regardless of landscape guarantees. 15. Compliance with the terms of the City’s Engineering Staff letter dated January 23, 2026 16. Compliance with the terms of the Chief Building Official’s letter dated January 23, 2026 17. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2026-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TWIN PINES FIRST ADDITION WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking a preliminary plat of a parcel of currently undeveloped land, currently platted as Outlot A of the Monticello Commerce Center 6th Addition; and WHEREAS, the proposed plat would incorporate development opportunity for mixed residential land uses as an allowed use in the proposed Twin Pines Planned Unit Development zoning district; and WHEREAS, the plat creates a single residential development parcel and one outlot reflecting common access area in the PUD, dedication of public easements, and utilizes existing access easements to public streets along with drainage and utilities; and WHEREAS, the platted parcel will be consistent with requirements of the City’s Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance requirements under the appropriate PUD standards; and WHEREAS, the subject property will be developed under the requirements of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, which designate the land use for the property as Commercial Residential Flex; and WHEREAS, the proposed preliminary plat accommodates attached housing under a PUD zoning structure; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application for the plat pursuant to the regulations of the applicable ordinances and land use plans and policies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 3rd, 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 make the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The proposed uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Twin Pines PUD, Planned Unit Development District. 2. The proposed uses will be consistent with the existing and future land uses in the area in which they are located, including the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. 3. The impacts of the improvements are those anticipated by the existing and future land uses and are addressed through standard review and ordinances as adopted. 4. The proposed plat accommodates additional public and private improvements, including pedestrian facilities, utilities, and stormwater controls that ensure the project will continue to be consistent with the City’s long-term public service infrastructure. 5. The proposed access and development details, as supplemented in further submissions, meet the intent and requirements of the applicable zoning regulations. 6. As a property with development consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the previously approved plat for the site, the proposed plat is not anticipated to negatively impact surrounding residential properties. 7. Approval of the plat will not result in the need for additional road or utility infrastructure other than that being provided by and for the proposed use, and should not otherwise negatively impact the health or safety of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota recommends to the City Council that the proposed Preliminary Plat for the Twin Pines First Addition be approved, subject to the conditions of Exhibit Z of the staff report, as follows: 1. All construction is consistent with the approval Final Stage PUD Plans. 2. Site plan additions are made per the staff report (primarily signage and sign monumentation) to reinforce the entry and circulation to the residential area. 3. The Preliminary and Final Plat are found consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, including verification that all easements and association maintenance aspects of the mixed-use Outlot A area are addressed. 4. The Preliminary and Final plat shall include all easements, including perimeter easements per the direction of the City Engineer. 5. Submittal of association and/or common area easement documents is required. The documents shall be subject to the review and comment of the City Attorney. 6. The property owner submit any required petition for vacation of drainage and utility easements over Outlot A, to be re-established on the plat per the City Engineer’s direction. 7. The approved PUD provides attached or internal trash handling for the residential use as noted in the plans and this report. 8. In the event that site plan modifications are required at Final Stage, the landscaping plan is revised consistent with any changes to the site plan to maintain plant quantities and buffering, particularly toward the east residential boundary. 9. The circulation routes through the project are reviewed to ensure safe travel for residents and commercial tenants in all areas of the project site, including directional signage related to discouraging traffic through the veterinary office building to the west. 10. Enclosed parking on the site is required to be included in unit leases to ensure they are fully utilized, and not left underutilized through separate leasing. 11. The applicant prepare and submit signage plans that incorporate existing signage, providing for consolidated entrance monument signage and avoiding additional freestanding sign displays. 12. The applicant prepare and submit updated lighting plans, including attention to proposed site lighting that acknowledges the minimizing of site lighting impacts along the easterly site boundary. 13. Cross parking and access rights and agreements are verified between the subject parcel and adjoining parcels, the applicant amends and execute as required any required cross-access and cross-parking agreements required for the site and adjoining parcels, and the applicant further verifies commitment to any future reasonable modifications as adjoining parcels develop or redevelop. 14. Site landscaping is completed as approved, with required maintenance securities as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Compliance with the approved landscaping plan is an ongoing requirement of CUP and site plan approval. Materials that are removed or fail to survive shall be replaced, regardless of landscape guarantees. 15. Compliance with the terms of the City’s Engineering Staff letter dated January 23, 2026 16. Compliance with the terms of the Chief Building Official’s letter dated January 23, 2026 17. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission. ADOPTED this 3rd day of February, 2026 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Andrew Tapper, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Tyler Bevier, Community & Economic Development Coordinator CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2026-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR TWIN PINES FIRST ADDITION WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking a Development Stage PUD approval concurrent with a preliminary plat of a parcel of currently undeveloped land, currently platted as Outlot A of the Monticello Commerce Center 6th Addition; and WHEREAS, the proposed plat and PUD would incorporate development opportunity for mixed residential land uses as an allowed use in the proposed Twin Pines Planned Unit Development zoning district; and WHEREAS, the plat creates a single residential development parcel and one outlot reflecting common access area in the PUD, dedication of public easements, and utilizes existing access easements to public streets along with drainage and utilities; and WHEREAS, the PUD development parcel will be consistent with requirements of the City’s Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance requirements under the appropriate PUD standards; and WHEREAS, the subject property will be developed under the requirements of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, which designate the land use for the property as Commercial Residential Flex; and WHEREAS, the proposed Development Stage PUD accommodates attached housing under a PUD zoning structure; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application for the plat pursuant to the regulations of the applicable ordinances and land use plans and policies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 3rd, 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 make the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The proposed uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Twin Pines PUD, Planned Unit Development District. 2. The proposed uses will be consistent with the existing and future land uses in the area in which they are located, including the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. 3. The impacts of the improvements are those anticipated by the existing and future land uses and are addressed through standard review and ordinances as adopted. 4. The proposed PUD accommodates additional public and private improvements, including pedestrian facilities, utilities, and stormwater controls that ensure the project will continue to be consistent with the City’s long-term public service infrastructure. 5. The proposed access and development details, as supplemented in further submissions, meet the intent and requirements of the applicable zoning regulations. 6. As a property with development consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the previously approved PUD for the site, the proposed PUD is not anticipated to negatively impact surrounding residential properties. 7. Approval of the PUD will not result in the need for additional road or utility infrastructure other than that being provided by and for the proposed use, and should not otherwise negatively impact the health or safety of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota recommends to the City Council that the proposed Development Stage PUD for the Twin Pines First Addition be approved, subject to the conditions of Exhibit Z of the staff report, as follows: 1. All construction is consistent with the approval Final Stage PUD Plans. 2. Site plan additions are made per the staff report (primarily signage and sign monumentation) to reinforce the entry and circulation to the residential area. 3. The Preliminary and Final Plat are found consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, including verification that all easements and association maintenance aspects of the mixed-use Outlot A area are addressed. 4. The Preliminary and Final plat shall include all easements, including perimeter easements per the direction of the City Engineer. 5. Submittal of association and/or common area easement documents is required. The documents shall be subject to the review and comment of the City Attorney. 6. The property owner submit any required petition for vacation of drainage and utility easements over Outlot A, to be re-established on the plat per the City Engineer’s direction. 7. The approved PUD provides attached or internal trash handling for the residential use as noted in the plans and this report. 8. In the event that site plan modifications are required at Final Stage, the landscaping plan is revised consistent with any changes to the site plan to maintain plant quantities and buffering, particularly toward the east residential boundary. 9. The circulation routes through the project are reviewed to ensure safe travel for residents and commercial tenants in all areas of the project site, including directional signage related to discouraging traffic through the veterinary office building to the west. 10. Enclosed parking on the site is required to be included in unit leases to ensure they are fully utilized, and not left underutilized through separate leasing. 11. The applicant prepare and submit signage plans that incorporate existing signage, providing for consolidated entrance monument signage and avoiding additional freestanding sign displays. 12. The applicant prepare and submit updated lighting plans, including attention to proposed site lighting that acknowledges the minimizing of site lighting impacts along the easterly site boundary. 13. Cross parking and access rights and agreements are verified between the subject parcel and adjoining parcels, the applicant amends and execute as required any required cross-access and cross-parking agreements required for the site and adjoining parcels, and the applicant further verifies commitment to any future reasonable modifications as adjoining parcels develop or redevelop. 14. Site landscaping is completed as approved, with required maintenance securities as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Compliance with the approved landscaping plan is an ongoing requirement of CUP and site plan approval. Materials that are removed or fail to survive shall be replaced, regardless of landscape guarantees. 15. Compliance with the terms of the City’s Engineering Staff letter dated January 23, 2026 16. Compliance with the terms of the Chief Building Official’s letter dated January 23, 2026 17. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission. ADOPTED this 3rd day of February, 2026 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Andrew Tapper, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Tyler Bevier, Community & Economic Development Coordinator CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC 2026-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PUD FOR TWIN PINES FIRST ADDITION WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking a Preliminary Plat, Development Stage PUD, and Conditional Use Permit PUD approvals for a parcel of currently undeveloped land, currently platted as Outlot A of the Monticello Commerce Center 6th Addition; and WHEREAS, the proposed PUD would incorporate development opportunity for mixed residential land uses as an allowed use in the proposed Twin Pines Planned Unit Development zoning district; and WHEREAS, the PUD creates a single residential development parcel and one outlot reflecting common access area in the PUD, dedication of public easements, and utilizes existing access easements to public streets along with drainage and utilities; and WHEREAS, the PUD development parcel will be consistent with requirements of the City’s Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance requirements under the appropriate PUD standards; and WHEREAS, the subject property will be developed under the requirements of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, which designate the land use for the property as Commercial Residential Flex; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment to Conditional Use Permit PUD accommodates attached housing under a PUD zoning structure as per the original CUP approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application for the plat pursuant to the regulations of the applicable ordinances and land use plans and policies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 3rd, 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 make the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The proposed uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Twin Pines PUD, Planned Unit Development District. 2. The proposed uses will be consistent with the existing and future land uses in the area in which they are located, including the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. 3. The impacts of the improvements are those anticipated by the existing and future land uses and are addressed through standard review and ordinances as adopted. 4. The proposed PUD accommodates additional public and private improvements, including pedestrian facilities, utilities, and stormwater controls that ensure the project will continue to be consistent with the City’s long-term public service infrastructure. 5. The proposed access and development details, as supplemented in further submissions, meet the intent and requirements of the applicable zoning regulations. 6. As a property with development consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the previously approved Conditional Use Permit PUD for the site, the proposed Amendment to CUP-PUD is not anticipated to negatively impact surrounding residential properties. 7. Approval of the PUD will not result in the need for additional road or utility infrastructure other than that being provided by and for the proposed use, and should not otherwise negatively impact the health or safety of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota recommends to the City Council that the proposed Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for PUD for the Twin Pines First Addition be approved, subject to the conditions of Exhibit Z of the staff report, as follows: 1. All construction is consistent with the approval Final Stage PUD Plans. 2. Site plan additions are made per the staff report (primarily signage and sign monumentation) to reinforce the entry and circulation to the residential area. 3. The Preliminary and Final Plat are found consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, including verification that all easements and association maintenance aspects of the mixed-use Outlot A area are addressed. 4. The Preliminary and Final plat shall include all easements, including perimeter easements per the direction of the City Engineer. 5. Submittal of association and/or common area easement documents is required. The documents shall be subject to the review and comment of the City Attorney. 6. The property owner submit any required petition for vacation of drainage and utility easements over Outlot A, to be re-established on the plat per the City Engineer’s direction. 7. The approved PUD provides attached or internal trash handling for the residential use as noted in the plans and this report. 8. In the event that site plan modifications are required at Final Stage, the landscaping plan is revised consistent with any changes to the site plan to maintain plant quantities and buffering, particularly toward the east residential boundary. 9. The circulation routes through the project are reviewed to ensure safe travel for residents and commercial tenants in all areas of the project site, including directional signage related to discouraging traffic through the veterinary office building to the west. 10. Enclosed parking on the site is required to be included in unit leases to ensure they are fully utilized, and not left underutilized through separate leasing. 11. The applicant prepare and submit signage plans that incorporate existing signage, providing for consolidated entrance monument signage and avoiding additional freestanding sign displays. 12. The applicant prepare and submit updated lighting plans, including attention to proposed site lighting that acknowledges the minimizing of site lighting impacts along the easterly site boundary. 13. Cross parking and access rights and agreements are verified between the subject parcel and adjoining parcels, the applicant amends and execute as required any required cross-access and cross-parking agreements required for the site and adjoining parcels, and the applicant further verifies commitment to any future reasonable modifications as adjoining parcels develop or redevelop. 14. Site landscaping is completed as approved, with required maintenance securities as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Compliance with the approved landscaping plan is an ongoing requirement of CUP and site plan approval. Materials that are removed or fail to survive shall be replaced, regardless of landscape guarantees. 15. Compliance with the terms of the City’s Engineering Staff letter dated January 23, 2026 16. Compliance with the terms of the Chief Building Official’s letter dated January 23, 2026 17. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission. ADOPTED this 3rd day of February, 2026 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION By: _______________________________ Andrew Tapper, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________________ Tyler Bevier, Community & Economic Development Coordinator Wo o d Fe n c e Tra s h En c l o s u r e Trash Enclos u r e PID : 1 5 5 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Ad d r e s s : 4 1 3 4 S c h o o l B l v d Ow n e r : J a c o b s o n V e t P r o p 42.3 66 . 0 5.0 30 . 1 5.0 65. 1 42.3 16 1 . 3 16 2 . 4 42.3 16 2 . 2 42.3 8" SAN 8" SAN 8" P V C 8" P V C 4" D T 15 " H D P E 18 " H D P E 18 " H D P E ( R e c ) 8" D I P 8" D I P 12" W M [13] Drainage and Utility Easement Over All of Outlot A (Per Plat) [13 ] D r a i n a g e a n d U t i l i t y Eas e m e n t ( p e r P l a t ) [15] Sidew a l k Easement p e r D o c . No. 10154 5 5 8 4 11 4 20 21 8" DIP 10 " S A N 10 " S A N PID: 155207001010 Address: 9320 Cedar St Owner: Wal-Mart Real Est Business Tr PID: 15 5 1 4 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 Address: U n a s s i g n e d Owner: U n a v a i l a b l e 50.00S73°49 ' 2 3 " E N1 6 ° 1 0 ' 3 7 " E 1 7 0 . 0 0 50.00N73°4 9 ' 2 3 " W S1 6 ° 1 0 ' 3 7 " W 1 7 0 . 0 0 S25 ° 2 8 ' 2 8 " W 123 . 8 0 A M C O G a s L i n e Corner fal l s i n M H SCH O O L B L V D (A P u b l i c R / W ) 24 " H D P E ( R e c ) 2 4 " H D P E [18] I n g r e s s / E g r e s s Ease m e n t p e r D o c N o . A119 3 2 7 0 N2 6 ° 0 4 ' 1 0 " E 3 3 8 . 0 1 N63 ° 5 5 ' 5 0 " W 1 0 4 . 0 0 S2 6 ° 0 4 ' 1 0 " W 3 3 1 . 3 1 S64 ° 1 0 ' 1 0 " E 3 5 0 . 2 8 N1 6 ° 1 0 ' 3 7 " E 6 9 6 . 3 5 R=11 2 0 . 0 0 128.0 1 Δ=6°3 2 ' 5 4 " D a n d U E a s e m e n t pe r P l a t o f Mo n t i c e l l o B u s i n e s s Ce n t e r 3 r d A d d i t i o n NSP E a s e m e n t p e r D o c . No's 5 6 0 7 7 a n d 5 8 7 9 5 3 D a n d U E a s e m e n t p e r Pla t o f M o n t i c e l l o B u s i n e s s Ce n t e r 3 r d A d d i t i o n [1 0 ] I n g r e s s / E g r e s s E a s e m e n t pe r D o c N o . A 1 1 9 3 2 7 0 24" HD P E 24 " R C P NO BUILDINGS PID: 155221000010 Address: Unassigned PID : 1 5 5 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Ad d r e s s : 4 3 0 0 S c h o o l B l v d Ow n e r : K j e l l b e r g I n c PID: 15 5 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Address : U n a s s i g n e d Owner: U n a v a i l a b l e [1 9 ] A c c e s s & P a r k i n g E a s e m e n t pe r D o c N o . A 1 5 4 5 5 4 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED Outlot A, Monticello Business Center Sixth Addition, Wright County, Minnesota. Abstract Property GENERAL SURVEY NOTES 1. Bearings are based on the Wright County Coordinate System (1986 Adjustment). 2. Elevations are based on the NGVD 29 Datum. Site Benchmark is the top nut hydrant located on the north side of School Boulevard, as shown hereon. Elevation = 968.10. 3. We have shown the location of utilities to the best of our ability based on observed evidence together with evidence from the following sources: plans obtained from utility companies, plans provided by client, markings by utility companies and other appropriate sources. We have used this information to develop a view of the underground utilities for this site. However, lacking excavation, the exact location of underground features cannot be accurately, completely and reliably depicted. Where additional or more detailed information is required, the client is advised that excavation may be necessary. Also, please note that seasonal conditions may inhibit our ability to visibly observe all the utilities located on the subject property. Storm information shown in the undeveloped area was taken from a site utility plan prepared by Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC, dayed June 4, 2007. ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey Notes (numbered per Table A) 1. Monuments placed and/or found at all major corners of the boundary of the surveyed property as shown hereon. 2. Site Address: Unassigned, School Boulevard, Monticello, Minnesota 55362 (Wright County PID No. 155221000010) 3. This property is contained in Zone X (area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 27171C0170D, effective date of June 20, 2024. 4. The Gross land area is 170,244 +/- square feet or 3.908 +/- acres. 6. The current Zoning for the subject property was not provided. Please note that the general restrictions for the subject property may have been amended through a city process. We could be unaware of such amendments if they are not in a recorded document provided to us. We recommend that a zoning letter be obtained from the Zoning Administrator for the current restrictions for this site. 7. (a) Exterior dimensions of buildings at ground level as shown hereon. (b)(1) Square footage of exterior footprint of buildings at ground level as shown hereon. Please note we did not observe any buildings on the subject property while conducting the fieldwork. 9. The number of parking stalls on this site are as follows: 45 Regular + 0 Handicap = 45 Total Parking Stalls. 13. The names of the adjoining owners of the platted lands, as shown hereon, are based on information obtained from Wright County Interactive Property Map. SURVEY REPORT 1. This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Land Title, Inc., as agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, File No. 723127, dated November 3, 2025. We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment: a. Item no.'s 1-9, 12, 14, 16 and 17 are not survey related. b. The following are numbered per the referenced title Commitment: 12. Easement in favor of the City of Monticello filed as Document Number 590041. Document creates a blanket roadway and utility easement in conjunction with a project involving School Boulevard. Blanket easement lies over the underlying section, township, range description of the subject property. Document states that upon completion of the development of the public improvement project and upon recording of a final plat that contains all necessary easements, and upon request of developer, the city shall execute an appropriate document releasing its easement interest, except as to those portions of property necessary for the public improvements identified on the final plat. School Boulevard was dedicated in an underlying plat and is shown hereon adjacent to the north of the subject property. [13]. Drainage and utility easements over the subject property as shown on the recorded plat of Monticello Business Center Sixth Addition. Drainage and utility easement dedicated over all of Outlot A, as shown hereon. [15]. Grant of Permanent Easement in favor of the City of Monticello filed as Document Number A1015455. As shown hereon over the Northerly 12 feet of the subject property. [18]. Reciprocal Driveway Easement and Maintenance Agreement filed as Document Number A1193270. As shown heron over the middle portion of subject property. [19]. Easement Agreement dated December 12, 2023, filed January 5, 2024 as Document Number A1545541. Document creates an access and parking easement benefitting Lot 1, Block 1 and burdening Outlot A of the proposed plat of Twin Pines First Addition. Said plat has not been recorded at the time of this survey. Said easement is shown hereon over a northeasterly portion of the subject property. ALTA CERTIFICATION To: Brick by Brick Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company; Land Title, Inc.; and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company: This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2021 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6(a), 7(a), 7(b)(1), 8, 9, and 13 of Table A thereof. The fieldwork was completed on 11-4-2025. Dated this 13th day of November, 2025. ________________________________________________________ Rory L. Synstelien Minnesota License No. 44565 rory@civilsitegroup.com VICINITY MAP Mo n t i c e l l o A p a r t m e n t s Un a s s i g n e d A d d r e s s S c h o o l B l v d , M o n t i c e l l o , W r i g h t C o u n t y , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 3 6 2 90 0 A m e r i c a n B l v d E a s t , S u i t e 3 0 0 , B l o o m i n g t o n , M N 5 5 2 4 0 Ap a r t m e n t s M o n t i c e l l o L L C PR O J E C T PROJECT NO.: 19332 COPYRIGHT 2025 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION V1.0 ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY .. .. .. .. .. .. N 44565 RORY L. SYNSTELIEN LICENSE NO.DATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 11-13-2025 N CL I E N T OVERHEAD UTILITIES FIBER OPTIC SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER TELEPHONE LINE CABLE LINE WATERMAIN ELECTRIC LINE GASMAIN CHAINLINK FENCELINE SIGN SANITARY MANHOLE STORM MANHOLE CABLE TV BOX TELEPHONE MANHOLE ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER TELEPHONE BOX TRAFFIC SIGNAL GAS METER ELECTRICAL METER WATER MANHOLE WATER VALVE AIR CONDITIONER BOLLARD CATCH BASIN ELECTRIC MANHOLE GAS VALVE FLAG POLE HANDICAP SYMBOL FOUND IRON MONUMENT HYDRANT CAST IRON MONUMENT SET IRON MONUMENT FLARED END SECTION Linetype & Symbol Legend POWER POLE UTILITY MANHOLE CONCRETE SURFACE PAVER SURFACE BITUMINOUS SURFACE GRAVEL/LANDSCAPE GUY WIRE CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE SURFACE WOODEN FENCELINE GUARDRAIL ROOF DRAIN 100255002550 SCALE IN FEET    civilsitegroup.com “Your well-built project begins and endures with Firm Ground.” 1 | P a g e 275 Market Street, Suite 368, Minneapolis, MN 55405 | 612.819.1835 | firmgroundae.com December 8, 2025 City of Monticello Community Development Attn: Angela Schumann, Tyler Bevier 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Angela and Tyler, For your review are Firm Ground’s application items for the PUD Development Stage of the property described in the attached Land Use Application form. These written responses are per the PUD Development Proposal checklist/submittal and have been updated to reflect the current project information. The checklist item description is copied in bold with Firm Ground’s response written below. • A listing of contact information including name(s), address(es) and phone number(s) of: the owner of record, authorized agents or representatives, engineer, surveyor, and any other relevant associates Owner and applicant Brick by Brick Development, LLC Dave Walia, Vishal Dutt 900 American Blvd East Suite 300 Bloomington, MN 55420 Phone: 651-206-4087 Email: Vishal@venturemortgage.com Architecture: Craig Gottschalk & Ryne Nichols 275 Market Street, Suite 368 Minneapolis, MN 55405 Phone: 612-819-1835 Email: rnichols@firmgroundae.com, cgottschalk@firmgroundae.com Civil Engineer & Surveyor Civil Site Group Patrick Sarver 5000 Glenwood Avenue Golden Valley, MN 55422 Phone: 612-615-0060 Email: psarver@civilsitegroup.com 2 | P a g e 275 Market Street, Suite 368, Minneapolis, MN 55405 | 612.819.1835 | firmgroundae.com • A listing of the following site data: Address, current zoning, parcel size in acres and square feet and current legal description(s); o Address: site does not have a street address; it is located on School Boulevard immediately east of the Walmart located at 9320 Cedar Street. The Parcel ID is 155221000010 o Current zoning: PUD, adjacent to existing B4 zoning district o Parcel size: 152,151.33 square feet, 3.49 acres o Current partial legal description: Sect-14 Twp-121 Range-025 MONTICELLO BUSINESS CENTER 6TH OUTLOT A • A narrative explaining the applicant’s proposed objectives for the PUD amendment, and public values that the applicant believes may be achieved by the project The applicant seeks to build a 96-unit apartment building that offers a modern, comfortable and convenient lifestyle for renters in Monticello. With the consistently full occupancy of the nearby Monticello Crossings, we believe that another multi family development of this scale would be a benefit to the community as another distinctive living option. The ownership group has conducted a new market study to supports this endeavor. We are proposing a mix of studios, 1 bedroom, and 2-bedroom units. Most units will either be 1 bedroom or 2 bedrooms. Main access to the building will occur at the main entrance that features an overhang accent facing north. This is accessed from a driveway from School Boulevard to the north that also serves the existing businesses in the parcels on the interior borders of the property in question. The site access between these two parcels and the proposed development will be designed to maximize ease of access and efficiency. Ramp access to the below grade parking level is located on the eastern half of the building while surface parking will be provided in front of the building. Pedestrian pathways will be provided across the site to connect all the entrances as well as outdoor amenity space. This site design will facilitate a distinguished and attractive living destination while also accommodating and strengthening the adjacent businesses. The design intent of the new building is to apply the latest technology, materials and trends in lifestyle housing in an appealing combination that will capture a certain timelessness and be fresh and attractive for years to come. Materials will be selected for their durability, constructability and textural appeal. A 3 | P a g e 275 Market Street, Suite 368, Minneapolis, MN 55405 | 612.819.1835 | firmgroundae.com combination of brick, glass, and fiber cement siding will create an interesting façade with low maintenance exterior finishes. The proposed material palette is both contemporary and dignified. Dark grey brick and rhythmic white paneling are accented by areas of the warmer sandstone-textured fiber cement and sleek vertical ribbed fiber cement. It is important to create a dynamic and balanced façade with the way in which the materials accent each other. The proposed site plan aims to create a sense of arrival and entry while minimizing the impact on the existing businesses and parking lots. The turnaround feature with specialty pavement at the north end of the site will create an efficient and safe means of navigating to the businesses and apartment building. The center of the turnaround carries the potential of establishing an attractive and dignified arrival to the development. This sense of entry is reinforced with the overhang over the main pedestrian entrance to the proposed building. Overall, this site plan minimizes wasteful and costly demolition of the existing pavement on site, creates a compact surface parking lot dedicated to residents and facilitates ample space for a surface pond feature at the southern low point of the site for stormwater. We believe this layout reinforces the destination of an attractive, modern building while also proving highly practical and responsible. 96 units in the project allow us to dedicate space to a club room and lounge for social activities to support the creation of a sense of community. These rooms will provide comfy and cozy space, filled with natural light and a hearth to create a focal point and sense of place. The mailboxes will be incorporated into the area to further create opportunities for spontaneous social interactions and tables, chairs and a coffee server will be located in this area to give people a reason to tarry in the space a bit longer and enjoy the company of their neighbors. Exterior space will include a patio with built in BBQ grills, trellis or other space defining elements that make the patio both attractive and useful. This space is envisioned as another bustling social gathering space for residents and friends to unwind and relax with one another. With an attractive contemporary building and units design, this proposed project has the potential to be a popular addition to Monticello’s renter housing market. We believe it will enhance Monticello’s businesses by attracting younger renters 4 | P a g e 275 Market Street, Suite 368, Minneapolis, MN 55405 | 612.819.1835 | firmgroundae.com and families to the community who seek modern housing amenities in a growing and charming community near the Twin Cities. • A listing of general information including the number of proposed residential units, commercial and industrial land uses by category of use, public use areas including a description of proposed use, and any other land use proposed as part of the PUD o 96 proposed residential uses o The sole proposed use for this site is the 96 unit apartment building with associated resident amenities and parking. We are also proposing re-calibrating parking for the existing businesses on the north part of the land to work concurrently with our site circulation and access as shown in our Civil plans. • Calculation of the proposed density of the project and the potential density under standard zoning regulations, including both gross density and net density, accounting for developable and undevelopable land. Undevelopable land shall include all wetlands, floodplains, sensitive ecological areas identified in the Natural Resource Inventory, slopes greater than 18%, poor soils and areas of concentrated woodlands o A previously completed survey and soil borings illustrate the site as highly developable without wetlands or other undevelopable land. o The survey calculates a parcel area of 3.49 acres, with which our proposed 96 units provides a unit density of 27.51 units/acre, which doe exceed the R-4 maximum density of 25. We are seeking flexibility to allow this additional unit/acre ratio. • 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) o Ideally, we’d be targeting an early spring (2025) construction start based on approval timelines with Planning Commission and City Council. Typically for a project of this size, we’d expect a 12 month construction timeframe. • A listing of the areas of flexibility from the standard zoning sought through the use of PUD design. 5 | P a g e 275 Market Street, Suite 368, Minneapolis, MN 55405 | 612.819.1835 | firmgroundae.com o Following the R-4 zoning standards, we believe we will meet building setback and design standards. We’d be seeking flexibility with regards to the density as discussed above, as well as the parking standards. We have proposed 96 units in order to maximize the economics of a multi-family building at this site. As such, we would not be able to achieve the parking requirement of 2.25 stalls/unit and are seeking flexibility to provide 1 stall per bedroom instead. o We would be seeking flexibility regarding roof design- it is our understanding that a pitched 5:12 roof is required. To achieve the aesthetic we have envisioned, we would ask for flexibility to have a flat roof with parapets. Wo o d Fe n c e Tra s h En c l o s u r e Trash Enclos u r e PID : 1 5 5 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Ad d r e s s : 4 1 3 4 S c h o o l B l v d Ow n e r : J a c o b s o n V e t P r o p 42.3 66 . 0 5.0 30 . 1 5.0 65. 1 42.3 16 1 . 3 16 2 . 4 42.3 16 2 . 2 42.3 8" SAN 8" SAN 8" P V C 8" P V C 4" D T 15 " H D P E 18 " H D P E 18 " H D P E ( R e c ) 8" D I P 8" D I P 12" W M [13] Drainage and Utility Easement Over All of Outlot A (Per Plat) [13 ] D r a i n a g e a n d U t i l i t y Eas e m e n t ( p e r P l a t ) [15] Sidew a l k Easement p e r D o c . No. 10154 5 5 8 4 11 4 20 21 8" DIP 10 " S A N 10 " S A N PID: 155207001010 Address: 9320 Cedar St Owner: Wal-Mart Real Est Business Tr PID: 15 5 1 4 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 Address: U n a s s i g n e d Owner: U n a v a i l a b l e 50.00S73°49 ' 2 3 " E N1 6 ° 1 0 ' 3 7 " E 1 7 0 . 0 0 50.00N73°4 9 ' 2 3 " W S1 6 ° 1 0 ' 3 7 " W 1 7 0 . 0 0 S25 ° 2 8 ' 2 8 " W 123 . 8 0 A M C O G a s L i n e Corner fal l s i n M H SCH O O L B L V D (A P u b l i c R / W ) 24 " H D P E ( R e c ) 2 4 " H D P E [18] I n g r e s s / E g r e s s Ease m e n t p e r D o c N o . A119 3 2 7 0 N2 6 ° 0 4 ' 1 0 " E 3 3 8 . 0 1 N63 ° 5 5 ' 5 0 " W 1 0 4 . 0 0 S2 6 ° 0 4 ' 1 0 " W 3 3 1 . 3 1 S64 ° 1 0 ' 1 0 " E 3 5 0 . 2 8 N1 6 ° 1 0 ' 3 7 " E 6 9 6 . 3 5 R=11 2 0 . 0 0 128.0 1 Δ=6°3 2 ' 5 4 " D a n d U E a s e m e n t pe r P l a t o f Mo n t i c e l l o B u s i n e s s Ce n t e r 3 r d A d d i t i o n NSP E a s e m e n t p e r D o c . No's 5 6 0 7 7 a n d 5 8 7 9 5 3 D a n d U E a s e m e n t p e r Pla t o f M o n t i c e l l o B u s i n e s s Ce n t e r 3 r d A d d i t i o n [1 0 ] I n g r e s s / E g r e s s E a s e m e n t pe r D o c N o . A 1 1 9 3 2 7 0 24" HD P E 24 " R C P NO BUILDINGS PID: 155221000010 Address: Unassigned PID : 1 5 5 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Ad d r e s s : 4 3 0 0 S c h o o l B l v d Ow n e r : K j e l l b e r g I n c PID: 15 5 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Address : U n a s s i g n e d Owner: U n a v a i l a b l e [1 9 ] A c c e s s & P a r k i n g E a s e m e n t pe r D o c N o . A 1 5 4 5 5 4 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED Outlot A, Monticello Business Center Sixth Addition, Wright County, Minnesota. Abstract Property GENERAL SURVEY NOTES 1. Bearings are based on the Wright County Coordinate System (1986 Adjustment). 2. Elevations are based on the NGVD 29 Datum. Site Benchmark is the top nut hydrant located on the north side of School Boulevard, as shown hereon. Elevation = 968.10. 3. We have shown the location of utilities to the best of our ability based on observed evidence together with evidence from the following sources: plans obtained from utility companies, plans provided by client, markings by utility companies and other appropriate sources. We have used this information to develop a view of the underground utilities for this site. However, lacking excavation, the exact location of underground features cannot be accurately, completely and reliably depicted. Where additional or more detailed information is required, the client is advised that excavation may be necessary. Also, please note that seasonal conditions may inhibit our ability to visibly observe all the utilities located on the subject property. Storm information shown in the undeveloped area was taken from a site utility plan prepared by Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC, dayed June 4, 2007. ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey Notes (numbered per Table A) 1. Monuments placed and/or found at all major corners of the boundary of the surveyed property as shown hereon. 2. Site Address: Unassigned, School Boulevard, Monticello, Minnesota 55362 (Wright County PID No. 155221000010) 3. This property is contained in Zone X (area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 27171C0170D, effective date of June 20, 2024. 4. The Gross land area is 170,244 +/- square feet or 3.908 +/- acres. 6. The current Zoning for the subject property was not provided. Please note that the general restrictions for the subject property may have been amended through a city process. We could be unaware of such amendments if they are not in a recorded document provided to us. We recommend that a zoning letter be obtained from the Zoning Administrator for the current restrictions for this site. 7. (a) Exterior dimensions of buildings at ground level as shown hereon. (b)(1) Square footage of exterior footprint of buildings at ground level as shown hereon. Please note we did not observe any buildings on the subject property while conducting the fieldwork. 9. The number of parking stalls on this site are as follows: 45 Regular + 0 Handicap = 45 Total Parking Stalls. 13. The names of the adjoining owners of the platted lands, as shown hereon, are based on information obtained from Wright County Interactive Property Map. SURVEY REPORT 1. This map and report was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Land Title, Inc., as agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, File No. 723127, dated November 3, 2025. We note the following with regards to Schedule B of the herein referenced Title Commitment: a. Item no.'s 1-9, 12, 14, 16 and 17 are not survey related. b. The following are numbered per the referenced title Commitment: 12. Easement in favor of the City of Monticello filed as Document Number 590041. Document creates a blanket roadway and utility easement in conjunction with a project involving School Boulevard. Blanket easement lies over the underlying section, township, range description of the subject property. Document states that upon completion of the development of the public improvement project and upon recording of a final plat that contains all necessary easements, and upon request of developer, the city shall execute an appropriate document releasing its easement interest, except as to those portions of property necessary for the public improvements identified on the final plat. School Boulevard was dedicated in an underlying plat and is shown hereon adjacent to the north of the subject property. [13]. Drainage and utility easements over the subject property as shown on the recorded plat of Monticello Business Center Sixth Addition. Drainage and utility easement dedicated over all of Outlot A, as shown hereon. [15]. Grant of Permanent Easement in favor of the City of Monticello filed as Document Number A1015455. As shown hereon over the Northerly 12 feet of the subject property. [18]. Reciprocal Driveway Easement and Maintenance Agreement filed as Document Number A1193270. As shown heron over the middle portion of subject property. [19]. Easement Agreement dated December 12, 2023, filed January 5, 2024 as Document Number A1545541. Document creates an access and parking easement benefitting Lot 1, Block 1 and burdening Outlot A of the proposed plat of Twin Pines First Addition. Said plat has not been recorded at the time of this survey. Said easement is shown hereon over a northeasterly portion of the subject property. ALTA CERTIFICATION To: Brick by Brick Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company; Land Title, Inc.; and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company: This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2021 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6(a), 7(a), 7(b)(1), 8, 9, and 13 of Table A thereof. The fieldwork was completed on 11-4-2025. Dated this 13th day of November, 2025. ________________________________________________________ Rory L. Synstelien Minnesota License No. 44565 rory@civilsitegroup.com VICINITY MAP Mo n t i c e l l o A p a r t m e n t s Un a s s i g n e d A d d r e s s S c h o o l B l v d , M o n t i c e l l o , W r i g h t C o u n t y , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 3 6 2 90 0 A m e r i c a n B l v d E a s t , S u i t e 3 0 0 , B l o o m i n g t o n , M N 5 5 2 4 0 Ap a r t m e n t s M o n t i c e l l o L L C PR O J E C T PROJECT NO.: 19332 COPYRIGHT 2025 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION V1.0 ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY .. .. .. .. .. .. N 44565 RORY L. SYNSTELIEN LICENSE NO.DATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 11-13-2025 N CL I E N T OVERHEAD UTILITIES FIBER OPTIC SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER TELEPHONE LINE CABLE LINE WATERMAIN ELECTRIC LINE GASMAIN CHAINLINK FENCELINE SIGN SANITARY MANHOLE STORM MANHOLE CABLE TV BOX TELEPHONE MANHOLE ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER TELEPHONE BOX TRAFFIC SIGNAL GAS METER ELECTRICAL METER WATER MANHOLE WATER VALVE AIR CONDITIONER BOLLARD CATCH BASIN ELECTRIC MANHOLE GAS VALVE FLAG POLE HANDICAP SYMBOL FOUND IRON MONUMENT HYDRANT CAST IRON MONUMENT SET IRON MONUMENT FLARED END SECTION Linetype & Symbol Legend POWER POLE UTILITY MANHOLE CONCRETE SURFACE PAVER SURFACE BITUMINOUS SURFACE GRAVEL/LANDSCAPE GUY WIRE CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE SURFACE WOODEN FENCELINE GUARDRAIL ROOF DRAIN 100255002550 SCALE IN FEET    civilsitegroup.com Wo o d Fe n c e Tra s h En c l o s u r e Trash Enclosu r e 42.3 66 . 0 5.0 30 . 1 5.0 65. 1 42.3 16 1 . 3 16 2 . 4 42.3 16 2 . 2 42.3 8" SAN 8" SAN 8" P V C 8" P V C 4" D T 15 " H D P E 18 " H D P E 18 " H D P E ( R e c ) 8" D I P 8" D I P 12" W M [15] Sidew a l k Easement p e r D o c . No. 10154 5 5 8 4 11 4 20 21 8" DIP 10 " S A N 10 " S A N A M C O G a s L i n e 24 " H D P E ( R e c ) 2 4 " H D P E [18] I n g r e s s / E g r e s s Ease m e n t p e r D o c N o . A119 3 2 7 0 NSP E a s e m e n t p e r D o c . No's 5 6 0 7 7 a n d 5 8 7 9 53 24" HD P E 24 " R C P NO BUILDINGS [1 9 ] A c c e s s & P a r k i n g E a s e m e n t pe r D o c N o . A 1 5 4 5 5 4 1 N73°4 9 ' 2 3 " W 50.00 S2 5 ° 2 8 ' 2 8 " W 1 2 3 . 8 0 Corner Fa l l s i n Manhole. N o Monumen t F o u n d or Set. Drainage and Utility Easement over all of Outlot A OUTL O T A BLOC K 1 LOT 1 Dra i n a g e a n d Uti l i t y E a s e m e n t N O T I N C L U D E D I N P L A T S 9 ° 2 7 ' 1 7 " E 4 6 . 2 4 Drai n a g e a n d Utilit y E a s e m e n t 13 . 6 5 32 4 . 3 6 N63 ° 1 9 ' 2 3 " W 9 9 . 9 4 N73°4 9 ' 2 3 " W 8 5 . 3 3 33 3 . 8 6 36 2 . 4 9 Set Wi t n e s s Monu m e n t 20 . 0 0 SE ' l y L i n e o f O u t l o t A , MO N I T C E L L O BU S I N E S S C E N T E R SI X T H A D D I T I O N N25 ° 2 3 ' 3 9 " E 28.6 7 N31 ° 4 8 ' 5 0 " E 43. 3 5 N2 6 ° 0 4 ' 1 3 " E 60 . 4 5 N36°59'36"E 26.11 N73 ° 2 3 ' 0 9 " E 24. 1 6 N2 2 ° 1 1 ' 0 2 " E 56 . 1 1 N 2 5 ° 0 1 ' 2 7 " W 1 0 3 . 2 4 N73°4 2 ' 2 9 " W 8 9 . 8 5 4 8 . 1 2 S 2 0 ° 5 1 ' 0 4 " E S 2 5 ° 0 1 ' 2 7 " E 1 1 9 . 8 3 12 4 . 3 9 89.8 5 18.03 N20°51 ' 0 4 " W 76. 9 8 64. 0 5 N2 6 ° 0 4 ' 1 0 " E 3 3 1 . 3 1 S63 ° 5 5 ' 5 0 " E 1 0 4 . 0 0 N2 6 ° 0 4 ' 1 0 " E 3 3 8 . 0 1 C=12 7 . 9 4CB=S 7 2 ° 0 4 ' 4 3 " E R=11 2 0 . 0 0 Δ=6°32 ' 5 3 " L=12 8 . 0 0 S1 6 ° 1 0 ' 3 7 " W 6 9 6 . 3 5 N64 ° 1 0 ' 1 0 " W 3 5 0 . 2 8 Sidew a l k E a s e m e n t P e r Doc. N o . A 1 0 1 5 4 5 5 N1 6 ° 1 0 ' 3 7 " E 1 7 0 . 0 0 S1 6 ° 1 0 ' 3 7 " W 1 7 0 . 0 0 50.00N73°4 9 ' 2 3 " W Drain a g e a n d U t i l i t y E a s e m e n t V a c a t e d Per D o c N o . 29.0 0N26 ° 0 4 ' 1 0 " E 13.01 N19°42 ' 2 9 " W 27. 9 1 N63 ° 5 5 ' 5 0 " W VICINITY MAP PR O J E C T PROJECT NO.19332 COPYRIGHT 2025 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION V2.0 PRELIMINARY PLAT .. .. .. .. .. .. N 44565 RORY L. SYNSTELIEN LICENSE NO.DATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 12-8-2025 N CL I E N T OVERHEAD UTILITIES FIBER OPTIC SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER TELEPHONE LINE CABLE LINE WATERMAIN ELECTRIC LINE GASMAIN CHAINLINK FENCELINE SIGN SANITARY MANHOLE STORM MANHOLE CABLE TV BOX TELEPHONE MANHOLE ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER TELEPHONE BOX TRAFFIC SIGNAL GAS METER ELECTRICAL METER WATER MANHOLE WATER VALVE AIR CONDITIONER BOLLARD CATCH BASIN ELECTRIC MANHOLE GAS VALVE FLAG POLE HANDICAP SYMBOL FOUND IRON MONUMENT HYDRANT CAST IRON MONUMENT SET IRON MONUMENT FLARED END SECTION Linetype & Symbol Legend POWER POLE UTILITY MANHOLE CONCRETE SURFACE PAVER SURFACE BITUMINOUS SURFACE GRAVEL/LANDSCAPE GUY WIRE CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE SURFACE WOODEN FENCELINE GUARDRAIL ROOF DRAIN    civilsitegroup.com QA/QC FIELD CREW DRAWN BY REVIEWED BY UPDATED BY . JRN/SW CJ . PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL NOTES LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Outlot A, Monticello Business Center Sixth Addition, Wright County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Wright County, Minnesota Abstract Property This preliminary plat was prepared with the benefit of a Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Land Title, Inc., as agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, File No. 723127, dated November 3, 2025. DATE OF PREPARATION: 12-8-2025 Background survey information is per a survey performed by us dated 11-13-2025. OWNER/APPLICANT: Apartments Monticello LLC Vishal Dutt 651-206-4087 vishal@venturemortgage.com BENCHMARKS: Elevations are based on the NGVD 29 Datum. Site Benchmark is the top nut hydrant located on the north side School Blvd, across from subject property, having an elevation of 968.10. AREAS: OUTLOT A = 43,309 Sq. Ft. or 0.994 Acres Lot 1, Block 1 = 109,358 Sq. Ft. or 2.511 Acres Total = 152,667 Sq. Ft. or 3.505 Acres FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION: This property is contained in Zone X (area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 270534 0015 B, effective date of August 4, 1988. ________________________________________________________ Rory L. Synstelien Minnesota License No. 44565 rory@civilsitegroup.com PRELIMINARY PLAT: TWIN PINES FIRST ADDITION 100255002550 SCALE IN FEET Mo n t i c e l l o A p a r t m e n t s Un a s s i g n e d A d d r e s s S c h o o l B l v d , M o n t i c e l l o , W r i g h t C o u n t y , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 3 6 2 90 0 A m e r i c a n B l v d E a s t , S u i t e 3 0 0 , B l o o m i n g t o n , M N 5 5 2 4 0 Ap a r t m e n t s M o n t i c e l l o L L C N73° 4 9 ' 2 3 " W 50.0 0 S2 5 ° 2 8 ' 2 8 " W 1 2 3 . 8 0 Corner F a l l s i n Manhol e . N o Monum e n t F o u n d or Set. Drainage and Utility Easement over all of Outlot A OUT L O T A BLO C K 1 LOT 1 Dr a i n a g e a n d Ut i l i t y E a s e m e n t N O T I N C L U D E D I N P L A T S 9 ° 2 7 ' 1 7 " E 4 6 . 2 4 Dra i n a g e a n d Utili t y E a s e m e n t 13 . 6 5 32 4 . 3 6 N6 3 ° 1 9 ' 2 3 " W 9 9 . 9 4 N73° 4 9 ' 2 3 " W 8 5 . 3 3 33 3 . 8 6 36 2 . 4 9 Set W i t n e s s Mon u m e n t 20 . 0 0 SE ' l y L i n e o f O u t l o t A , MO N I T C E L L O BU S I N E S S C E N T E R SI X T H A D D I T I O N N2 5 ° 2 3 ' 3 9 " E 28. 6 7 N3 1 ° 4 8 ' 5 0 " E 43 . 3 5 N2 6 ° 0 4 ' 1 3 " E 60 . 4 5 N36°59'36"E 26.11 N7 3 ° 2 3 ' 0 9 " E 24 . 1 6 N2 2 ° 1 1 ' 0 2 " E 56 . 1 1 N 2 5 ° 0 1 ' 2 7 " W 1 0 3 . 2 4 N73° 4 2 ' 2 9 " W 8 9 . 8 5 4 8 . 1 2 S 2 0 ° 5 1 ' 0 4 " E S 2 5 ° 0 1 ' 2 7 " E 1 1 9 . 8 3 12 4 . 3 9 89. 8 5 18.03 N20°5 1 ' 0 4 " W 76 . 9 8 64. 0 5 N2 6 ° 0 4 ' 1 0 " E 3 3 1 . 3 1 S6 3 ° 5 5 ' 5 0 " E 1 0 4 . 0 0 N2 6 ° 0 4 ' 1 0 " E 3 3 8 . 0 1 C=1 2 7 . 9 4 CB= S 7 2 ° 0 4 ' 4 3 " E R=1 1 2 0 . 0 0 Δ=6 ° 3 2 ' 5 3 " L=1 2 8 . 0 0 S1 6 ° 1 0 ' 3 7 " W 6 9 6 . 3 5 N6 4 ° 1 0 ' 1 0 " W 3 5 0 . 2 8 Side w a l k E a s e m e n t P e r Doc. N o . A 1 0 1 5 4 5 5 N1 6 ° 1 0 ' 3 7 " E 1 7 0 . 0 0 S1 6 ° 1 0 ' 3 7 " W 1 7 0 . 0 0 50.0 0 N73° 4 9 ' 2 3 " W Drai n a g e a n d U t i l i t y E a s e m e n t V a c a t e d Per D o c N o . 29. 0 0 N2 6 ° 0 4 ' 1 0 " E 13.01 N19°4 2 ' 2 9 " W 27. 9 1 N6 3 ° 5 5 ' 5 0 " W TWIN PINES FIRST ADDITION KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Apartments Monticello LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, fee owner of the following described property: OUTLOT A, MONTICELLO BUSINESS CENTER SIXTH ADDITION, Wright County, Minnesota. Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as TWIN PINES FIRST ADDITION and does hereby dedicate to the public, for public use, the drainage and utility easements created by this plat. In witness whereof said Apartments Monticello LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, has cause these presents to be signed by its proper officer this day of , 20 . APARTMENTS MONTICELLO LLC (Signature) (Printed Name) (Title) STATE OF , COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 , by , the of Apartments Monticello LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. My Commission Expires: Notary Public, Signature Notary Printed Name Notary Public County, SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE I Rory L. Sysntelien, do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of the surveyor's certification are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this day of , 20 . Rory L. Synstelien, Licensed Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 44565 STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF The foregoing Surveyor's Certificate was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 , by Rory L. Synstelien, Land Surveyor, Minnesota Licence No. 44565. My Commission Expires: Notary Public, Signature Notary Printed Name Notary Public County, CITY OF MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Be it known that at a meeting held on this day of , 20 , the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota did hereby review and approve this plat of TWIN PINES FIRST ADDITION. City of Monticello Planning Commission By , Chairperson By , Secretary CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MONTICELLO, STATE OF MINNESOTA This plat of TWIN PINES FIRST ADDITION was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this day of , 20 , and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2. By , Mayor By , City Clerk WRIGHT COUNTY SURVEYOR I hereby certify that in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 11, this plat has been reviewed and approved this day of , 20 . Wright County Surveyor WRIGHT COUNTY LAND RECORDS Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subdivision 9, taxes payable for the year 20 on the land hereinbefore described have been paid. Also, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.12, there are no delinquent taxes and transfer entered this day of , 20 . Wright County Land Records Administrator WRIGHT COUNTY RECORDER I hereby certify that this instrument was filed in the office of the County Recorder for record on this day of , 20 , at o'clock M. and was duly recorded in Cabinet No. , Sleeve , as Document Number . Wright County Recorder N Basis of Bearings: The Southeasterly line of OUTLOT A, MONTICELLO BUSINESS CENTER SIXTH ADDITION is assumed to bear South 16° 10' 37" West. Denotes a Found Iron Monument Denotes a 1/2 inch by 14 inch Rebar Marked "RLS 44565" SCALE: 1 INCH = 50 FEET 100255002550 SCALE IN FEET Being 12 feet in width when adjoining lot lines, unless otherwise indicated, as shown on the plat. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: NOT TO SCALE 12 12 12 12 VICINITY MAP SEC. 14 - T121 - R25N NOT TO SCALE ƻǊŷğrNǻ^ÝǊrNǻŷǊɳ ŷɟŗrǊǊNËÝǻrNǻ &203$1< $''5(66/,1( $''5(66/,1( &217$&71$0( 180%(5 (0$,/ ǢǻǊȕNǻȕǊĵrŗµÝŗrrǊĵŗ^ǢNƻrǊNËÝǻrNǻ µrŗrǊĵNŷŗǻǊNǻŷǊNÝəÝĵrŗµÝŗrrǊ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ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 * 7,7/(6+((7 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& ǻɟÝŗƻÝŗrǢƻǊǻōrŗǻǢ 6&+22/%/9' 0217,&(//201 ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 7+(6('2&80(176$5(,17(1'('72&20081,&$7('(6,*167$1'$5'6)255(129$7,21672 0((77+(1(('62)7+(&/,(17:,7+3(50,77,1*86(2)7+(6('2&80(1760$<%(86('$6 '(6,*1'2&80(176)253(50,7$1'25&216758&7,21385326(6 *(1(5$/&2175$&725*&6+$//%(5(63216,%/()25$//48$/,),('3(56211(/$1' 68%&2175$&7256$1'$//&216758&7,21:25.5(48,5(')257+('(02/,7,21 &216758&7,21$1'5()85%,6+0(17,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+7+,66(72),03529(0(176 ),1$/&/($1,1*:,//%(5(48,5('%<7+(*&35,257268%67$17,$/&203/(7,21*&6+$// ,1&/8'(,17+,6352326$/7+(&26772&203/(7(7+(),1$/&/($1,1*7+(),1$/&/($1,1* 6+$//,1&/8'(%87127/,0,7('729$&880,1*&$53(76:,3,1*'2:10,//:25.$1''225 23(1,1*6&/($1,1*:,1'2:,17(5,256(7&$65(48,5(')25$&203/(7(),1$/&/($1,1* 2)7+(63$&( *&6+$//2%7$,1$1'3$<)25$//&2676$662&,$7(':,7+6(&85,1*$1'(;3(',7,1*7+( %8,/',1*3(50,77+$7,61(&(66$5<)257+(&203/(7,212)7+(:25.%21'63(50,76 /,&(16(6(7&5(48,5(')25&21'8&7,1*%86,1(666+$//%(3529,'('%<$1'3$,')25%< 7+(*& *&6+$//%(5(63216,%/()25$'9,6,1*7+(&/,(17$1',7 6&2168/7$1762)$///$:6 25',1$1&(658/(65(*8/$7,21625'(5667$7($1'/2&$/%8,/',1*&2'(625 5(48,5(0(1762)$87+25,7,(6+$9,1*-85,6',&7,2129(57+(352-(&7,)*&3(5)2506 :25.81'(57+(&2175$&7.12:,1*,772%(&2175$5<727+(5(48,5(0(1762)7+( $87+25,7,(6+$9,1*-85,6',&7,2129(57+(:25.$1':,7+287$'9,6,1*7+(&/,(17125 7+(,5&2168/7$1762)68&+5(48,5(0(176*&6+$//$6680()8//5(63216,%,/,7<2)68&+ :25.$1'$662&,$7('&2676)25$335235,$7(02',),&$7,216:+,&+0$<%(5(48,5('%< $87+25,7,(6+$9,1*-85,6',&7,2129(5:25. *&6+$//&/($183$//:$67(0$7(5,$/658%%,6+$1''(%5,65(68/7,1*)520,76 23(5$7,216$768&+)5(48(1&,(6$65(48,5('720$,17$,1$&/($1$1'6$)(:25.,1* -2%6,7(*&6+$//&225',1$7(7+(35()(55('5287($1'25352&('85(6)257+( 5(029$/2)&216758&7,21'(%5,6:,7+&225',1$7(7+(35()(55('5287($1'25 352&('85(6)257+(5(029$/2)&216758&7,21'(%5,6:,7+7+(7(1$17$1'6+$// &225',1$7($//1(&(66$5<$'',7,21$/&/($183$63$572)&216758&7,2123(5$7,216 68&+7+$77+(%8,/',1*&20021$5($6$5(0$,17$,1(')5(()520$&&808/$7,2162) :$67(0$7(5,$/58%%,6+$1''(%5,6 *&6+$//%(5(63216,%/()257+(6758&785$/,17(*5,7<2)7+(%8,/',1*'85,1*$1' 5(/$7('72,76&216758&7,2123(5$7,216$//6758&785$/02',),&$7,2160867%( 5(9,(:('$1'$33529('7+528*+7+(2:1(5 &2676$1'256&+('8/('&+$1*(6727+(/80368035,&(&216,6762)$'',7,216 '(/(7,2162502',),&$7,2166+$//%($87+25,=('%<:5,77(16&23(&+$1*(6,*1('%< &/,(17*&6+$//3529,'('(7$,/('%$&.83$1'35,&,1*627+$77+(&2676$1'25 6&+('8/('&/$,0)257+(5(9,6,216&$1%(3523(5/<(9$/8$7(' *(1(5$/&2175$&7256+$//3529,'($0,1,080 ; -2%6,7(6,*1$6'(6,*1('%<),50 *5281'6,*1:,//%(/$5*(5,)27+(5/2*26$5(72%($''('68&+$6&2175$&725%$1. (7& *(1(5$/&2175$&725*&6+$//3529,'(%87127/,0,7('727+()2//2:,1*$&7,9,7,(6$6 3$572)7+(,5352326('6&23(2)6(59,&(6 $&216758&7,216(59,&(6 5(9,(:'2&80(17672%8,/',1*&2'(,668(6$1'5(48,5(0(17681'(5/2&$/081,&,3$/ -85,6',&7,21$'9,6($1'&200(1772&/,(172),668(6:+,&+0$<%(2),1)/8(1&(72 6(&85,1*7+(%8,/',1*3(50,7 68%0,73(50,7'2&80(17672$//5(48,5('*29(51,1*081,&,3$/,7,(6$1')2//2:8372 6(&85($1'(;3(',7(7+(%8,/',1*3(50,7 (67$%/,6+$6+23'5$:,1*&21752/6<67(072(;3(',7($1'75$&.6+23'5$:,1*6 352'8&768%0,77$/66$03/(6(7& 6&+('8/(021,725$1',03/(0(177+()/2:2)$//'2&80(176$1'0$7(5,$/6)257+( 3523(56(48(1&(2)$33529$/6%<7+($5&+,7(&762$67235(9(17'(/$<6,17+( 352*5(662)7+(:25. 9(5,)<352326('1(::$///2&$7,216$1'5$,6($1<&21&(51672),50*5281' ,1&/8',1*$1<',0(16,21%86762581)25(6((12%6758&7,216$//352326(' 02',),&$7,2167252206,=(625:$///2&$7,2160867%($33529('%<),50*5281' 2:1(535,2572,03/(0(17,1*27+(5:,6(*&6+$//$6680($//&2676)255(/$7(' 7+(5($)7(5 &225',1$7($1'(;(5&,6(5(*8/$725<&21752/29(5$//68%&2175$&7256&225',1$7( $1'683(59,6(7+(())25762)$//68%&2175$&7256$1'0$7(5,$/72(1685(7+$77+( 6&23(2):25.,6216&+('8/($1'&216758&7(',1$&&25'$1&(:,7+7+(&2175$&7 '2&80(176 29(56((0$1$*(683(59,6($1',1,7,$7($//6$)(7<35(&$87,216$1'352*5$06,1 &211(&7,21:,7+7+(3(5)250$1&(2)7+(&2175$&7,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+$// *29(510(17$/$*(1&,(6+$9,1*-85,6',&7,21 0$,17$,1$5(&25'.((3,1*6<67(072021,725$1'75$&.7+(352*5(662)7+(:25. 0$1$*(2%6(59($1'&2167$17/<5(9,(:7+($'(48$&<2)7+(68%&2175$&725 6 683(59,6,213(56211(/0$7(5,$/6$1'(48,30(17217+(-2%6,7( &+$,5352*5(660((7,1*6:,7+&/,(1772',6&866&225',1$7,21())2576352&('85(6 352*5(66352%/(066&+('8/,1*$1'23(1,668(6 5(&(,9(0$1$*($1'5(9,(:$//5(48(676)25&+$1*(25'(56$1'2%7$,1:5,77(1 $33529$/)520&/,(1735,2572&200(1&(0(173529,'($'(48$7(6833257,1*%$&.83 72-867,)<35,&,1*$65(48,5(')255(9,(:$1'$33529$/&217$&7$1'6&+('8/($// 5(48,5(',163(&7,216%<*29(51,1*081,&,3$/,7,(6 %3267&216758&7,216(59,&(6 0$1$*($1'&225',1$7(7+(&203/(7,212)352-(&7381&+/,67,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+7+( $33529('$1'$&&(37('6&+('8/()25381&+/,67&203/(7,21 35(3$5('2&80(17$7,21)25&(57,),&$7(2)68%67$17,$/&203/(7,21$1'),1$/ &203/(7,21$6:(//$6352&85($33/,&$%/(*29(510(17$/&(57,),&$7(2)2&&83$1&< 5(48,5(0(176 &203,/(,1$125*$1,=('0$11(568%&2175$&725$1'0$7(5,$/0(1&/26(287 '2&80(17668&+$6*8$5$17((6:$55$17((623(5$7,210$18$/67(67,1*5(32576 $6%8,/7'5$:,1*6$77,&6833/<$1'68%0,772&/,(17)255(9,(:$1'$33529$/ &/26($//68%&2175$&725$1'0$7(5,$/0(168%&2175$&76$1'385&+$6(25'(56,1$1 (;3(',7,2860$11(5$1'5(62/9(&/$,06',6387(6)257+(),1$/&2175$&7$&&(37$1&( 35(3$5(),1$/352*5(663$<0(17)25$//68%&2175$&7256$1'0$7(5,$/0(1:,7+$ 68)),&,(1775$'(3$<0(17%5($.'2:172$//2:)259(5,),&$7,212):25.&203/(7(',1 7+(),(/'$1'6800$5,=$7,212)&2175$&79$/8(6 7+(*&6+$//3529,'(5(&25''5$:,1*6,1&/8',1*7+5((6(762)3$3(5&23,(6$1' 21(6(72)(/(&7521,&),/(6727+(2:1(5,1%27+3') ':*)250$767+(6( '5$:,1*66+$//5(35(6(177+(&855(17&21',7,2162)7+()$&,/,7<$77+(7,0(7+( 2:1(57$.(63266(66,21$1'&203/(7,212)7+(352-(&7 7+(*&6+$//3529,'(7+(2:1(57+5((6(762)$//23(5$7,21$1'0$,17(1$1&( 0$18$/6)25,167$//('(48,30(17$1'0$7(5,$/6$6:(//$6$1<$33/,&$%/( 0$18)$&785(5:$55$17<,1)250$7,21 7+(*&6+$//3529,'(727+(2:1(5$//&23,(62)),1$//,(1:$,9(56,1&/8',1* 68%&2175$&7256$1'6833/,(56 µrŗrǊĵNŷŗǢǻǊȕNǻÝŷŗŗŷǻrǢ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ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 * 352-(&7 ,1)250$7,21 6+((7,1'(; 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& ǢÝǻrĵŷNǻÝŷŗōƻ ǢÝǻrōƻ 6+((7/,67 6+((7180%(5 6+((77,7/( $ (1/$5*('/2%%<3/$1$1'(/(9$7,216 $ (1/$5*('&20081,7<52203/$1$1'(/(9$7,216 $ (1/$5*('),71(6652203/$1$1'(/(9$7,216 *(1(5$/ * 7,7/(6+((7 * 352-(&7,1)250$7,21 6+((7,1'(; &,9,/ & 7,7/(6+((7 9 6,7(6859(< & 6,7(3/$1 & *5$',1*3/$1 & 87,/,7<3/$1 & &,9,/'(7$,/6 & &,9,/'(7$,/6 & &,9,/'(7$,/6 &,9,/ 5(029$/63/$1 / /$1'6&$3(3/$1 / /$1'6&$3(3/$1127(6$1''(7$,/6 6: 6:333(;,67,1*&21',7,216 6: 6:333352326('&21',7,216 6: 6:333'(7$,/6 6: 6:3331$55$7,9( 6: 6:333$77$&+0(176 6: 6:333$77$&+0(176 6758&785$/ 6 7,7/(6+((7 6$ )281'$7,213/$1:(67 6% )281'$7,213/$1($67 6$ ),567)/225)5$0,1*3/$1:(67 6% ),567)/225)5$0,1*3/$1($67 63& ),567)/22535(&$67/2$',1*3/$1 6$ 6(&21')/225)5$0,1*3/$1:(67 6% 6(&21')/225)5$0,1*3/$1($67 6$ 7+,5')/225)5$0,1*3/$1:(67 6% 7+,5')/225)5$0,1*3/$1($67 6$ )2857+)/225)5$0,1*3/$1:(67 6% )2857+)/225)5$0,1*3/$1($67 6$ 522))5$0,1*3/$1:(67 6% 522))5$0,1*3/$1($67 6 6(&7,216$1''(7$,/6 6 6(&7,216$1''(7$,/6 6 6(&7,216$1''(7$,/6 6 6(&7,216$1''(7$,/6 6 6(&7,216$1''(7$,/6 6 6&+('8/(6$1''(7$,/6 6 6&+('8/(6$1''(7$,/6 $5&+,7(&785$/ ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 6+((7/,67 6+((7180%(5 6+((77,7/( $ 5()(5(1&()/2253/$16 $ 5()(5(1&()/2253/$16 $ 5()(5(1&()/2253/$16 $$ 3$5.,1**$5$*()/2253/$1:(67 $% 3$5.,1**$5$*()/2253/$1($67 $$ ),567)/2253/$1:(67 $% ),567)/2253/$1($67 $$ 6(&21')/2253/$1:(67 $% 6(&21')/2253/$1($67 $$ 7+,5')/2253/$1:(67 $% 7+,5')/2253/$1($67 $$ )2857+)/2253/$1:(67 $% )2857+)/2253/$1($67 $$ 522)3/$1:(67 $% 522)3/$1($67 $ 81,76 $ 81,7 $ 81,7 $ 81,7 $ 81,7 $ 81,7 $ 81,7 $ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,216 $ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,216 $ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,216 $ %8,/',1*,620(75,&6 $ (;7(5,25&2/25(/(9$7,216 $ (;7(5,25&2/25(/(9$7,216 $ %8,/',1*6(&7,216 $ :$//6(&7,216 $ :$//6(&7,216 $ (1/$5*('67$,5$3/$16$1'6(&7,216 $ (1/$5*('67$,5%3/$16$1'6(&7,216 $ (1/$5*('67$,5&3/$16$1'6(&7,216 $ (1/$5*(':(67:,1*(/(9$7253/$16$1'6(&7,216 $ (1/$5*('($67:,1*(/(9$7253/$16$1'6(&7,216 $ (;7(5,25'(7$,/6 $ 23(1,1*'(7$,/6 $ 522)'(7$,/6 $ 67$,5'(7$,/6 $ ,17(5,25'(7$,/6 $ 9(57,&$/$66(0%/,(6 $ +25,=217$/$66(0%/,(6 $ 5(675220,17(5,25(/(9$7,216 '(7$,/6 $ '2256&+('8/(7<3(6 $ :,1'2:7<3(66725()52177<3(6 $ ),567)/225),1,6+3/$1 $ 6(&21')/225),1,6+3/$1 $ 7+,5')/225),1,6+3/$1 $ ),1,6+6&+('8/( $ %$6(0(175&3 $ ),567)/2255&3 83 5() 83 '1 ':)' )' )' )' )' )' )')' )' )' )' )' )' )' )' )' 83 6) &2005220 6) 2)),&( 0$,/ 6) /2%%< 67256725$*( 6) 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7$ 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 6) /281*( 75$6+ 81,7/(*(1' 81,7 81,7$ 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,76 ),71(665220 81,7 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7$ 6) 81,7 $ & & ( (*+-.0 1 3 4 5 % % ' ' 6) 81,7 ) ) / 6) 81,76 6) 0(&+,17$.( 6) 0(&+ $&(*+-.0 1 3 4 5 %') / $&()*+-./0 1 3 4 5 %'0 75 8 ( 12 5 7 + 3/$1 1257+ ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\ /LFHQVHG$UFKLWHFW XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKHVWDWHRI0LQQHVRWD 7KRPDV3:DVPRHQ 'DWH6LJQHG /LFHQVH1R 352-(&712 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< 0DUNHW6WUHHW6WH 0LQQHDSROLV01 ZZZILUPJURXQGDHFRP 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 7:$602(1 ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $ 5()(5(1&( )/2253/$16 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& $ 5()(5(1&(),567)/225 $ 3$5.,1**$5$*(5()(5(1&(3/$1 81,77<3(&2817 1DPH &RXQW 7\SH 81,7 %(' 81,7$ %(' 81,7 %(''(1 81,7 %(' 81,7 %(' 81,7$ %(' 81,7 %(' 81,7 %(' 81,76 678',2 *UDQGWRWDO 81,77<3(3(5)/225 1DPH &RXQW 1HW$UHD 7\SH ),567)/225 81,7 6) %(' 81,7$ 6) %(' 81,7 6) %(''(1 81,7 6) %(' 81,7 6) %(' 81,7 6) %(' 81,7 6) %(' 81,76 6) 678',2 ),567)/225 6(&21')/225 81,7 YDULHV! %(' 81,7 6) %(''(1 81,7 YDULHV! %(' 81,7 YDULHV! %(' 81,7 YDULHV! %(' 81,76 6) 678',2 6(&21')/225 7+,5')/225 81,7 YDULHV! %(' 81,7 6) %(''(1 81,7 YDULHV! %(' 81,7 YDULHV! %(' 81,7 YDULHV! %(' 81,76 6) 678',2 7+,5')/225 )2857+)/225 81,7 YDULHV! %(' 81,7 6) %(''(1 81,7 YDULHV! %(' 81,7 YDULHV! %(' 81,7$ 6) %(' 81,7 YDULHV! %(' 81,76 6) 678',2 )2857+)/225 *UDQGWRWDO ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38'&21&(37352326$/3/$16 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 '1 '1 '1 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 81,7 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 6) 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,76 81,7 75$6+ 81,7/(*(1' 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,76 $&(*+-.0 1 3 4 5 %' 81,7 ) / $&()*+-./0 1 3 4 5 %'0 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,76 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 $ $ & & ( (*+-. 0 0 1 1 3 3 4 4 5 5 % % ' ' 81,7 ) ) / / $&()*+-./0 1 3 4 5 %'0 75 8 ( 12 5 7 + 3/$1 1257+ ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\ /LFHQVHG$UFKLWHFW XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKHVWDWHRI0LQQHVRWD 7KRPDV3:DVPRHQ 'DWH6LJQHG /LFHQVH1R 352-(&712 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< 0DUNHW6WUHHW6WH 0LQQHDSROLV01 ZZZILUPJURXQGDHFRP 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 7:$602(1 ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $ 5()(5(1&( )/2253/$16 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& $ 5()(5(1&(6(&21')/225 $ 5()(5(1&(7+,5')/225 ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38'&21&(37352326$/3/$16 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,76 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7$ 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 $&(*+-.0 1 3 4 5 %' 81,7 ) / $&()*+-./0 1 3 4 5 %'0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $&(*+-.0 1 3 4 5 %') / $ $&()*+-./0 1 3 4 5 %'0 75 8 ( 12 5 7 + 3/$1 1257+ ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\ /LFHQVHG$UFKLWHFW XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKHVWDWHRI0LQQHVRWD 7KRPDV3:DVPRHQ 'DWH6LJQHG /LFHQVH1R 352-(&712 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< 0DUNHW6WUHHW6WH 0LQQHDSROLV01 ZZZILUPJURXQGDHFRP 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 7:$602(1 ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $ 5()(5(1&( )/2253/$16 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& $ 5()(5(1&()2857+)/225 $ 5()(5(1&(522)3/$1 ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38'&21&(37352326$/3/$16 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 )' )' )' )' )' )' )')')' 83 '1 $ 3$5.,1* *$5$*(67$//6 $ $ $ 6) (/(9/2%%< 6% 6) 6% $ $ 0(% 6) 0(&+ $ & & ( (*+- % %' ) ) 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,0, 0, 0, 0( 0(% $6%( & 0(0( 6) '2*:$6+ (;+$867$5($:(// 0(% $ $ &203$&7 &203$&7 &203$&7 &203$&7 &203$&7 67223&225 :6758&7 $1'&,9,/ $ 120*$/967/ 3,3(%2//$5'ZLWK 6/((9('*$/967/3/ &$3(32;<&$3,1 3/$&($)7(5),//,1* ZLWK&21& &21&),// &52:1&21&# %2//$5' &21&$3521 3285('&21& 6/$% *5$9(/%$6( &21&3,(5 75 8 ( 12 5 7 + 3/$1 1257+ ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\ /LFHQVHG$UFKLWHFW XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKHVWDWHRI0LQQHVRWD 7KRPDV3:DVPRHQ 'DWH6LJQHG /LFHQVH1R 352-(&712 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< 0DUNHW6WUHHW6WH 0LQQHDSROLV01 ZZZILUPJURXQGDHFRP 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 7:$602(1 ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $$ 3$5.,1* *$5$*()/225 3/$1 :(67 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& .H\QRWHV)ORRU3ODQ .H\9DOXH .H\QRWH7H[W $$ 3$5.,1**$5$*(:(67 $$ (;7(5,25%2//$5''(7$,/ ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38'&21&(37352326$/3/$16 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 )')' )' )' )' )' )' 83 5()86( $ $ $ 0( 7 $ $ 6& 6) (/(9/2%%< 6) 0(&+,17$.( - .0 1 3 4 5 / 0, 0, 0, 0,0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 6) 6& $ 6&( 0,& 0( $ $ 67223 &225 :6758&7 $1'&,9,/ $3521 75(1&+ '5$,16(( &,9,/ '5,9(:$< %281'$5< %$&.8375$6+ '80367(56 -./0 1 3 4 5 0 75 8 ( 12 5 7 + 3/$1 1257+ ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\ /LFHQVHG$UFKLWHFW XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKHVWDWHRI0LQQHVRWD 7KRPDV3:DVPRHQ 'DWH6LJQHG /LFHQVH1R 352-(&712 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< 0DUNHW6WUHHW6WH 0LQQHDSROLV01 ZZZILUPJURXQGDHFRP 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 7:$602(1 ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $% 3$5.,1* *$5$*()/225 3/$1 ($67 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& $% 3$5.,1**$5$*(($67 ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38'&21&(37352326$/3/$16 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 83 5() 83 ': '1 $ $ 6) 81,7 6) 2)),&( 6) 0$,/ 6) /2%%< 6) /281*( 6) &2005220 6) 6725 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7$ 6) 81,7 6) 3$&.$*(5220 6) 6$ 6) 5(66725$*( 6$(% $ $ 6% :35 $ $ $ :35 :35 :35 $ $ $ & & ( (*+- % % ' ' 6) 5(675220 6) 5(675220 ) ) :&5 6:5 :35 :35 :35 :35 :35 :35 :35 :35 6:5 6:5 :&5 :35 $%&' ()* + 6) 6% 6% $ $ $ 6$ :&5 :&5 :, :&5 $ &/ 5 81,76 81,7 :35 $ $ $ $ $ $ $/ $/ $/ $/ $ (4 (4 $ $$ 88 $&()*+- %' $ $ 3/$16$5(',0(16,21(')520(;7(5,25)$&(2) 678')281'$7,21)25(;7(5,25:$//6$1' &(17(5/,1(2),17(5,25:$//6 7<3,&$/*5,'/,1(6$/,*1:,7+)$&(2))281'$7,21 )25(;7(5,25:$//6$1'&(17(5/,1(62),17(5,25 :$//6 '22562))$'-$&(17:$//681/(6627+(5:,6( 127(' $//1(::$//6$5(1276+$'(' $//1(:'2256$5(6+2:123(1$7'(*5(( $1*/( )/2253/$1*(1(5$/127(6 ),50*5281'$5&+,7(&76 (1*,1((56:$//1$0,1*&219(17,216 >:$//7<3(@>02',),(5@>5$7,1*@ H[:,$5 >6WUXFWXUDO0DWHULDO@>/RFDWLRQ@>1RPLQDO6L]HRI6WXG@>3HUPXWDWLRQ@>+U5DWLQJLIDSSOLFDEOH@ :RRG([WHULRU 6WHHO,QWHULRU 0DVRQU\ )XUULQJ 75 8 ( 12 5 7 + 3/$1 1257+ ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\ /LFHQVHG$UFKLWHFW XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKHVWDWHRI0LQQHVRWD 7KRPDV3:DVPRHQ 'DWH6LJQHG /LFHQVH1R 352-(&712 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< 0DUNHW6WUHHW6WH 0LQQHDSROLV01 ZZZILUPJURXQGDHFRP 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 7:$602(1 ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $$ ),567)/225 3/$1 :(67 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& $$ ),567)/225:(67 .H\QRWHV)ORRU3ODQ .H\9DOXH .H\QRWH7H[W ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38'&21&(37352326$/3/$16 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 83 '1 $ 6) /2%%< 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7$ 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) ),71(665220 6) 6725$*( 6) 75$6+ 6) /281*( 6) 6& 6) (/(9/2%%< $ $ $ :35 $ 7 $ $ -.0 1 3 4 5 / :35 :35:35 :35 :35 :35 6:5 6:5 :35 :35 6:5 :&5 6:5 :&5 :&5 :&5 :&5 :,:35 $ $ * % &' ( $) :&5 6& :35 :35 6:5 :35 $ $ $ $/ (4 (4 $ 8 -./0 1 3 4 5 0 $ $ 75 8 ( 12 5 7 + 3/$1 1257+ ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\ /LFHQVHG$UFKLWHFW XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKHVWDWHRI0LQQHVRWD 7KRPDV3:DVPRHQ 'DWH6LJQHG /LFHQVH1R 352-(&712 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< 0DUNHW6WUHHW6WH 0LQQHDSROLV01 ZZZILUPJURXQGDHFRP 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 7:$602(1 ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $% ),567)/225 3/$1($67 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& $% ),567)/225($67 ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38'&21&(37352326$/3/$16 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 '1 83 '1 83 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 6$ 6$ 6) 6% 6% 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,76 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 6725$*( 6) (/(9/2%%< $ $&(*+- %' 81,7 ) :&5 :&5 :&5 :35 6:5 :35:35 :35 :35:35 :35 :35 6:5 6:5 :35 6$ ()*+ %&'$ 6) 87,/ 6% $ $ $ $$ $&()*+- %' 75 8 ( 12 5 7 + 3/$1 1257+ ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\ /LFHQVHG$UFKLWHFW XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKHVWDWHRI0LQQHVRWD 7KRPDV3:DVPRHQ 'DWH6LJQHG /LFHQVH1R 352-(&712 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< 0DUNHW6WUHHW6WH 0LQQHDSROLV01 ZZZILUPJURXQGDHFRP 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 7:$602(1 ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $$ 6(&21')/225 3/$1 :(67 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& .H\QRWHV)ORRU3ODQ .H\9DOXH .H\QRWH7H[W $$ 6(&21')/225:(67 ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38'&21&(37352326$/3/$16 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 83 '1 $ $ $ 6& 6& $ 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 75$6+ 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 6725 6) (/(9/2%%< $ 7 $ $ - .0 1 3 4 5 / :35 :35:35:35 :&5 :&5 6:5 :35 :35 :35 6:5 6:5 :&5 :35 :35 6:5 6:5 6:5 $ $ % &' ( ) * 6& :35 :35 $ -./0 1 3 4 5 0 75 8 ( 12 5 7 + 3/$1 1257+ ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\ /LFHQVHG$UFKLWHFW XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKHVWDWHRI0LQQHVRWD 7KRPDV3:DVPRHQ 'DWH6LJQHG /LFHQVH1R 352-(&712 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< 0DUNHW6WUHHW6WH 0LQQHDSROLV01 ZZZILUPJURXQGDHFRP 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 7:$602(1 ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $% 6(&21')/225 3/$1 ($67 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& $% 6(&21')/225($67 ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38'&21&(37352326$/3/$16 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 83 '1 83 '1 $ $ $ $ $ $ 6) 6% 6% $ 6) 81,7 6) 81,76 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 6$ 6$ 6) (/(9/2%%< 6) 6725$*( :(5 $&(*+- %' 81,7 ) 6:5:35 6:5 :35 :&5 :&5 6:5 6:5 :35:35 :35:35 :35 :35 :&5 6:5 6$ $%&' +*)( 6% $ $ $ $$ $&()*+- %' 75 8 ( 12 5 7 + 3/$1 1257+ ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\ /LFHQVHG$UFKLWHFW XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKHVWDWHRI0LQQHVRWD 7KRPDV3:DVPRHQ 'DWH6LJQHG /LFHQVH1R 352-(&712 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< 0DUNHW6WUHHW6WH 0LQQHDSROLV01 ZZZILUPJURXQGDHFRP 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 7:$602(1 ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $$ 7+,5')/225 3/$1 :(67 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& $$ 7+,5')/225:(67 ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38'&21&(37352326$/3/$16 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 83 '1 $ $ $ $ 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 :&5 6) (/(9/2%%< 6) 6725 6) 6& 6& 6) 75$6+ :&5:&5 7 $ $ '& -.0 1 3 4 5 / :35 :35 :356:5 6:5 :35 :35 :35 6:5 6:5 6:5 6:5 6:5 6:5 :35 :35 :35 :35 :&5 :&5 :&5 :&5 $ $ % ) * (( )) 6& :35 $ -./0 1 3 4 5 0 75 8 ( 12 5 7 + 3/$1 1257+ ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\ /LFHQVHG$UFKLWHFW XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKHVWDWHRI0LQQHVRWD 7KRPDV3:DVPRHQ 'DWH6LJQHG /LFHQVH1R 352-(&712 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< 0DUNHW6WUHHW6WH 0LQQHDSROLV01 ZZZILUPJURXQGDHFRP 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 7:$602(1 ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $% 7+,5')/225 3/$1 ($67 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& $% 7+,5')/225($67 ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38'&21&(37352326$/3/$16 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 '1 '1 $ $ $ $ $ $ 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6%$ 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7$ 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,76 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 6725 6) (/(9/2%%< $&(*+- %') $ $ 6) 6% 6%6% 6$ $ +*)( '&% $ $ :35 :35 6:5 6:5 :35 :&5 :&5 :&5 :&5 :35 :35 6:5 6:5 :35:35 888 8 8 8 8 88 8 8 88 :35 :35 :35 :&5:&5:&5 :&5 :&5 :35 :35 $&()*+- %' 75 8 ( 12 5 7 + 3/$1 1257+ ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\ /LFHQVHG$UFKLWHFW XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKHVWDWHRI0LQQHVRWD 7KRPDV3:DVPRHQ 'DWH6LJQHG /LFHQVH1R 352-(&712 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< 0DUNHW6WUHHW6WH 0LQQHDSROLV01 ZZZILUPJURXQGDHFRP 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 7:$602(1 ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $$ )2857+)/225 3/$1 :(67 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& $$ )2857+)/225:(67 ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38'&21&(37352326$/3/$16 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 '1 $ $ $ $ 7 $ $ 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 81,7 6) 75$6+ 6) 6725 6) (/(9/2%%< -.0 1 3 4 5 / $ $ % &' ( ) * 6& $ :35 8 8 :&5 :&5 :&5:&5 '& :35 :35 :356:5 6:5 :35 :35 :35 6:5 6:5 6:5 6:5 6:5 6:5 :35 :35 :35 :35 :&5 :&5 :&5 :&5 ) * )) 6& :35 88 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 88 -./0 1 3 4 5 0 75 8 ( 12 5 7 + 3/$1 1257+ ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\ /LFHQVHG$UFKLWHFW XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKHVWDWHRI0LQQHVRWD 7KRPDV3:DVPRHQ 'DWH6LJQHG /LFHQVH1R 352-(&712 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< 0DUNHW6WUHHW6WH 0LQQHDSROLV01 ZZZILUPJURXQGDHFRP 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 7:$602(1 ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $% )2857+)/225 3/$1 ($67 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& $% )2857+)/225($67 ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38'&21&(37352326$/3/$16 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 *(1(5$/522)127(6 $//6+((70(7$/)/$6+,1*6+$//%(*$$1'$/80,18081/(66 127('27+(5:,6( $//2876,'($,5,17$.()25+9$&81,7720$,17$,10,1 6(3$5$7,21)5203/80%,1*9(176)/8(6$1'%8,/',1*(;+$867 &5,&.(76$7522)723(48,30(176+$//%()250(':,7+7$3(5(' ,168/$7,217268&+$1(;7(17$6723529,'($326,7,9(0,13(5 6/23( 522),1*0$7(5,$/,167$//$7,21722&&85:,7+7(03(5$785(6$%29( '(*5((6) 5,'*(')2$0,168/$7,216+$//%($1$&&(37$%/(352'8&7:,7+7+( 522),1*6<67(0720((7522)0$18)$&785(56*8$5$17(( 0(&+$1,&$/&2175$&725723529,'(),1$/6,=,1*2)522)'5$,16 $1'&$3$&,7,(6 9(5,)<522)72381,7/2&$7,21:,7+0(&+$1,&$/&2175$&725 6((6758&785$//<522)3/$1)25$'',7,21$/,1)250$7,21 3(57$,1,1*727+,6522)3/$1 3$,17$//522)723(48,30(173,3,1*5$,/,1*/$''(56(7&81/(66 (48,30(17,635(),1,6+('6(($66(0%/,(63$*()25522)$66(0%/< $ $ $ $ 6&833(572 522)%(/2:(/(9$725 +2,67:$< 29(5581 522)'5$,1 522)'5$,1 522)'5$,1 522) $&&(66 +$7&+ [ 58%%(5 3$9(53$7+ $&(*+- %') $ $ $ '2:1632876&833( 57263/$6+%/2&. &$123<$7/(9(/ 522)'5$,129(5)/2: '5$,1 522)$%29(81,7%(/2: 29(5)/2: '5$,1 63/$6+ %/2&. 29(5)/2: '5$,1 29(5)/2: '5$,1 522)'5$,1 29(5)/2: '5$,1 $&()*+- %' 522)'$9,7 522)'$9,7 522)'$9,7 522)'$9,7 522)'$9,7 522)'$9,7 522)'$9,7 522)'$9,7 522)'$9,7 522)'$9,7 522)'$9,7 6(&21')/225 7+,5')/225 )- :35 )- 35()$%%('0(7$/ 67(36 522),168/$7,21 522)6+($7+,1* :22'7-,522))5$0,1* 5(6,//,(17&+$11(/ *<3680%2$5')- 57 ,17(5,25 0(7$/)/$6+,1* :'5,3('*( '2257+5(6+2/' :5$3522) 0(0%5$1(81'(5 7+5(6+2/' 29(5/$3:9$325 %$55,(5 522)0(0%5$1( +2//2:0(7$/'225 35()$%%('0(7$/67(36 9$325%$55,(5 75 8 ( 12 5 7 + 3/$1 1257+ ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\ /LFHQVHG$UFKLWHFW XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKHVWDWHRI0LQQHVRWD 7KRPDV3:DVPRHQ 'DWH6LJQHG /LFHQVH1R 352-(&712 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< 0DUNHW6WUHHW6WH 0LQQHDSROLV01 ZZZILUPJURXQGDHFRP 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 7:$602(1 ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $$ 522)3/$1 :(67 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& .H\QRWHV5RRI3ODQ .H\9DOXH .H\QRWH7H[W $$ 522)3/$1:(67 $$ 6(&7,21#1')/225522)$&&(66 $$ 522)$&&(66'225#/ ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38'&21&(37352326$/3/$16 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 $$ (/(9$725 +2,67:$< 29(5581 6&833(572 522)%(/2: 522)'5$,1 522)'5$,1 [ 58%%(5 3$9(53$7+ 7 $ $ - .0 1 3 4 5 / $ $ 522)'5$,1 29(5)/2: '5$,1 29(5)/2: '5$,1 29(5)/2: '5$,1 522)'5$,1 29(5)/2: '5$,1 63/$6+ %/2&. 9(17$775$6+6+$)7 -./0 1 3 4 5 0 522)'$9,7 522)'$9,7522)'$9,7 522)'$9,7 522)'$9,7 522)'$9,7 522)'$9,7 522)'$9,7 522)'$9,7 522)'$9,7 522)'$9,7 75 8 ( 12 5 7 + 3/$1 1257+ ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\ /LFHQVHG$UFKLWHFW XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKHVWDWHRI0LQQHVRWD 7KRPDV3:DVPRHQ 'DWH6LJQHG /LFHQVH1R 352-(&712 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< 0DUNHW6WUHHW6WH 0LQQHDSROLV01 ZZZILUPJURXQGDHFRP 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 7:$602(1 ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $% 522)3/$1 ($67 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& $% 522)3/$1($67 ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38'&21&(37352326$/3/$16 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 ),567)/225 6(&21')/225 3$5.,1**$5$*( 7+,5')/225 )2857+)/225 522)%($5,1* 723$5$3(7 $ ( : : : : : : : : : : : : 7 5(7$,1,1*:$// 6((&,9,/ $&(*+-.01345 %')/ : : : : : : : :: :: :::::: : : : : : :: :: :::::: :: :: : : : $ : : : : : : : : : : :: : :: : :: : :: : : $/ 3$5.,1**$5$*(76/$% ),567)/225735(&$673/$1.7%($0 522)7:22')5$0,1* 6(&21')/2257:22')5$0,1* 7+,5')/2257:22')5$0,1* )2857+)/2257:22')5$0,1* $&()*+-./01345 % 73/$1.7233,1* 767223)227,1* '0 ),567)/225 6(&21')/225 3$5.,1**$5$*( 7+,5')/225 )2857+)/225 522)%($5,1* 723$5$3(7 $ ( ( : : : : : : : : : : : : : 7 :$/.287$0(1,7<3$7,2%(<21' $&(+-.0 1 3 4 5%')/ :: ::: ::: ::: : :::: :: :: :: : : : ::: :: :: :: $/ $$ 3$5.,1**$5$*(76/$% ),567)/225735(&$673/$1.7%($0 7232))227,1* 522)7:22')5$0,1* 6(&21')/2257:22')5$0,1* 7+,5')/2257:22')5$0,1* )2857+)/2257:22')5$0,1* $&()+-./0 1 3 4 5% 73/$1.7233,1* 767223)227,1* '0 $ $ $$ 75 8 ( 12 5 7 + 3/$1 1257+ ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\ /LFHQVHG$UFKLWHFW XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKHVWDWHRI0LQQHVRWD 7KRPDV3:DVPRHQ 'DWH6LJQHG /LFHQVH1R 352-(&712 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< 0DUNHW6WUHHW6WH 0LQQHDSROLV01 ZZZILUPJURXQGDHFRP 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 7:$602(1 ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $ (;7(5,25 (/(9$7,216 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& .H\QRWHV([WHULRU(OHYDWLRQ .H\9DOXH .H\QRWH7H[W ( 1,&+,&+$),9(5&(0(17',0(16,216(5,(6,1',*25,%%(' ( %(/'(1%5,&.%/$&.',$021'9(/285 ( +$5',(3$1(/9(57,&$/6,',1*60227+&2/251,*+7*5$< ( +$5',(3$1(/9(57,&$/6,',1*60227+&2/25$5&7,&:+,7( ( 1,&+,&+$),%(5&(0(170$6215<6(5,(66$1'6721( $ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,211257+ $ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,216287+ ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38'&21&(37352326$/3/$16 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 ),567)/225 6(&21')/225 3$5.,1**$5$*( 7+,5')/225 )2857+)/225 522)%($5,1* 723$5$3(7 $ ( : : : : : : : : :: : : : : : : : $ $ :::: :::: :::: :::: : : : :: : : : 3$5.,1**$5$*(76/$% ),567)/225735(&$673/$1.7%($0 7232))227,1* 522)7:22')5$0,1* 6(&21')/2257:22')5$0,1* 7+,5')/2257:22')5$0,1* )2857+)/2257:22')5$0,1* 73/$1.7233,1* 7(/(9$725)227,1* 767223)227,1* ),567)/225 6(&21')/225 3$5.,1**$5$*( 7+,5')/225 )2857+)/225 522)%($5,1* 723$5$3(7 $ ( ( ( : : : : : : : :: : : : :: ::: ::: ::: ::: :: : : : :: :: :: : : : : : : : :: $ 3$5.,1**$5$*(76/$% ),567)/225735(&$673/$1.7%($0 522)7:22')5$0,1* 6(&21')/2257:22')5$0,1* 7+,5')/2257:22')5$0,1* )2857+)/2257:22')5$0,1* 73/$1.7233,1* 767223)227,1* $ $ $ $$ 75 8 ( 12 5 7 + 3/$1 1257+ ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\ /LFHQVHG$UFKLWHFW XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKHVWDWHRI0LQQHVRWD 7KRPDV3:DVPRHQ 'DWH6LJQHG /LFHQVH1R 352-(&712 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< 0DUNHW6WUHHW6WH 0LQQHDSROLV01 ZZZILUPJURXQGDHFRP 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 7:$602(1 ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $ (;7(5,25 (/(9$7,216 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& $ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,21($67 $ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,21:(67 ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38'&21&(37352326$/3/$16 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 ),567)/225 6(&21')/225 3$5.,1**$5$*( 7+,5')/225 )2857+)/225 522)%($5,1* 723$5$3(7 ::::::: ::::::: :::::: :::::: : : : : : : 3$5.,1**$5$*(76/$% ),567)/225735(&$673/$1.7%($0 522)7:22')5$0,1* 6(&21')/2257:22')5$0,1* 7+,5')/2257:22')5$0,1* )2857+)/2257:22')5$0,1* 73/$1.7233,1* 767223)227,1* ),567)/225 6(&21')/225 3$5.,1**$5$*( 7+,5')/225 )2857+)/225 522)%($5,1* 723$5$3(7 : ::::::: :::::: : : : : :: :: :: ::::: ::::: $ 3$5.,1**$5$*(76/$% ),567)/225735(&$673/$1.7%($0 522)7:22')5$0,1* 6(&21')/2257:22')5$0,1* 7+,5')/2257:22')5$0,1* )2857+)/2257:22')5$0,1* 73/$1.7233,1* 767223)227,1* ),567)/225 6(&21')/225 7+,5')/225 )2857+)/225 522)%($5,1* 723$5$3(7 $ 7*+-. :: : :::: ::::::: ::::::: : : : : : ::: : ),567)/225735(&$673/$1.7%($0 522)7:22')5$0,1* 6(&21')/2257:22')5$0,1* 7+,5')/2257:22')5$0,1* )2857+)/2257:22')5$0,1* *+-./ 73/$1.7233,1* $ $ $ 75 8 ( 12 5 7 + 3/$1 1257+ ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\ /LFHQVHG$UFKLWHFW XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKHVWDWHRI0LQQHVRWD 7KRPDV3:DVPRHQ 'DWH6LJQHG /LFHQVH1R 352-(&712 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< 0DUNHW6WUHHW6WH 0LQQHDSROLV01 ZZZILUPJURXQGDHFRP 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 7:$602(1 ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $ (;7(5,25 (/(9$7,216 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& $ &2857<$5':(67(;7(5,25(/(9$7,21 $ &2857<$5'($67(;7(5,25(/(9$7,21 $ &2857<$5'6287+(;7(5,25(/(9$7,21 ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38'&21&(37352326$/3/$16 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 (1 :6 1 : 6( 6 ( 1: :6 (1 75 8 ( 12 5 7 + 3/$1 1257+ ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\ /LFHQVHG$UFKLWHFW XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKHVWDWHRI0LQQHVRWD 7KRPDV3:DVPRHQ 'DWH6LJQHG /LFHQVH1R 352-(&712 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< 0DUNHW6WUHHW6WH 0LQQHDSROLV01 ZZZILUPJURXQGDHFRP 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 7:$602(1 ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $ %8,/',1* ,620(75,&6 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& $ ,620(75,&1( $ ,620(75,&1: $ ,620(75,&6( $ ,620(75,&6: ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38'&21&(37352326$/3/$16 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 1,&+,&+$),%(5&(0(170$6215<6(5,(66$1'6721( +$5',(3$1(/9(57,&$/6,',1*60227+&2/251,*+7*5$< +$5',(3$1(/9(57,&$/6,',1*60227+&2/25$5&7,&:+,7( 1,&+,&+$),%(5&(0(17',0(16,216(5,(6,1',*25,%%(' %(/'(1%5,&.%/$&.',$021'9(/285 :: : : : : : : :: : :: ( (((( 5(7$,1,1*:$// 6((&,9,/ : : : : : : : :: : :: : ( ( ( ( :$/.287$0(1,7<3$7,2%(<21' ,KHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKLVSODQVSHFLILFDWLRQRU UHSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\PHRUXQGHUP\GLUHFW VXSHUYLVLRQDQGWKDW,DPDGXO\ /LFHQVHG$UFKLWHFW XQGHUWKHODZVRIWKHVWDWHRI0LQQHVRWD 7KRPDV3:DVPRHQ 'DWH6LJQHG /LFHQVH1R 352-(&712 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< 0DUNHW6WUHHW6WH 0LQQHDSROLV01 ZZZILUPJURXQGDHFRP 1 2 7 )2 5 &2 1 6 7 5 8 &7 ,2 1 7:$602(1 ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $ (;7(5,25 &2/25 (/(9$7,216 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ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ǢÝµŗǻȕǊr ƻǊŷğrNǻŷɟŗrǊ ǢËrrǻŗȕōDrǊ ǢËrrǻǻÝǻĵr NȕǊǊrŗǻǊrĵrǢr & ? 8 V H U V ? U Q L F K R O V ? ' R F X P H Q W V ? B 7 Z L Q 3 L Q H V & $ 3 K D V H B & ( 1 7 5 $ / B U QL F K R O V / & 4 8 U Y W 3 0 $ (;7(5,25 &2/25 (/(9$7,216 51,&+2/6 ǻɟ Ý ŗ ƻ Ý ŗ r Ǣ ƻ Ǌ ǻ ō r ŗ ǻ Ǣ $PHULFDQ%OYG(DVW 6XLWH %ORRPLQJWRQ01 DǋÞOĨEɴDǋÞOĨʰĵĵN ˣˡ ˡ ˟ Ǣ N Ë ŷ ŷ ĵ D ĵ ə ^ ōŷ ŗ ǻ Ý N r ĵ ĵ ŷ ʰ ō ŗ ʰ ˤ ˤ ˢ ˥ ˡ 38' '(9(/230(17 67$*(3/$1 &23<5,*+7),50*5281'$ (,1& $ (;7(5,25&2/25(/(9$7,21($67 $ (;7(5,25&2/25(/(9$7,21:(67 &2/25(/(9$7,2160$7(5,$//(*(1' ,668(5(9,6,21 '$7( 38'&21&(37352326$/3/$16 38''(9(/230(1767$*(3/$1 6+((7,1'(; 6+((7180%(5 6+((77,7/( & 7,7/(6+((7 6,7(6859(<9 87,/,7<3/$1& 6:333(;,67,1*&21',7,2166: *5$',1*3/$1& & & / &,9,/'(7$,/6 /$1'6&$3(3/$1 6:333352326('&21',7,216 6: 6:333'(7$,/6 6: & 6,7(3/$1 &,9,/'(7$,/6 & 5(029$/63/$1 //$1'6&$3(3/$1127(6 '(7$,/6 6: 6:3331$55$7,9(6: 6: 6:333$77$&+0(176 & &,9,/'(7$,/6 6: 6:333$77$&+0(176 6:3337(0325$5<'5$,1$*(3/$1 & &,9,/'(7$,/6 02 1 7 , & ( / / 2 $ 3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 6& + 2 2 / % / 9 ' 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 0 1 $ 0 ( 5 , & $ 1 % / 9 ' ( $ 6 7 6 8 , 7 ( % / 2 2 0 , 1 * 7 2 1 0 1 $3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 / / & 35 2 - ( & 7 0DWWKHZ53DYHN /,&(16(12'$7( ,+(5(%<&(57,)<7+$77+,63/$1 63(&,),&$7,21255(3257:$6 35(3$5('%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7 683(59,6,21$1'7+$7,$0$'8/< /,&(16('352)(66,21$/(1*,1((5 81'(57+(/$:62)7+(67$7(2) 0,11(627$ ,668(68%0,77$/6800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 352-(&7180%(5 &,7<68%0,77$/ '5$:1%<5(9,(:('%<:%-6 03 30 &LYLO(QJLQHHULQJ6XUYH\LQJ/DQGVFDSH $UFKLWHFWXUH *OHQZRRG$YHQXH *ROGHQ9DOOH\01 FLYLOVLWHJURXSFRP &23<5,*+7&,9,/6,7(*5283,1&F &,7<68%0,77$/ 5(9,6,216800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 & 7,7/(6+((7 0217,&(//2$3$570(176 0217,&(//20,11(627$ 6,7(/2&$7,216,7(/2&$7,210$3 1 ,668(')2538'&21&(37352326$/3/$1 '(9(/23(53523(57<2:1(5 2ZQHURIUHFRUG $3$570(1760217,&(//2//& $0(5,&$1%/9'($6768,7( %/220,1*72101 &217$&7 9,6+$/'877 9,6+$/#9(1785(0257*$*(&20 (1*,1((5/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7 &,9,/6,7(*5283 */(1:22'$9(18( *2/'(19$//(<01 6859(<25 *(27(&+1,&$/(1*,1((5 &,9,/6,7(*5283 */(1:22'$9(18( *2/'(19$//(<01 .QRZZKDW V 5 +$8*2*(27(&+1,&$/6(59,&(6 &('$5$9(18(6287+ 0,11($32/,601 $5&+,7(&7 ),50*5281' 0$5.(7675((767( 0,11($32/,601 3+21( :::),50*5281'$(&20 7UD V K (Q F O R V X U H 7UDVK (QFORV X U H )R X 3 9 & 3 9 & + ' 3 ( + ' 3 ( + ' 3 ( 5 H F R U G V ' , 3 6 $ 1 6 ( 1 ( 6 : + ' 3 ( 5 H F R U G V + ' 3 ( 1 ( 1 : 6 : 6 ( 1 ( 163 ( D V H P H Q W S H U ' R F 1R V D Q G 'D Q G 8 ( D V H P H Q W S H U 3OD W R I 0 R Q W L F H O O R % X V L Q H V V &H Q W H U U G $ G G L W L R Q > @ , Q J U H V V ( J U H V V ( D V H P H Q W SH U ' R F 1 R $ +' 3 ( 5 & 3 (2) 5(029$/6/(*(1' 02 1 7 , & ( / / 2 $ 3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 6& + 2 2 / % / 9 ' 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 0 1 $ 0 ( 5 , & $ 1 % / 9 ' ( $ 6 7 6 8 , 7 ( % / 2 2 0 , 1 * 7 2 1 0 1 $3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 / / & 35 2 - ( & 7 0DWWKHZ53DYHN /,&(16(12'$7( ,+(5(%<&(57,)<7+$77+,63/$1 63(&,),&$7,21255(3257:$6 35(3$5('%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7 683(59,6,21$1'7+$7,$0$'8/< /,&(16('352)(66,21$/(1*,1((5 81'(57+(/$:62)7+(67$7(2) 0,11(627$ ,668(68%0,77$/6800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 352-(&7180%(5 &,7<68%0,77$/ '5$:1%<5(9,(:('%<:%-6 03 30 &LYLO(QJLQHHULQJ6XUYH\LQJ/DQGVFDSH $UFKLWHFWXUH *OHQZRRG$YHQXH *ROGHQ9DOOH\01 FLYLOVLWHJURXSFRP &23<5,*+7&,9,/6,7(*5283,1&F &,7<68%0,77$/ 1 5(9,6,216800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 & 5(029$/63/$1 .QRZZKDW V 5 ZDKs>EKd^͗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Ʃ :RR G QFH 6$1 6$1 ' 7 ',3 6 $ 1 1 : 6 : DV/L Q H &RUQHUIDO O L Q 0 + 5 Ʃ 02 1 7 , & ( / / 2 $ 3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 6& + 2 2 / % / 9 ' 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 0 1 $ 0 ( 5 , & $ 1 % / 9 ' ( $ 6 7 6 8 , 7 ( % / 2 2 0 , 1 * 7 2 1 0 1 $3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 / / & 35 2 - ( & 7 0DWWKHZ53DYHN /,&(16(12'$7( ,+(5(%<&(57,)<7+$77+,63/$1 63(&,),&$7,21255(3257:$6 35(3$5('%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7 683(59,6,21$1'7+$7,$0$'8/< /,&(16('352)(66,21$/(1*,1((5 81'(57+(/$:62)7+(67$7(2) 0,11(627$ ,668(68%0,77$/6800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 352-(&7180%(5 &,7<68%0,77$/ '5$:1%<5(9,(:('%<:%-6 03 30 &LYLO(QJLQHHULQJ6XUYH\LQJ/DQGVFDSH $UFKLWHFWXUH *OHQZRRG$YHQXH *ROGHQ9DOOH\01 FLYLOVLWHJURXSFRP &23<5,*+7&,9,/6,7(*5283,1&F &,7<68%0,77$/ 5(9,6,216800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 & 6,7(3/$1 $''('6,7(6,*16 ^/d'EZ>/E&KZDd/KEEZd>͗ Ͳ^/d/^>Kd/EWh/^dZ/d:EddKϰKE ^/d>zKhdEKd^͗ 6,7(3/$1/(*(1' &,7<2)0217,&(//26,7(63(&,),&127(61 .QRZZKDW V 5 23(5$7,21$/127(6 17851,1*029(0(17 ^d/>ϭ&KZEKZd,t><KEEd/KEs/t 1 1257+6,'(:$/.&211(&7,21 7UD V K (Q F O R V X U H )R 3 9 & 3 9 & + ' 3 ( + ' 3 ( ' , 3 6 $ 1 163 ( D V H P H Q W S H U ' R F 1R V D Q G 5 & 3 (2) ,1),/75$7,21%$6,1 %27 723 (2) <5+:/ 92/ &) 92/ &) 02 1 7 , & ( / / 2 $ 3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 6& + 2 2 / % / 9 ' 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 0 1 $ 0 ( 5 , & $ 1 % / 9 ' ( $ 6 7 6 8 , 7 ( % / 2 2 0 , 1 * 7 2 1 0 1 $3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 / / & 35 2 - ( & 7 0DWWKHZ53DYHN /,&(16(12'$7( ,+(5(%<&(57,)<7+$77+,63/$1 63(&,),&$7,21255(3257:$6 35(3$5('%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7 683(59,6,21$1'7+$7,$0$'8/< /,&(16('352)(66,21$/(1*,1((5 81'(57+(/$:62)7+(67$7(2) 0,11(627$ ,668(68%0,77$/6800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 352-(&7180%(5 &,7<68%0,77$/ '5$:1%<5(9,(:('%<:%-6 03 30 &LYLO(QJLQHHULQJ6XUYH\LQJ/DQGVFDSH $UFKLWHFWXUH *OHQZRRG$YHQXH *ROGHQ9DOOH\01 FLYLOVLWHJURXSFRP &23<5,*+7&,9,/6,7(*5283,1&F &,7<68%0,77$/ 5(9,6,216800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 & *5$',1*3/$1 'EZ>'Z/E'EKd^͗ *5$',1*3/$1/(*(1' &,7<2)0217,&(//2*5$',1*127(6 (526,21&21752/127(6 1 .QRZZKDW V 5 (2) 7UD V K (Q F O R V X U 3 9 & + ' 3 ( 6 $ 1 5 & 3 (2) ,1),/75$7,21%$6,1 %27 723 (2) <5+:/ 92/ &) 92/ &) &25('5,//&211(&7,2172 (;,67,1*672500$1+2/( 5,0 (;,(1 3523,(6 &% 5,0 ,( &%0+ 5,0 ,( &%0+ 5,0 ,( 6803 /)+'3( 67250# /)+'3( 67250# /)+'3( 67250# /)+'3( 67250# 5(&21),*85((;&%0+7226 26 &$67,1*5 35235,0 (;,(6 ),(/'9(5,)< )(6 :5,35$3 ,( /)6&+39& 67250# &225',1$7($1<5(48,5(' 672503803,1*6<67(0Z 0(&+$1,&$/(1*,1((5 35,2572&216758&7,21 '$</,*+7%/'* 67250 ,( 678%%/'*67250 6(59,&(72 )520 %/'*&225',1$7( :0(&+ /35,2572 &216758&7,21 ,( 5,35$3$7 &85%&87 $5($'5$,1 5,0 ,( /)+'3( 67250# )(6 :5,35$3 ,( &25('5,//&211(&7,2172 (;,67,1*6$1,7$5<0$1+2/( 5,0 (;,(1( $% ),(/'9(5,)< 3523,(6: &225',1$7(:,7+&,7< ),(/'9(5,)<$//(;,67,1*,19(576 35,2572&216758&7,21 $'-867527$7(7232)(;,67,1* &$67,1*,)3266,%/(72$92,' &21)/,&7:,7+1(:&85% 678%6$1,7$5<72 )520%8,/',1* ,(#678% &225':0(&+ / /)6&+39& 6$1,7$5<6(59,&(# 87,/,7< &5266,1* 6$1,( 67250,( 87,/,7<&5266,1* 0$,17$,1 6(3$5$7,215,*,' ,168/$7,21 ' 8($6(0(17 /,1(6 0(&+$1,&$/72 &225',1$7(678%6)25 ,55,*$7,216<67(0 &21752/6<67(06 (/(&75,&$/$1'6833/< 72%(,167$//(',10(&+ 5220 ' 8($6(0(17 /,1(6 ' 8($6(0(17 /,1(6 87,/,7< &5266,1* 6$1,( 67250,( &/($1287 + ' 3 ( 1 : 0$.(&211(&7,2172 (;,67,1*:$7(50$,1678% &225':,7+&,7< &20%,1('',3:$7(5 6(59,&($1'9$/9(678% 72:,7+,1 )520%8,/',1* &225':0(&+ / 1(:+<'5$17$1' 9$/9(7<3 & :0/223 *$7(9$/9( ;7(( *$7(9$/9( %(1' %(1' %(1' ;7(( *$7(9$/9( %(1'%(1' *$7(9$/9( 0$.(&211(&7,2172 (;,67,1*:$7(50$,1678% &225':,7+&,7< & :0/223 %(1' 02 1 7 , & ( / / 2 $ 3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 6& + 2 2 / % / 9 ' 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 0 1 $ 0 ( 5 , & $ 1 % / 9 ' ( $ 6 7 6 8 , 7 ( % / 2 2 0 , 1 * 7 2 1 0 1 $3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 / / & 35 2 - ( & 7 0DWWKHZ53DYHN /,&(16(12'$7( ,+(5(%<&(57,)<7+$77+,63/$1 63(&,),&$7,21255(3257:$6 35(3$5('%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7 683(59,6,21$1'7+$7,$0$'8/< /,&(16('352)(66,21$/(1*,1((5 81'(57+(/$:62)7+(67$7(2) 0,11(627$ ,668(68%0,77$/6800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 352-(&7180%(5 &,7<68%0,77$/ '5$:1%<5(9,(:('%<:%-6 03 30 &LYLO(QJLQHHULQJ6XUYH\LQJ/DQGVFDSH $UFKLWHFWXUH *OHQZRRG$YHQXH *ROGHQ9DOOH\01 FLYLOVLWHJURXSFRP &23<5,*+7&,9,/6,7(*5283,1&F &,7<68%0,77$/ 5(9,6,216800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 & 87,/,7<3/$1 'EZ>hd/>/dzEKd^͗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´3,3( &203281'),//$118/$563$&(72)520723:,7+6,/,&$ 6$1' 0$7(5,$/9$5,(66((3/$1 '(7$,/6 6/23(7<3$//$5281' 6,/,&21(58%%(525$63+$/7,&&$8/.,1*&203281' 2'*$/9$1,=('67((/3,3(3$,17(':,7+&2$72) $335235,$7(35,0(5$1'7:2&2$766,*1(1$0(/),// $118/$563$&(:,7+*5287&29(5:,7+<(//2:,'($/ 6+,(/'3/$67,&&29(5 *5((132:'(5&2$7('67((/648$5(3267$663(&,),(' 0(7$/6,*1$&&25',1*720167$7(&2'( *$/9$1,=('67((/)$67(1(57<32) (;7(1'32673$677232)3267 $&&(66,%/(3$5.,1*3$9(0(170$5.,1* 176 &, 7 < & 2 ' ( 3( 5 0,1 12 3$5.,1* 0,1 0,1 127( $'+(5(72$//67$7( )('(5$/$'$ 67$1'$5'6)253$5.,1*3$,17 6,*1$*( 9(5,)<$1'/$<287$//3$,17(')2506 675,3,1*35,2572,167$//$7,21 6((3/$1)25$&78$/3$5.,1*63$&(6 /$<287 $//3$,17&2/2560867&21)25072 67$7($1')('(5$/$'$67$1'$5'6 12 3$5.,1* 12 3$5.,1* :,'(3$,17('675,3,1* &5266675,3(3$77(51$7 2&$7$&&(66$,6/( )$&(2)&85% $'-6,'(:$/. $&&(66,%/(&85%5$03 6((*5$',1* '(7$,/6 +$1',&$36,*1&(17(5('$7+($' 2)3$5.,1*63$&($1'$&&(66 $,6/( 0,1$1' 0$;)520)$&( 2)&85% 127()255()(5(1&(21/<86( 67$1'$5'$'$39073$,17 7(03/$7( 5$',86 ',$0(7(5 /,1(:,'7+)25),*85( /,1(:,'7+2876,'(%25'(5 648$5(29(5$// 5$',86:+((/6+$3( 3$,17('6<0%2/',$*5$0 7<3 9$//(<*877(5*$5$*(5$03 176 &21&5(7( 9$//(<*877(5 0,1$**5(*$7( %$6(&2856(72%( 3/$&('%<3$9,1* &2175$&725 7<39$//(<*877(5 176 &21&5(7( 9$//(<*877(5 0,1$**5(*$7( %$6(&2856(72%( 3/$&('%<3$9,1* &2175$&725 02 1 7 , & ( / / 2 $ 3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 6& + 2 2 / % / 9 ' 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 0 1 $ 0 ( 5 , & $ 1 % / 9 ' ( $ 6 7 6 8 , 7 ( % / 2 2 0 , 1 * 7 2 1 0 1 $3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 / / & 35 2 - ( & 7 0DWWKHZ53DYHN /,&(16(12'$7( ,+(5(%<&(57,)<7+$77+,63/$1 63(&,),&$7,21255(3257:$6 35(3$5('%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7 683(59,6,21$1'7+$7,$0$'8/< /,&(16('352)(66,21$/(1*,1((5 81'(57+(/$:62)7+(67$7(2) 0,11(627$ ,668(68%0,77$/6800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 352-(&7180%(5 &,7<68%0,77$/ '5$:1%<5(9,(:('%<:%-6 03 30 &LYLO(QJLQHHULQJ6XUYH\LQJ/DQGVFDSH $UFKLWHFWXUH *OHQZRRG$YHQXH *ROGHQ9DOOH\01 FLYLOVLWHJURXSFRP &23<5,*+7&,9,/6,7(*5283,1&F &,7<68%0,77$/ 5(9,6,216800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 & &,9,/'(7$,/6 3,3(%('',1*5&3 ',3 176 3,3(%('',1*39& 176 %,2,1),/75$7,21%$6,15$,1*$5'(17<3 176 7<3,&$/6(&7,219,(: &216758&7,216(48(1&,1* 02 1 7 , & ( / / 2 $ 3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 6& + 2 2 / % / 9 ' 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 0 1 $ 0 ( 5 , & $ 1 % / 9 ' ( $ 6 7 6 8 , 7 ( % / 2 2 0 , 1 * 7 2 1 0 1 $3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 / / & 35 2 - ( & 7 0DWWKHZ53DYHN /,&(16(12'$7( ,+(5(%<&(57,)<7+$77+,63/$1 63(&,),&$7,21255(3257:$6 35(3$5('%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7 683(59,6,21$1'7+$7,$0$'8/< /,&(16('352)(66,21$/(1*,1((5 81'(57+(/$:62)7+(67$7(2) 0,11(627$ ,668(68%0,77$/6800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 352-(&7180%(5 &,7<68%0,77$/ '5$:1%<5(9,(:('%<:%-6 03 30 &LYLO(QJLQHHULQJ6XUYH\LQJ/DQGVFDSH $UFKLWHFWXUH *OHQZRRG$YHQXH *ROGHQ9DOOH\01 FLYLOVLWHJURXSFRP &23<5,*+7&,9,/6,7(*5283,1&F &,7<68%0,77$/ 5(9,6,216800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 & &,9,/'(7$,/6 02 1 7 , & ( / / 2 $ 3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 6& + 2 2 / % / 9 ' 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 0 1 $ 0 ( 5 , & $ 1 % / 9 ' ( $ 6 7 6 8 , 7 ( % / 2 2 0 , 1 * 7 2 1 0 1 $3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 / / & 35 2 - ( & 7 0DWWKHZ53DYHN /,&(16(12'$7( ,+(5(%<&(57,)<7+$77+,63/$1 63(&,),&$7,21255(3257:$6 35(3$5('%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7 683(59,6,21$1'7+$7,$0$'8/< /,&(16('352)(66,21$/(1*,1((5 81'(57+(/$:62)7+(67$7(2) 0,11(627$ ,668(68%0,77$/6800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 352-(&7180%(5 &,7<68%0,77$/ '5$:1%<5(9,(:('%<:%-6 03 30 &LYLO(QJLQHHULQJ6XUYH\LQJ/DQGVFDSH $UFKLWHFWXUH *OHQZRRG$YHQXH *ROGHQ9DOOH\01 FLYLOVLWHJURXSFRP &23<5,*+7&,9,/6,7(*5283,1&F &,7<68%0,77$/ 5(9,6,216800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 & &,9,/'(7$,/6 7UD V K (Q F O R V X U H ) 3 9 & 3 9 & + ' 3 + ' 3 ( ' , 3 6 $ 1 163 ( D V H P H Q W S H U ' R F 1R V D Q G 5 & 3 (2) 77 77 +5 &$ 77 77 :' +5 /'1 /'1 $% +5 +5 +5 +5 6767 67 +5 +5+$ +* './ :' :' :' :' './ +/ 77 1: 1: +$ +$ 9' 9' '/ /'1 '/ +* +* +* +* +* +* $7 $7 $7 $7 $7 +$ +$ '/ $% 67 (0 &$ &$ (0 *% 67 *% +/ $1 $1 $1 $1$1 6+ 1: 6+ 67 67 33 $* '/ &9 &9 &9 &9 $* &9 &9 &9 &9 &9 $* $* $* $* &3 0% 46 6+ 75((6 47< &20021%27$1,&$/1$0( &217 1$7,9(3/$176 32//,1$725)5,(1'/< $1 1RUWKZRRG5HG0DSOH$FHUUXEUXPC1RUWKZRRGC &DO% % 1$7,9(&8/7,9$5 < 5%5LYHU%LUFK%HWXODQLJUD &DO% % 1$7,9( 1 &3 3UDLULH6HQWLQHO+DFNEHUU\&HOWLVRFFLGHQWDOLVC-)6.68C70 &DO% % 1$7,9(&8/7,9$5 6+6N\OLQH7KRUQOHVV+RQH\/RFXVW*OHGLWVLDWULDFDQWKRVLQHUPLVC6N\FROHC70 &DO% % 1$7,9(&8/7,9$5 1 (. (VSUHVVR.HQWXFN\&RIIHHWUHH*\PQRFODGXVGLRLFDC(VSUHVVRC &DO% % 1$7,9(&8/7,9$5 1 46 &ULPVRQ6SLUH2DN4XHUFXVUREXU[DOEDC&ULPVFKPLGWC70 &DO% % 1271$7,9( < (9(5*5((175((6 47<&20021%27$1,&$/1$0( &217 1$7,9(3/$176 32//,1$725)5,(1'/< :3 :KLWH3LQH3LQXVVWUREXV C% % 1$7,9( 777HFKQ\$UERUYLWDH7KXMDRFFLGHQWDOLVC7HFKQ\C C% % 1271$7,9( 251$0(17$/75((6 47<&20021%27$1,&$/1$0( &217 1$7,9(3/$176 32//,1$725)5,(1'/< $*$XWXPQ%ULOOLDQFH6HUYLFHEHUU\$PHODQFKLHU[JUDQGLIORUDC$XWXPQ%ULOOLDQFHC &/803 1$7,9( < &$ 3DJRGD'RJZRRG&RUQXVDOWHUQLIROLD &DO% % 1$7,9( < &9 7KRUQOHVV&RFNVSXU+DZWKRUQ&UDWDHJXVFUXVJDOOLLQHUPLV70 &DO% % 1$7,9( < 03 3UDLULILUH&UDEDSSOH0DOXV[C3UDLULILUHC &DO% % 1$7,9(&8/7,9$5 < 06 6SULQJ6QRZ&UDEDSSOH0DOXV[C6SULQJ6QRZC &DO% % 1$7,9(&8/7,9$5 < 0%5HG%DUURQ&UDEDSSOH0DOXV[ 5HG%DUURQ &$/% % 6+58%6 47<&20021%27$1,&$/1$0( 6,=( 1$7,9(3/$176 32//,1$725)5,(1'/< &$ $UFWLF)LUH'RJZRRG&RUQXVVHULFHDC$UFWLF)LUHC &217 1$7,9(&8/7,9$5 < &,,VDQWL5HGRVLHU'RJZRRG&RUQXVVHULFHDC,VDQWLC &217 1$7,9(&8/7,9$5 < '/'ZDUI%XVK+RQH\VXFNOH'LHUYLOODORQLFHUD &217 1$7,9( < +$ $QQDEHOOH+\GUDQJHD+\GUDQJHDDUERUHVFHQVC$QQDEHOOHC &217 1271$7,9( < +//LWWOH4XLFN)LUH+\GUDQJHD+\GUDQJHDSDQLFXODWDC/LWWOH4XLFN)LUHC &217 1271$7,9( < 6*-6HD*UHHQ-XQLSHU-XQLSHUXVFKLQHQVLVC6HD*UHHQC &217 1271$7,9( 1 /'1 /LWWOH'HYLO1LQHEDUN3K\VRFDUSXVRSXOLIROLXVC'RQQD0D\C70 &217 1$7,9(&8/7,9$5 < '1 'LDEROR3XUSOH1LQHEDUN3K\VRFDUSXVRSXOLIROLXV 0RQOR 70 &217 1$7,9(&8/7,9$5 < 33 'ZDUI*OREH6SUXFH3LFHDDELHVC3XPLODC &217 1271$7,9( 1 67 %LUFKOHDI6SLUHD6SLUDHDEHWXOLIROLDC7RUC &217 1271$7,9( < './'ZDUI.RUHDQ/LODF6\ULQJDPH\HULC3DOLELQC &217 1271$7,9( < 77 7DXQWRQCV<HZ7D[XV[PHGLDC7DXQWRQLLC &217 1271$7,9( 1 9' $UURZZRRG9LEXUQXP9LEXUQXPGHQWDWXP $UURZZRRG &217 1$7,9( < :''DUN+RUVH:HLJHOD:HLJHODIORULGD 'DUN+RUVH &217 *5$66(6 47<&20021%27$1,&$/1$0( 6,=( 1$7,9(3/$176 32//,1$725)5,(1'/< $%%ODFNKDZNV%LJ%OXHVWHP$QGURSRJRQJHUDUGLL %ODFNKDZNV &217 1$7,9(&8/7,9$5 < &.)HDWKHU5HHG*UDVV&DODPDJURVWLV[DFXWLIORUDC.DUO)RHUVWHUC &217 1271$7,9( 1 6+ 3UDLULH'URSVHHG6SRUREROXVKHWHUROHSLV &217 1$7,9( < 3(5(11,$/6 47<&20021%27$1,&$/1$0( 6,=( 1$7,9(3/$176 32//,1$725)5,(1'/< $76XPPHU%HDXW\*OREH/LO\$OOLXPWDQJXWLFXPC6XPPHU%HDXW\C &217 1271$7,9( < (0 0DJQXV3XUSOH&RQHIORZHU(FKLQDFHDSXUSXUHDC0DJQXVC &217 1$7,9(&8/7,9$5 < *%%HYHQCV9DULHW\*HUDQLXP*HUDQLXPPDFURUUKL]XPC%HYHQCV9DULHW\C &217 1271$7,9( < +5 'D\OLO\+HPHURFDOOLV[C5RV\5HWXUQVC &217 1271$7,9( < +* *XDFDPROH3ODQWDLQ/LO\+RVWD[C*XDFDPROHC &217 1271$7,9( < 1::DONHUV/RZ&DWPLQW1HSHWD[IDDVVHQLLC:DONHUV/RZC &217 1271$7,9( < 3/$176&+('8/( *5281'&29(56 &2'( &20021%27$1,&$/1$0( 6,=( 50'HFRUDWLYH5RFN0XOFK'HFRUDWLYH5RFN0XOFK GHFRUDWLYHSURYLGHVDPSOHV 0XOFK 6619 /RZHU%DVLQ1DWLYH6HHG0L[ 01'27:(735$,5,(3(501'27 6((',1*0$18$/63(&,),&$7,216 6HHG0L[ 55 'LD'HFRUDWLYH5LS5DS5LS5DS 5RFN0XOFK2YHU)LOWHU)DEULF6DPSOHV5HTXLUHG0XOFK 60 6KUHGGHG&HGDU0XOFK6KUHGGHG+DUGZRRG0XOFK 0XOFK %* %OXH*UDVV%DVHG6RG &RPPHUFLDOJUDGHORFDOO\JURZQ%LJ5ROO SUHIHUUHG 6RG 3/$176&+('8/( 5(9,6,216800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 / /$1'6&$3(3/$1 02 1 7 , & ( / / 2 $ 3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 6& + 2 2 / % / 9 ' 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 0 1 $ 0 ( 5 , & $ 1 % / 9 ' ( $ 6 7 6 8 , 7 ( % / 2 2 0 , 1 * 7 2 1 0 1 $3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 / / & 35 2 - ( & 7 3DWULFN-6DUYHU /,&(16(12'$7( ,+(5(%<&(57,)<7+$77+,63/$1 63(&,),&$7,21255(3257:$6 35(3$5('%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7 683(59,6,21$1'7+$7,$0$'8/< /,&(16('/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&781'(5 7+(/$:62)7+(67$7(2)0,11(627$ ,668(68%0,77$/6800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 352-(&7180%(5 &,7<68%0,77$/ '5$:1%<5(9,(:('%<:%-6 03 30 &LYLO(QJLQHHULQJ6XUYH\LQJ/DQGVFDSH $UFKLWHFWXUH *OHQZRRG$YHQXH *ROGHQ9DOOH\01 FLYLOVLWHJURXSFRP &23<5,*+7&,9,/6,7(*5283,1&F &,7<68%0,77$/ >E^WEKd^͗ 1 .QRZZKDW V 5 352326('3(5(11,$/3/$176<0%2/66((3/$176&+('8/($1' 3/$1)2563(&,(6$1'3/$17,1*6,=(6 352326(''(&,'8286$1'(9(5*5((16+58%6<0%2/66((3/$17 6&+('8/($1'3/$1)2563(&,(6$1'3/$17,1*6,=(6 352326('251$0(17$/75((6<0%2/66((3/$176&+('8/($1' 3/$1)2563(&,(6$1'3/$17,1*6,=(6 352326('(9(5*5((175((6<0%2/66((3/$176&+('8/($1' 3/$1)2563(&,(6$1'3/$17,1*6,=(6 352326('&$123<75((6<0%2/66((3/$176&+('8/($1'3/$1 )2563(&,(6$1'3/$17,1*6,=(6 ('*,1* '(&25$7,9(%28/'(565281'(' %/2&.67</(',$ 5(9,6,216800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 / /$1'6&$3(3/$1 127(6 '(7$,/6 02 1 7 , & ( / / 2 $ 3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 6& + 2 2 / % / 9 ' 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 0 1 $ 0 ( 5 , & $ 1 % / 9 ' ( $ 6 7 6 8 , 7 ( % / 2 2 0 , 1 * 7 2 1 0 1 $3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 / / & 35 2 - ( & 7 3DWULFN-6DUYHU /,&(16(12'$7( ,+(5(%<&(57,)<7+$77+,63/$1 63(&,),&$7,21255(3257:$6 35(3$5('%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7 683(59,6,21$1'7+$7,$0$'8/< /,&(16('/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&781'(5 7+(/$:62)7+(67$7(2)0,11(627$ ,668(68%0,77$/6800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 352-(&7180%(5 &,7<68%0,77$/ '5$:1%<5(9,(:('%<:%-6 03 30 &LYLO(QJLQHHULQJ6XUYH\LQJ/DQGVFDSH $UFKLWHFWXUH *OHQZRRG$YHQXH *ROGHQ9DOOH\01 FLYLOVLWHJURXSFRP &23<5,*+7&,9,/6,7(*5283,1&F &,7<68%0,77$/ /ZZ/'d/KEEKd^͗ $**5(*$7(0$,17$1(1&(675,3 176 .QRZZKDW V 5 3(5(11,$/%('3/$17,1* 176 '(&,'8286 &21,)(52866+58%3/$17,1* 176 '(&,'8286 &21,)(528675((3/$17,1* 176 ZYh/Z>E^W>h>d/KE^͗ ZYh/Z>E^W>h>d/KE^dKd>^͗ 7UD V K (Q F O R V X U H 7UDVK (QFORV X U H )R 3 9 & 3 9 & + ' 3 ( + ' 3 ( + ' 3 ( 5 H F R U G V ' , 3 6 $ 1 6 ( 1 ( 6 : + ' 3 ( 5 H F R U G V + ' 3 ( 1 ( 1 : 6 : 6 ( 1 ( 163 ( D V H P H Q W S H U ' R F 1R V D Q G 'D Q G 8 ( D V H P H Q W S H U 3OD W R I 0 R Q W L F H O O R % X V L Q H V V &H Q W H U U G $ G G L W L R Q > @ , Q J U H V V ( J U H V V ( D V H P H Q W SH U ' R F 1 R $ +' 3 ( 5 & 3 ,1/(73527(&7,21$7 &$7&+%$6,167<3 ,1/(73527(&7,21$7 &$7&+%$6,16%(,1* 5(029(' &2175$&725723529,'( ,1/(73527(&7,21$7$// '2:1675($0&$7&+ %$6,16 6,/7)(1&(3(5,0(7(5 (526,21&21752/$7 &216758&7,21/,0,76 7<3 6,/7)(1&(3(5,0(7(5 (526,21&21752/$7 &216758&7,21/,0,76 7<3 &216758&7,21 (175$1&( 02 1 7 , & ( / / 2 $ 3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 6& + 2 2 / % / 9 ' 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 0 1 $ 0 ( 5 , & $ 1 % / 9 ' ( $ 6 7 6 8 , 7 ( % / 2 2 0 , 1 * 7 2 1 0 1 $3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 / / & 35 2 - ( & 7 0DWWKHZ53DYHN /,&(16(12'$7( ,+(5(%<&(57,)<7+$77+,63/$1 63(&,),&$7,21255(3257:$6 35(3$5('%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7 683(59,6,21$1'7+$7,$0$'8/< /,&(16('352)(66,21$/(1*,1((5 81'(57+(/$:62)7+(67$7(2) 0,11(627$ ,668(68%0,77$/6800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 352-(&7180%(5 &,7<68%0,77$/ '5$:1%<5(9,(:('%<:%-6 03 30 &LYLO(QJLQHHULQJ6XUYH\LQJ/DQGVFDSH $UFKLWHFWXUH *OHQZRRG$YHQXH *ROGHQ9DOOH\01 FLYLOVLWHJURXSFRP &23<5,*+7&,9,/6,7(*5283,1&F &,7<68%0,77$/ 5(9,6,216800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 6: 6:333(;,67,1* &21',7,216 1 &,7<2)0217,&(//2(526,21&21752/127(6 7+,6352-(&7,6*5($7(57+$121($&5($1':,//5(48,5($1 03&$13'(63(50,7&2175$&725,65(63216,%/()252%7$,1,1* $1<(526,21&21752/3(50,765(48,5('%<7+(&,7< 6((6+((766:6:)25$//(526,21&21752/127(6 '(6&5,37,216$1'35$&7,&(6 6((*5$',1*3/$1)25$'',7,21$/*5$',1*$1'(526,21 &21752/127(6 &2175$&725,65(63216,%/()256:333,03/(0(17$7,21 ,163(&7,216$1'&203/,$1&(:,7+13'(63(50,7 6:333127(6 .QRZZKDW V 5 /(*(1' $//63(&,),('(526,21$1'6(',0(17&21752/35$&7,&(6$1' 0($685(6&217$,1(',17+,66:333$5(7+(0,1,080 5(48,5(0(176$'',7,21$/35$&7,&(60$<%(5(48,5(''85,1* 7+(&2856(2)&216758&7,21 7UD V K (Q F O R V X U H 7UDVK (QFORV X U H )R 3 9 & 3 9 & + ' 3 ( + ' 3 ( ' , 3 6 $ 1 6 ( 1 ( 6 : 1 ( 1 : 6 : 6 ( 1 ( 163 ( D V H P H Q W S H U ' R F 1R V D Q G 'D Q G 8 ( D V H P H Q W S H U 3OD W R I 0 R Q W L F H O O R % X V L Q H V V &H Q W H U U G $ G G L W L R Q > @ , Q J U H V V ( J U H V V ( D V H P H Q W SH U ' R F 1 R $ +' 3 ( 5 & 3 ,1/(73527(&7,21$7 &$7&+%$6,167<3 02 1 7 , & ( / / 2 $ 3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 6& + 2 2 / % / 9 ' 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 0 1 $ 0 ( 5 , & $ 1 % / 9 ' ( $ 6 7 6 8 , 7 ( % / 2 2 0 , 1 * 7 2 1 0 1 $3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 / / & 35 2 - ( & 7 0DWWKHZ53DYHN /,&(16(12'$7( ,+(5(%<&(57,)<7+$77+,63/$1 63(&,),&$7,21255(3257:$6 35(3$5('%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7 683(59,6,21$1'7+$7,$0$'8/< /,&(16('352)(66,21$/(1*,1((5 81'(57+(/$:62)7+(67$7(2) 0,11(627$ ,668(68%0,77$/6800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 352-(&7180%(5 &,7<68%0,77$/ '5$:1%<5(9,(:('%<:%-6 03 30 &LYLO(QJLQHHULQJ6XUYH\LQJ/DQGVFDSH $UFKLWHFWXUH *OHQZRRG$YHQXH *ROGHQ9DOOH\01 FLYLOVLWHJURXSFRP &23<5,*+7&,9,/6,7(*5283,1&F &,7<68%0,77$/ 5(9,6,216800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 6: 6:333 7(0325$5< '5$,1$*(3/$1 1 &,7<2)0217,&(//2(526,21&21752/127(6 7+,6352-(&7,6*5($7(57+$121($&5($1':,//5(48,5($1 03&$13'(63(50,7&2175$&725,65(63216,%/()252%7$,1,1* $1<(526,21&21752/3(50,765(48,5('%<7+(&,7< 6((6+((766:6:)25$//(526,21&21752/127(6 '(6&5,37,216$1'35$&7,&(6 6((*5$',1*3/$1)25$'',7,21$/*5$',1*$1'(526,21 &21752/127(6 &2175$&725,65(63216,%/()256:333,03/(0(17$7,21 ,163(&7,216$1'&203/,$1&(:,7+13'(63(50,7 6:333127(6 .QRZZKDW V 5 /(*(1' $//63(&,),('(526,21$1'6(',0(17&21752/35$&7,&(6$1' 0($685(6&217$,1(',17+,66:333$5(7+(0,1,080 5(48,5(0(176$'',7,21$/35$&7,&(60$<%(5(48,5(''85,1* 7+(&2856(2)&216758&7,21 7UD V K (Q F O R V X U H )R 3 9 & 3 9 & + ' 3 ( + ' 3 ( ' , 3 6 $ 1 6 ( 1 ( 6 : 1 1 : 6 : 6 ( 1 ( 163 ( D V H P H Q W S H U ' R F 1R V D Q G 'D Q G 8 ( D V H P H Q W S H U 3OD W R I 0 R Q W L F H O O R % X V L Q H V V &H Q W H U U G $ G G L W L R Q > @ , Q J U H V V ( J U H V V ( D V H P H Q W SH U ' R F 1 R $ 5 & 3 ,1/(73527(&7,21$7 &$7&+%$6,167<3 &2175$&725723529,'( ,1/(73527(&7,21$7$// '2:1675($0&$7&+ %$6,16 ,1/(73527(&7,21$7 &$7&+%$6,167<3 6,/7)(1&(3(5,0(7(5 (526,21&21752/$7 &216758&7,21/,0,76 7<3 ,1/(73527(&7,21$7 &$7&+%$6,167<3 6,/7)(1&(3(5,0(7(5 (526,21&21752/$7 &216758&7,21/,0,76 7<3 &216758&7,21 (175$1&( 6,/7)(1&(25 %,2/2*$7%27720 3(5,0(7(52) ,1),/75$7,21%$6,1 3/$&((526,21 &21752/%/$1.(7 21$//6/23(625 67((3(57<3 01'27&$7(*25< 3/$&((526,21 &21752/%/$1.(7 21$//6/23(625 67((3(57<3 01'27&$7(*25< 3/$&((526,21 &21752/%/$1.(7 21$//6/23(625 67((3(57<3 01'27&$7(*25< (2) ,1),/75$7,21%$6,1 %27 723 (2) <5+:/ 92/ &) 92/ &) 02 1 7 , & ( / / 2 $ 3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 6& + 2 2 / % / 9 ' 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 0 1 $ 0 ( 5 , & $ 1 % / 9 ' ( $ 6 7 6 8 , 7 ( % / 2 2 0 , 1 * 7 2 1 0 1 $3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 / / & 35 2 - ( & 7 0DWWKHZ53DYHN /,&(16(12'$7( ,+(5(%<&(57,)<7+$77+,63/$1 63(&,),&$7,21255(3257:$6 35(3$5('%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7 683(59,6,21$1'7+$7,$0$'8/< /,&(16('352)(66,21$/(1*,1((5 81'(57+(/$:62)7+(67$7(2) 0,11(627$ ,668(68%0,77$/6800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 352-(&7180%(5 &,7<68%0,77$/ '5$:1%<5(9,(:('%<:%-6 03 30 &LYLO(QJLQHHULQJ6XUYH\LQJ/DQGVFDSH $UFKLWHFWXUH *OHQZRRG$YHQXH *ROGHQ9DOOH\01 FLYLOVLWHJURXSFRP &23<5,*+7&,9,/6,7(*5283,1&F &,7<68%0,77$/ 5(9,6,216800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 6: 6:333352326(' &21',7,216 1 .QRZZKDW V 5 &,7<2)0217,&(//2(526,21&21752/127(6 7+,6352-(&7,6*5($7(57+$121($&5($1':,//5(48,5($1 03&$13'(63(50,7&2175$&725,65(63216,%/()252%7$,1,1* $1<(526,21&21752/3(50,765(48,5('%<7+(&,7< 6((6+((766:6:)25$//(526,21&21752/127(6 '(6&5,37,216$1'35$&7,&(6 6((*5$',1*3/$1)25$'',7,21$/*5$',1*$1'(526,21 &21752/127(6 &2175$&725,65(63216,%/()256:333,03/(0(17$7,21 ,163(&7,216$1'&203/,$1&(:,7+13'(63(50,7 6:333127(6 /(*(1' $//63(&,),('(526,21$1'6(',0(17&21752/35$&7,&(6$1' 0($685(6&217$,1(',17+,66:333$5(7+(0,1,080 5(48,5(0(176$'',7,21$/35$&7,&(60$<%(5(48,5(''85,1* 7+(&2856(2)&216758&7,21 02 1 7 , & ( / / 2 $ 3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 6& + 2 2 / % / 9 ' 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 0 1 $ 0 ( 5 , & $ 1 % / 9 ' ( $ 6 7 6 8 , 7 ( % / 2 2 0 , 1 * 7 2 1 0 1 $3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 / / & 35 2 - ( & 7 0DWWKHZ53DYHN /,&(16(12'$7( ,+(5(%<&(57,)<7+$77+,63/$1 63(&,),&$7,21255(3257:$6 35(3$5('%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7 683(59,6,21$1'7+$7,$0$'8/< /,&(16('352)(66,21$/(1*,1((5 81'(57+(/$:62)7+(67$7(2) 0,11(627$ ,668(68%0,77$/6800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 352-(&7180%(5 &,7<68%0,77$/ '5$:1%<5(9,(:('%<:%-6 03 30 &LYLO(QJLQHHULQJ6XUYH\LQJ/DQGVFDSH $UFKLWHFWXUH *OHQZRRG$YHQXH *ROGHQ9DOOH\01 FLYLOVLWHJURXSFRP &23<5,*+7&,9,/6,7(*5283,1&F &,7<68%0,77$/ 5(9,6,216800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 6: 6:333'(7$,/6 &85%,1/(7),/7(5 176 352),/( 0,1&586+('6721( 0,1,080 3/$1 ),1,6+(' *5$'( 72&216758&7,21$5($ 5 176 67$%,/,=('&216758&7,21$&&(66 (; , 6 7 , 1 * 8 1 ' , 6 7 8 5 % ( ' 5 2 $ ' : $ < 5 6(',0(17%,252//&203267),/7(5/2* 176 6(',0(17)(1&( 176 02 1 7 , & ( / / 2 $ 3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 6& + 2 2 / % / 9 ' 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 0 1 $ 0 ( 5 , & $ 1 % / 9 ' ( $ 6 7 6 8 , 7 ( % / 2 2 0 , 1 * 7 2 1 0 1 $3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 / / & 35 2 - ( & 7 0DWWKHZ53DYHN /,&(16(12'$7( ,+(5(%<&(57,)<7+$77+,63/$1 63(&,),&$7,21255(3257:$6 35(3$5('%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7 683(59,6,21$1'7+$7,$0$'8/< /,&(16('352)(66,21$/(1*,1((5 81'(57+(/$:62)7+(67$7(2) 0,11(627$ ,668(68%0,77$/6800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 352-(&7180%(5 &,7<68%0,77$/ '5$:1%<5(9,(:('%<:%-6 03 30 &LYLO(QJLQHHULQJ6XUYH\LQJ/DQGVFDSH $UFKLWHFWXUH *OHQZRRG$YHQXH *ROGHQ9DOOH\01 FLYLOVLWHJURXSFRP &23<5,*+7&,9,/6,7(*5283,1&F &,7<68%0,77$/ 5(9,6,216800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 6: 6:3331$55$7,9( $3$570(1760217,&(//2//& $0(5,&$1%/9'($6768,7( %/220,1*72101 9,6+$/'877 9,6+$/#9(1785(0257*$*(&20 6833/(0(17$5<6,7(63(&,),&(526,21&21752/127(6 '(6,*1(1*,1((5'$9,'-.1$(%/(3( 75$,1,1*&2856('(6,*12)6:333 75$,1,1*(17,7<81,9(56,7<2)0,11(627$ ,16758&725-2+1&+$30$1 '$7(62)75$,1,1*&2856( 727$/75$,1,1*+2856 '$7(2)5(&(57,),&$7,21 (;3,5$7,21 02 1 7 , & ( / / 2 $ 3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 6& + 2 2 / % / 9 ' 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 0 1 $ 0 ( 5 , & $ 1 % / 9 ' ( $ 6 7 6 8 , 7 ( % / 2 2 0 , 1 * 7 2 1 0 1 $3 $ 5 7 0 ( 1 7 6 0 2 1 7 , & ( / / 2 / / & 35 2 - ( & 7 0DWWKHZ53DYHN /,&(16(12'$7( ,+(5(%<&(57,)<7+$77+,63/$1 63(&,),&$7,21255(3257:$6 35(3$5('%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7 683(59,6,21$1'7+$7,$0$'8/< /,&(16('352)(66,21$/(1*,1((5 81'(57+(/$:62)7+(67$7(2) 0,11(627$ ,668(68%0,77$/6800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 352-(&7180%(5 &,7<68%0,77$/ '5$:1%<5(9,(:('%<:%-6 03 30 &LYLO(QJLQHHULQJ6XUYH\LQJ/DQGVFDSH $UFKLWHFWXUH *OHQZRRG$YHQXH *ROGHQ9DOOH\01 FLYLOVLWHJURXSFRP &23<5,*+7&,9,/6,7(*5283,1&F &,7<68%0,77$/ 5(9,6,216800$5< '$7('(6&5,37,21 6: 6:333$77$&+0(176 $77$&+0(17$6,7(63(&,),&6:333'2&80(17 352-(&71$0(0217,&(//2$3$570(176 352-(&7/2&$7,21%5,()/<'(6&5,%(:+(5(&216758&7,21$&7,9,7<2&&856,1&/8'($''5(66,)$9$,/$%/( $''5(666&+22//%/9' &,7<2572:16+,30217,&(//2 67$7(01 =,3&2'( /$7,78'(/2*,78'(2)$3352;,0$7(&(1752,'2)352-(&71( 0(7+2'2)/$7/21*&2//(&7,21&,5&/(21(*3621/,1(722/86*67232*5$3+,& $//&,7,(6:+(5(&216758&7,21:,//2&&850217,&(//2 $//&2817,(6:+(5(&216758&7,21:,//2&&85:5,*+7 $//72:16+,36:+(5(&216758&7,21:,//2&&851$ 352-(&76,=(180%(52)$&5(672%(',6785%(' 352-(&77<3(&,5&/(21(5(6,'(17,$/&200(5&,$/,1'8675,$/52$'&216758&7,21 5(6,'(17,$/ 5'&216758&7,2127+(5'(6&5,%(;;;;; &808/$7,9(,03(59,286685)$&(727+(1($5(677(17+$&5( (;,67,1*$5($2),03(59,286685)$&( 3267&216758&7,21$5($2),03(59,286685)$&( 727$/1(:$5($2),03(59,286685)$&( 5(&(,9,1*:$7(56 :$7(5%2'<,' 1$0(2):$7(5%2'< :$7(5%2'<7<3( 63(&,$/:$7(5"<1 ,03$5,(':$7(5<1 '$7(62)&216758&7,21 &216758&7,2167$57'$7( (67,0$7('&203/(7,21'$7( *(1(5$/&216758&7,21352-(&7,1)250$7,21 '(6&5,%(7+(&216758&7,21$&7,9,7<:+$7:,//%(%8,/7*(1(5$/7,0(/,1((7&$1(:08/7,5(6,'(17,$/$3$570(17%8,/',1*685)$&(3$5.,1*/27$1'67250:$7(5%$6,1:,//%(&216758&7(' '(6&5,%(62,/7<3(6)281'$77+(352-(&73(5:(%62,/6859(<62,/6+$9(%((1$6680('72+$9($+<'52/2*,&'(6,*1$7,212)%62,/6 6,7(/2&$7,210$3$77$&+0$3686*(2/2*,&6859(<0,187(48$'5$1*/(1$7,21$/:(7/$1',19(1725<0$3625(48,9$/(176+2:,1*7+(/2&$7,21$1'7<3(2)$//5(&(,9,1*:$7(56,1&/8',1* :(7/$1'6'5$,1$*(',7&+(667250:$7(5321'625%$6,16(7&7+$7:,//5(&(,9(5812)))5207+(352-(&786($552:66+2:,1*7+(',5(&7,212))/2:$1'',67$1&(727+(:$7(5%2'< *(1(5$/6,7(,1)250$7,21,,,$ '(6&5,%(7+(/2&$7,21$1'7<3(2)$//7(0325$5<$1'3(50$1(17(526,2135(9(17,21$1'6(',0(17&21752/%(670$1$*(0(1735$&7,&,(6%03 6,1&/8'(7+(7,0,1*)25,167$//$7,21$1'352&('85(6 86('72(67$%/,6+$'',7,21$/7(0325$5<%03 6$61(&(66$5<,,,$$ 7+(352-(&7,63527(&7('%<7:2:0$,1%03 66,/7)(1&($1',1/(73527(&7,21'(9,&(67+(6,/7)(1&(:,//%(,167$//('$77+('2:1+,///2&$7,2162)7+(6,7($1'021,725('$61(&(66$5<,1/(7 3527(&7,21'(9,'(6:,//%(,167$//(',1$//&$7&+%$6,16217+(6,7($1'$1<2))6,7(7+$7:,//5(&(,9(67250:$7(55812)))5207+,66,7($67+(352-(&7352*5(66(6$'',7,21$/%03 668&+$6(526,21 &21752/%/$1.(70$<%(87,/,7=(' $77$&+727+,66:333$7$%/(:,7+7+($17,&,3$7('48$1,7,7,(6)257+(/,)(2)7+(352-(&7)25$//(526,2135(9(17,21$1'6(',0(17&21752/%03 6,,,$%6((3$*(6: $77$&+727+,66:333$6,7(0$37+$7,1&/8'(67+()2//2:,1*)($785(6,,,$%) (;,67$1'),1$/*5$'(6,1&/8',1*',9,',1*/,1(6$1'',5(&7,212))/2:)25$//35($1'3267&216758&7,21672505:$7(55812))'5$,1$*($5($6/2&$7(':,7+,17+(352-(&7/,0,76 /2&$7,2162),03(59,286685)$&(6$1'62,/7<3(6x (;,67,1*$1'),1$/*5$'(6,1&/8',1*',9,',1*/,1(6$1'',5(&7,212))/2:)25$//35($1'3267&216758&7,2167250:$7(55812))'5$,1$*($5($6/2&$7(':,7+,1352-(&7/,0,76x /2&$7,2162)$5($612772%(',6758%('x /2&$7,212)$5($62)3+$6('&216758&7,21x $//685)$&(:$7(56$1'(;,67,1*:(7/$1'6:,7+,121(0,/()5207+(352-(&7%281'$5,(67+$7:,//5(&(,9(67250:$7(55812)))5207+(6,7(,'(17,),$%/(210$3668&+$686*60,187( 48$'5$1*/(0$3625(48,9$/(17:+(5(685)$&(:$7(565(&(,9,1*5812))$662&,$7(':,7+&216758&7,21$&7,9,7<:,//127),7217+(3/$16+((77+(<0867%(,'(17,),(':,7+$1$552: ,1',&$7,1*%27+',5(&7,21$1'',67$1&(727+(685)$&(:$7(5x 0(7+2'672%(86(')25),1$/67$%,/,=$7,212)$//(;326('62,/$5($ :(5(67250:$7(50,7,*$7,210($685(65(48,5('$67+(5(68/72)$1(19,5210(17$/$5&+$(2/2*,&$/2527+(55(48,5('/2&$/67$7(25)('(5$/5(9,(:2)7+(352-(&7"12 ,)<(6'(6&5,%(+2:7+(6(0($685(6:(5($''5(66(',17+(6:333,,,$ 1$ ,67+(352-(&7/2&$7(',1$.$567$5($68&+7+$7$'',7,21$/0($685(6:28/'%(1(&(66$5<27352-(&7'5,1.,1*:$7(56833/<0$1$*(0(17$5($6$6'(6&5,%(',10,115&+$37(56$1'"12 ,)<(6'(6&5,%(7+($'',7,21$/0($685(672%(86(',,,$ 1$ '2(67+(6,7(',6&+$5*(72$&$/&(5(286)(1/,67(',10,11568%3%"<(62512 ,)<(6$/(77(52)$33529$/)5207+(0,11(627$'(3$570(172)1$785$/5(6285&(60867%(2%7$,1('35,2572$33/,&$7,21)257+,63(50,73$57,%$1'3$57,,,$ '2(67+(6,7(',6&+$5*(72$:$7(57+$7,6/,67('$6,03$5(')257+()2//2:,1*32//87$17625675(662563+263+2586785%,',7<',662/9('2;<*(125%,27,&,03$,50(17"86(7+(63(&,$/$1' ,03$,5(':$7(566($5&+722/$7:::3&$67$7(0186:$7(567250:$7(567250:$7(5&+70/ 1$ ,)126.,37275$,1,1* '2(67+(,03$,5(':$7(5+$9($1$33529('727$/0$;,080'$,/</2$'670'/:,7+$1$33529(':$67(/2$'$//2&$7,21)25&216758&7,21$&7,9,7<"12 ,)<(6 $/,677+(5(&(,9,1*:$7(57+($5($62)7+(6,7(',6&+$5*,1*72,7$1'7+(32//87$176,'(17,),(',17+(70'/ %/,677+(%03 6$1'$1<27+(563(&,),&&216758&7,2167250:$7(55(/$7(',03/(0(17$7,21$&7,9,7,(6,'(17,),(',17+(70'/ ,)7+(6,7(+$6$',6&+$5*(32,17:,7+,121(0,/(2)7+(,03$,5(':$7(5$1'7+(:$7(5)/2:6727+(,03$,5(':$7(5%871263(&,),&%036)25&216758&7,21$5(,'(17,),(',17+(70'/7+($'',7,21$/ %036,1$33(1',;$&&& &75287675($00867%($''('727+(6:333$1',03/(0(17(',,,$7+($'',7,21$/%03621/<$33/<727+26(3257,2162)7+(352-(&77+$7'5$,17221(2)7+( ,'(17,),('',6&+$5*(32,176 1$ ,'(17,)<$'-$&(1738%/,&:$7(56:+(5(7+(0,11(627$'(3$570(172)1$785$/5(6285&(6'15+$6'(&/$5('³:25.,1:$7(55(675,&7,216´'85,1*),6+63$:1,1*7,0()5$0(6 1$ 6(/(&7,212)$3(50$1(1767250:$7(50$1$*(0(176<67(0,,,' :,//7+(352-(&7&5($7($1(:&808/$7,9(,03(59,286685)$&(*5($7(57+$125(48$/7221($&5("<(62512 ,)<(6$:$7(548$/,7<92/80(2)21(,1&+2)5812)))5207+(&808/$7,9(1(:,03(59,286685)$&(60867%(5(7$,1('216,7(6((3$57,,,'2)7+(3(50,77+528*+,1),/75$7,2181/(66352+,%,7(''8( 7221(2)7+(5($6216,13$57,,,'-,),1),/75$7,21,6352+,%,7(','(17,)<27+(50(7+2'2)27+(592/80(5('8&7,21(*),/75$7,216<67(0:(76(',0(17$7,21%$6,15(*,21$/321',1*25(48,9$/(17 0(7+2' '(6&5,%(:+,&+0(7+2':,//%(86('7275($75812)))5207+(1(:,03(59,286685)$&(6&5($7('%<7+(352-(&7,,,' x :(76(',0(17$7,21%$6,1 x ,1),/75$7,21),/75$7,21 x 5(*,21$/321'6 x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³:25.,1:$7(55(675,&7,216´$//27+(55(0$,1,1*3257,2162)7+(7(0325$5<253(50$1(17',7&+(625 6:$/(6:,7+,1&$/(1'$5'$<6$)7(5&211(&7,1*72$685)$&(:$7(53523(57<('*($1'&216758&7,21,17+$7$5($+$67(0325$5,/<253(50$1(17/<&($6(' 1$12',7&+(6216,7( '(6&5,%($'',7,21$/(526,2135(9(17,210($685(67+$7:,//%(,03/(0(17('$77+(6,7('85,1*&216758&7,21(*&216758&7,213+$6,1*0,1,0,=,1*62,/',6785%$1&( 9(*(7$7,9(%8))(56+25,=217$/6/23(*5$',1*6/23('5$,1,1*7(55$&,1*(7& 27+(5(526,21&21752/35$&7,&(6,1&/8'(%87$5(127/,0,7('720,1,0,=,1*6,7((;32685(:+(13266,%/( ,)$33/,&$%/(,1&/8'($'',7,21$/5(48,5(0(176,1$33(1',;$3$57&5(*$5',1*0$,17$,1,1*$)227%8))(5=21(25,167$//,1*5('81'$17%036)253257,2162)7+(6,7( 7+$7'5$,17263(&,$/:$7(56 1$ ,)$33/,&$%/('(6&5,%($'',7,21$/(526,2135(9(17,21%03672%(,03/(0(17('$77+(6,7(723527(&73/$11(',1),/75$7,21$5($6 0,1,0,=(6,7((;32685(,1$5($6$'-$&(1772,1),/75$7,21$5($6 6(',0(17&21752/35$&7,&,(6,9& '(6&5,%(7+(0(7+2'62)6(',0(17&21752/%03672%(,03/(0(17('$77+,66,7('85,1*&216758&7,21720,1,0,=(6(',0(17,03$&7672685)$&(:$7(56,1&/8',1*&85%$1' *877(56<67(06 '(6&5,%(0(7+2'672%(86(')25'2:1*5$',(173(5,0(7(5&21752/ 6,/7)(1&(:,//%(,167$//('$5281'7+((17,5(3(5,0(7(52)7+(6,7( '(6&5,%(0(7+2'672%(86('72&217$,162,/672&.3,/(6 6(('$1'08/&+$6:(//$6(526,21&21752/%/$1.(76:,//%(87,/,=('$61(&(66$5< '(6&5,%(0(7+2'672%(86(')2567250'5$,1,1/(73527(&7,21 6((,1/(73527(&7,21'(7$,/6 '(6&5,%(0(7+2'6720,1,0,=(9(+,&/(75$&.,1*$7&216758&7,21(;,76$1'675((76:((3,1*$&7,9,7,(6 7+(352-(&7:,//87,/,=($52&.&216758&7,21(175$1&( '(6&5,%(0(7+2'6,)$33/,&$%/($'',7,21$/6(',0(17&21752/6(*',9(56,21%(50672%(,167$//('72.((35812))$:$<)5203/$11(',1),/75$7,21$5($6:+(1(;&$9$7(' 35,2572),1$/67$%,/,=$7,212)7+(&2175,%87,1*'5$,1$*($5($ 6,/7)(1&(72%(,167$//(',00(',$7(/<$)7(5*5$',1*723527(&7,1),/75$7,21$5($6 '(6&5,%(0(7+2'672%(86('720,1,0,=(62,/&203$&7,21$1'35(6(59(72362,/81/(66,1)($6,%/($77+,66,7( /,*+775$&.('(48,30(17:,//%(86('72362,/:,//%(675,33('$1'672&.3,/(' '(6&5,%(3/$167235(6(59($)2271$785$/%8))(5%(7:((17+(352-(&7 662,/',6785%$1&($1'$685)$&(:$7(5253/$16)255('81'$176(',0(17&21752/6,)$%8))(5 ,6,1)($6,%/( '28%/(52:2)6,/7)(1&(:,//%(,167$//('$/21*:(7/$1'352-(&7:,//127',6785%:,7+,1)((72):(7/$1' '(6&5,%(3/$16)2586(2)6(',0(17$7,2175($70(17&+(0,&$/6(*32/<0(56)/2&&8/$176(7&6((3$57,9&2)7+(3(50,7 1$ ,67+(352-(&75(48,5('72,167$//$7(0325$5<6(',0(17%$6,1'8(7225025($&5(6'5$,1,1*72$&20021/2&$7,2125$&5(625025(,)7+(6,7(,6:,7+,10,/(2)$ 63(&,$/25,03$,5(':$7(5" 12 ,)<(6'(6&5,%(25$77$&+3/$166+2:,1*+2:7+(%$6,1:,//%('(6,*1('$1'&216758&7(',1$&&25'$1&(:,7+3$57,,,&2)7+(3(50,7 1$'(:$7(5,1*$1'%$6,1'5$,1,1*,9' :,//7+(352-(&7,1&/8'('(:$7(5,1*25%$6,1'5$,1,1*"12 ,)<(6'(6&5,%(0($685(672%(86('7275($7',6326(2)785%,'256(',0(17/$'(1:$7(5$1'0(7+2'7235(9(17(526,21256&2852)',6&+$5*(32,1766((3$57,9'2)7+( 3(50,7 1$ :,//7+(352-(&7,1&/8'(86(2)),/7(56)25%$&.:$6+:$7(5"12 ,)<(6'(6&5,%(+2:),/7(5%$&.:$6+:$7(5:,//%(0$1$*('217+(6,7(253523(5/<',6326('6((3$57,,,'2)7+(3(50,7 1$ $'',7,21$/%03 6)2563(&,$/:$7(56$1'',6&+$5*(672:(7/$1'6$33(1',;$3$576&$1'' 63(&,$/:$7(56'2(6<285352-(&7',6&+$5*(7263(&,$/:$7(56"12 ,)352;,0,7<72%('52&.2552$'352-(&76:+(5(7+(/$&.2)5,*+72):$<35(&/8'(67+(,167$//$7,212)$1<2)7+(3(50$1(1767250:$7(50$1$*(0(1735$&7,&(67+(1 27+(575($70(1768&+$6*5$66('6:$/(660$//(5321'625*5,7&+$0%(56,65(48,5('35,2572',6&+$5*(72685)$&(:$7(56'(6&5,%(:+$727+(575($70(17:,//%( 3529,'(' 1$ '(6&5,%((526,21$1'6(',0(17&21752/6)25(;326('62,/$5($6:,7+$&217,18286326,7,9(6/23(72$63(&,$/:$7(56$1'7(0325$5<6(',0(17%$6,16)25$5($67+$7 '5$,1),9(25025($&5(6',6785%('$721(7,0( 1$ '(6&5,%(7+(81',6785%('%8))(5=21(72%(86('127/(667+$1/,1($5)((7)5207+(63(&,$/:$7(5 1$ '(6&5,%(+2:7+(3(50$1(1767250:$7(50$1$*(0(176<67(0:,//(1685(7+$77+(35($1'3267352-(&75812))5$7($1'92/80()5207+($1'<($5+285 35(&,3,7$7,21(9(1765(0$,167+(6$0( 1$ '(6&5,%(+2:7+(3(50$1(1767250:$7(50$1$*(0(176<67(0:,//0,1,0,=($1<,1&5($6(,17+(7(03(5$785(2)75287675($05(&(,9,1*:$7(565(68/7,1*,17+($1' <($5+28535(&,3,7$7,21(9(176 1$ :(7/$1'6'2(6<285352-(&7',6&+$5*(67250:$7(5:,7+7+(327(17,$/)256,*1,),&$17$'9(56(,03$&7672$:(7/$1'(*&219(56,212)$1$785$/:(7/$1'72$ 67250:$7(5321'"<(62512 ,)<(6'(6&5,%(7+(:(7/$1'0,7,*$7,216(48(1&(7+$7:,//%()2//2:(',1$&&25'$1&(:,7+3$57'2)$33(1',;$ 1$ ,163(&7,216$1'0$,17(1$1&(,9( '(6&5,%(352&('85(6725287,1(/<,163(&77+(&216758&7,216,7( x 21&((9(5<6(9(1'$<6'85,1*$&7,9(&216758&7,21$1' x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x $)7(5',6&29(5<7+(3(50,75(48,5(60$1<2)7+('(),&,(1&,(67+$70$<%()281',17+,6&+(&./,67%(&255(&7(':,7+,1$63(&,),('3(5,2'2)7,0(6((3(50,7)25025('(7$,/6 x 7+,6,163(&7,21&+(&./,67,6$1237,21)2560$//&216758&7,216,7(6/$5*(&216758&7,216,7(6$1'/,1($5352-(&765(48,5(025((;7(16,9(025(/2&$7,2163(&,),&,163(&7,215(48,5(0(176 x 7+(3(50,77((6,6$5(5(63216,%/()257+(,163(&7,21$1'0$,17(1$1&(2)7(0325$5<$1'3(50$1(17:$7(548$/,7<0$1$*(0(17%03 6$6:(//$6(526,2135(9(17,21$1'6(',0(17&21752/%03 6817,/ $127+(53(50,77((+$62%7$,1('&29(5$*(81'(57+,63(50,7$&&25',1*723$57,,%257+(352-(&7+$681'(5*21(),1$/67$%,/,=$7,21$1'$127,&(2)7(50,1$7,21+$6%((168%0,77('727+(03&$ < 1 1$ < 1 1$ < 1 1$ < 1 1$ < 1 1$ < 1 1$ < 1 1$ < 1 1$ $77$&+0(17&$%29(*5281' )$&,/,7<0$1$*(0(176&+('8/( $//67250:$7(55(7(17,21'(7(17,21$1'75($70(17%$6,160867%(,163(&7('$7/($6721&($<($572'(7(50,1(7+$7%$6,1 5(7(17,21$1'75($70(17&+$5$&7(5,67,&6$5($'(48$7($6725$*(75($70(17%$6,1:,//%(&216,'(5(',1$'(48$7(,)6(',0(17 +$6'(&5($6('7+(:(76725$*(92/80(%<3(5&(1725'5<6725$*(92/80(%<3(5&(172),7625,*,1$/'(6,*192/80( %$6('217+,6,163(&7,21,)$67250:$7(5%$6,15(48,5(66(',0(17&/($12877+(%$6,1:,//%(5(6725('72,7625,*,1$/'(6,*1 &2172856$1'9(*(7$7('67$7(:,7+,121(<($52)7+(,163(&7,21'$7( $//287/(76758&785(6&8/9(576287)$//6758&785(6$1'27+(567250:$7(5)$&,/,7,(6)25:+,&+0$,17(1$1&(5(48,5(0(176 $5(12727+(5:,6(63(&,),('+(5(,10867%(,163(&7(',17+(635,1*6800(5$1')$//2)($&+<($5:,7+,1'$<62)7+( ,163(&7,21'$7($//$&&808/$7('6(',0(17$1''(%5,60867%(5(029('68&+7+$7($&+67250:$7(5)$&,/,7<23(5$7(6$6 '(6,*1('$1'3(50,77('&2175,%87,1*'5$,1$*($5($60867%(.(37&/($52)/,77(5$1'9(*(7$7,9('(%5,6,1)/2:3,3(6$1' 29(5)/2:63,//:$<6.(37&/($5,1/(7$5($6.(37&/($1$1'81'(6,5$%/(9(*(7$7,215(029('(526,21,03$,5,1*7+()81&7,21 25,17(*5,7<2)7+()$&,/,7,(6,)$1<:,//%(&255(&7('$1'$1<6758&785$/'$0$*(,03$,5,1*257+5($7(1,1*72,03$,57+( )81&7,212)7+()$&,/,7,(60867%(5(3$,5(' 92/80(&21752/)$&,/,7,(6$1'&2175,%87,1*'5$,1$*($5($60867%(,163(&7('(9(5<7+5((0217+6'85,1*7+(23(5$7,21$/ 3(5,2'%(7:((1635,1*612:0(/7$1'),56768%67$17,$/612:)$//$1'021,725('$)7(55$,1)$//(9(1762),1&+25025(72 (1685(7+$77+(&2175,%87,1*'5$,1$*($5($,6&/($52)/,77(5$1''(%5,6,1)/2:3,3(6$1'29(5)/2:63,//:$<6$5(&/($5,1/(7 $5($6$5(&/($181'(6,5$%/(9(*(7$7,21,65(029('$1'7+(5(,612(526,21,03$,5,1*257+5($7(1,1*72,03$,57+()81&7,21 2)$)$&,/,7<,)6(',0(17+$6$&&808/$7(',1$,1),/75$7,21)($785(:,7+,1'$<62),163(&7,21'(326,7('6(',0(1760867%( 5(029('7+(,1),/75$7,21&$3$&,7<2)7+(81'(5/<,1*62,/60867%(5(6725('$1'$1<685)$&(',6785%$1&(0867%(67$%,/,=(' ,163(&7,210867(1685(7+$76(',0(1775$36$1')25(%$<6$5(75$33,1*6(',0(17$1'7+$7025(7+$13(5&(172)7+( 6725$*(92/80(5(0$,167+(&2175,%87,1*'5$,1$*($5($,667$%/(,(12(526,21,62%6(59('$1',1/(76$1' 287/(729(5)/2:63,//:$<6$5(,1*22'&21',7,216:,7+12(526,210$,17(1$1&(7(&+1,48(686('08673527(&77+( ,1),/75$7,21&$3$&,7<2)7+(35$&7,&(%</,0,7,1*62,/&203$&7,21727+(*5($7(67(;7(173266,%/((*%<86,1*/2:,03$&7 ($57+029,1*(48,30(17 &K H F N H G % \ 5HYLVLRQV ' D W H & R P P H Q W V 'D W H [/6 0R Q W L F H O O R $ S D U W P H Q W V 0 R Q W L F H O O R 0 1 6D O H V $ J H Q W 6 W H Y H + D K Q 6F D O H 'U D Z Q % \ . D W K \ ) U H \ 7KHVHGUDZLQJVDUHIRUFRQFHSWXDOXVHRQO\DQGDUHQRW LQWHQGHGIRUFRQVWUXFWLRQ)L[WXUHUXQVDQGTXDQWLWLHV VKRXOGEHYHULILHGSULRUWRRUGHU9DOXHVUHSUHVHQWHG DUHDQDSSUR[LPDWLRQJHQHUDWHGIURPPDQXIDFWXUHUV SKRWRPHWULFLQKRXVHRULQGHSHQGHQWODEWHVWVZLWKGDWD VXSSOLHGE\ODPSPDQXIDFWXUHUV /X P L Q D L U H 6 F K H G X O H 6\ P E R O 4W \ /D E H O &D O F X O D W L R Q 6 X P P D U \ /D E H O &D O F 7 \ S H $U U D Q J H P H Q W /X P / X P H Q V // ) 'H V F U L S W L R Q /X P : D W W V 7R W D O : D W W V 8Q L W V $Y J 0D [ 0L Q $Y J 0 L Q 0D [ 0 L Q 6, 7 ( ,O O X P L Q D Q F H )F 6, 1 * / ( /6 , : 3 6 / 6 / % = $ 3 6, 1 * / ( /6 , 6 / 0 / ( ' / 6 , / 8 1 9 ' , 0 & 5 , % 5 = 3 %$ & . % $ & . /6 , 6 / 0 / ( ' / 6 , / : 8 1 9 ' , 0 & 5 , % 5 = 1 $ 1 $ 3$ 5 . , 1 * :3 ,O O X P L Q D Q F H )F 6FDOHLQFK )W 6$1 6$1 39& 39& '7 +'3( +' 3( ',3 ',3 :0 ',3 6$1 6$1 6&+22/%/9' 5LP &%5 :3 0+ :3 0+ :3 0+ :3 0+ :3 0+ :3 0+ 3 0+ 3 0+ 3 0+ 3 0+ 0+ 3 MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 39 LAND USE MIX Commercial • Office/Retail • Professional Service • Restaurants • Hotels • Entertainment Residential • Mixed-Density Residential • Senior Living Facility Public/institutional • Educational Centers Recreational • Plaza • Public Space • Parks/Playgrounds DEVELOPMENT FORM COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL FLEX (CRF) The purpose of the Commercial Residential Flex designation is to provide limited locations where commercial and residential uses may be allowed and located in close proximity to each other. Mixed-use buildings are typically not appropriate in this designation although they may be considered at discretion of the City. Rather, the intent is to provide locations where a range of compatible uses can be established close to one another. This is a hybrid designation that allows a range of uses including residential, professional office, personal and professional services, hotels, retail and restaurants, entertainment uses and educational services. The goal is to create an urban mix of uses and provide the opportunity for inventive, flexible development standards characteristic of an urban lifestyle center. • PUD Standards • Density (Low to High Density Residential) • Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.30-0.50 LOT PATTERN CASE STUDY EXAMPLE 2018 Correlating Zoning DistrictZONING INFORMATION 2018 Correlating Zoning District PUD Planned Unit Development Primary Mode Vehicular with access to collectors and arterials Transit or shuttle service Secondary Mode Pedestrian-friendly streetscape Bicycle facilities and parking MOBILITY MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 15 FUTURE LAND USE MAP EXHIBIT 3.3 City of Monticello Boundary Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA) Parcels Streets Railroad Water Bodies Development Reserve (DR) Open Space and Resource Conservation (OSRC) City Parks and Recreation (PR) Estate Residential (ER) Low-Density Residential (LDR) Traditional Residential (TR) Mixed Neighborhood (MN) Mixed-Density Residential (MDR) Manufactured Home (MH) Downtown Mixed-Use (DMU) Community Commercial (CC) Regional Commercial (RC) Commercial and Residential Flex (CRF) Employment Campus (EC) Light Industrial Park (LIP) General Industrial (GI) Public and Institutional (P) Xcel Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP) North 18 The flow of employees to jobs outside of the City, or into the City while living in a different area occurs for several reasons. Attracting employees can be the result of livable wage positions that may not be available in the areas that they live. It can also be a result of the employee being attached to their existing community because of the school system, family, or other personal reasons. Another issue that can affect the attraction of employees to a community is the availability of housing to meet their needs. As families move through their career paths and family status, their housing needs change and will rely on communities to provide that lifecycle housing. WORKFORCE HOUSING As a city actively developing, Monticello is taking a careful yet proactive approach to planning land use and density to ensure adequate amounts of land are guided to provide opportunities for a full range of “life cycle” housing options. The City is especially looking for opportunities to develop a range of life-cyle and “step- up” housing options as a way to attract new industrial development and jobs that offers higher paying wages. Existing Housing Value Assessment The measure of affordability of a housing unit compares housing cost to gross household income. The general standard is that housing is affordable if housing expenses equal 30% or less of a person’s gross household income. Tables 6.5 and 6.6 demonstrates the value of the City of Monticello’s housing stock in comparison to the entirety of Wright County. Notably, 46% of the City of Monticello’s housing stock is valued between $150,000 - $250,000 compared to 29% of Wright County housing stock of the same value (refer to Table 6.5 and 6.6). This aligns with the data that suggests housing prices are increasing in Monticello compared to the County. It is important that a range of affordable housing stock in the community is maintained while also providing housing products in the higher values as well. Affordable Workforce Housing The City completed (2020) a comprehensive housing study that assesses the housing needs for the community. It is imperative that any successful economic development policies and strategies allow for the development of life-cycle housing to allow for the continued growth of the community. The policies and strategies from the housing study have been incorporated into this plan. A generally accepted standard is that in order to develop new affordable housing, the development needs to be a minimum of eight units per acre. Based on the City’s future land use plan 986 acres would allow for residential development at eight units or more per acre. While the City has created a land use plan that permits areas at greater density, barriers to development of affordable housing still exist. Some of these barriers are beyond the City’s control including, but not limited to: • Steady increases in land prices and State and County tax structures • Increase in construction costs. When combined with land prices, it becomes more difficult to provide affordable units through new construction. • Property constraints from wetlands, woodlands, soils, poor access or others. • Availability of regional public transit options within the City. The goals, policies, and strategies section includes specific efforts to pursue as it relates to offering a range of affordable housing options. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES In the next 20 years the City will face a variety of issues as well as opportunities related to economic development. Many of these issues are larger in scale and will require regional and state partners to address them, especially as related to transportation and infrastructure. Tax Base Diversification One of the primary issues facing the City will be sourcing new tax revenue and normalizing the City’s financial system. The City’s tax base relies heavily on the Xcel MNGP which is a finite revenue stream and will eventually be gone. Communities with diverse tax bases are resilient to shifts and fluctuations in the economy more so than communities that have a single large taxpayer or a majority of businesses in a single industry or sector. When the generating station is excluded from the equation, the City’s largest single taxpayer makes up only 2.3% of the total tax capacity. This allows the city to have significant stability as it replaces the Xcel MNGP taxes. However, this diversity requires the community to look to multiple projects to help fill the pending gap but also allows for the development of industry clusters to provide both tax base and employment opportunities. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 19 Workforce Development The success of workforce development requires that the City develop a plan for development and training of the required work force. Creating and maintaining strong relationships with businesses is critical to identify needs and assist with the coordination between the training institutions to teach the required skills. This will also help identify potential funding sources further strengthening those relationships. The attraction of new livable wage employment opportunities is important to allow for the continued success of the local economy as well as attraction of new businesses and employment opportunities. The retention of existing businesses and employees in the community will maintain a workforce and help attract the needed workers to fill these positions. Workforce Housing The City has a limited number of step-up type housing and senior housing units. The community does have a significant number of “entry” level housing which limits the community’s ability to retain residents that seek housing units with a greater level of amenities. These residents, while working in Monticello, live in the surrounding communities resulting in the City losing the opportunity to benefit from the retail spending and additional tax base of higher value homes. In addition to the shortage of move up housing, the City also has a limited number of senior housing opportunities. This limited supply results in older residents staying in their homes and those homes not being available for new residents. If the older residents move to another community for housing, Monticello loses their retail activity which is generally higher than younger residents further reducing growth and economic stability. The city also has a limited number of multi-family units to allow for the workforce required for the jobs that are being created through the expansion and attraction of businesses. As people are changing or beginning their careers, finding affordable housing is a pressing need and can be a primary factor in their success or failure. Regardless of the success of creating employment opportunities, if workers cannot live in the community and become part of the socio-economic fabric of the community, then the success will be short lived. Transportation Improvements Monticello will continue to plan for the completion of its comprehensive roadway and pathway system. Transportation costs are a major factor for businesses evaluating new locations. A well-maintained transportation network connected to the larger regional network will be critical for attracting new business and diversifying to warehousing and distribution sectors. The continued planning and development of the transportation system improvements including a potential interchange with major transportation arteries will also allow for the continued growth of Monticello. The City will also need to commit resources to the continued maintenance of the existing infrastructure to support the local economy. Bridge Traffic Presently, State Highway 25 is the only river crossing in the City and greater region. A new bridge crossing would help alleviate traffic congestion on Highway 25 and also provide options for emergency access. However, Highway 25 results in motorists traveling through the City’s downtown that serve as possible customers for local businesses. Transportation improvements could alleviate some congestion and also improve east/west walkability through downtown Monticello. A new bridge in the region is a long term improvement and requires considerable investment and additional study, but would also will reduce the amount of traffic flowing through downtown, especially on the weekends. Monticello needs to continue to be an active member in the Central Mississippi River Regional Planning group as they work towards siting and eventually development of a new river crossing to maximize the benefit to the City. COVID-19 Pandemic Response The City proactively responded to the business community to support business operations during the global COVID-19 pandemic. The City approved temporary loan forbearance requests and an emergency grant program to assist those businesses with outstanding loans that have been negatively affected by the pandemic. This loan forbearance helped to ensure employers continue to retain employees. The long-term effects of the pandemic will not be known until after adoption of this plan. 0??$GPLQ?'RFV?6XEPLWWDO3UHOLP )LQDO3ODW?B7ZLQ3LQHV$SWV3UHOLP)LQDO3ODW 3ODQV:6%(QJLQHHULQJ5HYLHZGRF[ ; ( 1 , $ $ 9 ( 1 8 ( 6 _ 68 , 7 ( _ 0, 1 1 ( $ 3 2 / , 6 0 1 _ _ _ :6 % ( 1 * & 2 0 -DQXDU\ 0DWW/HRQDUG &LW$QJLQHHU3XEOLF:RUNV'LUHFWRU &LW\RI0RQWLFHOOR :DOQXW6WUHHW6XLWH 0RQWLFHOOR01 5H 7ZLQ3LQHV0RQWLFHOOR$SDUWPHQWV±&RQFHSW3ODQ5HYLHZ &LW\3URMHFW1R :6%3URMHFW1R5 'HDU0U/HRQDUG :HKDYHUHYLHZHGWKHUHYLVHG7ZLQ3LQHV0RQWLFHOOR$SDUWPHQWV3UHOLPLQDU$LQDO3ODQDQG FLYLOSODQVXEPLWWDOGDWHG'HFHPEHUDVSUHSDUHGE\&LYLO6LWH*URXS7KLVSODQZDV SUHYLRXVO\UHYLHZHGLQDQGDPDMRULW\RIWKHRULJLQDOFRPPHQWVZHUHDGGUHVVHGDWWKDWWLPH $OOFRPPHQWVKDYHEHHQLQFOXGHGEHORZDVDUHIHUHQFHWRSUHYLRXVUHYLHZV 7KHUHYLVHGHQJLQHHULQJSODQVDQGGRFXPHQWVZHUHUHYLHZHGIRUJHQHUDOFRQIRUPDQFHZLWKWKH &LW\RI0RQWLFHOOR¶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³HDVHPHQWVUHIOHFWYDFDWLRQDQGGHGLFDWLRQ´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±:6%(QJLQHHULQJ5HYLHZ -DQXDU\ 3DJH $PLQLPXPRID¶GUDLQDJHDQGXWLOLW\HDVHPHQWVKRXOGEHDGGHGDURXQGWKHSHULPHWHU RIWKHORW,QSURJUHVVWKHHDVWHUO\SURSHUW\OLQHHDVHPHQWZLOOQHHGWREH¶GXHWRWKH H[LVWLQJVDQLWDU\VHZHUPDLQ&RPSOHWH 3URYLGHFRQILUPDWLRQWKDWWKHHDVHPHQWRQWKHDGMDFHQWSURSHUW\WRWKHVRXWKDOORZVIRU JUDGLQJRIWKH(2)$OVRSURYLGHQRWLILFDWLRQWRWKHDGMDFHQWSURSHUW\RZQHURIDQ\ZRUN RFFXUULQJZLWKLQWKHSUHVFULEHGHDVHPHQW,QSURJUHVVWKHDSSOLFDQWVWDWHGWKDWWKH\DUH LQWKHSURFHVVRIREWDLQLQJD³JUDGLQJSHUPLW´WRZRUNRQWKHDGMDFHQWSURSHUW\ 5HWDLQLQJZDOODQGSDUNLQJORWZLOOUHTXLUHDQHQFURDFKPHQWDJUHHPHQW,QSURJUHVVDQG DFNQRZOHGJHGE\DSSOLFDQWSURYLGHGRFXPHQWDWLRQWRWKH&LW\ ([LVWLQJ6LWH 5HPRYDO3ODQ& 7KHSODQQRWHVWRUHPRYHDQGVDOYDJHWKHH[LVWLQJK\GUDQWV,WLVQRWFOHDUZKHWKHUWKH VDOYDJHGK\GUDQWVZLOOEHXVHGRQVLWH7KH&LW\¶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³ULEERQFXUE´EXWDOORIWKHORFDWLRQV DGMDFHQWWRWKH³VSHFLDOW\SDYHPHQW´ORFDWLRQZHUH1RWHVSHFLILFDOO\ZKHUH³SHGHVWULDQ FXUEUDPSV´DUHWREHORFDWHGLQDOOFDVHV3HGHVWULDQFXUEUDPSVZHUHLGHQWLILHGLQVRPH ORFDWLRQVEXWQRWRWKHUV9HULI\ZKHWKHUDGGLWLRQDOORFDWLRQVLGHQWLILHGRQWKHSODQVDUH QHHGHG&RPSOHWH $GGWKHQRWDWLRQIRUWKHVLJQVRQWKHSODQYLHZWRFRUUHVSRQGZLWKZKDWLVQRWHGLQWKH OHJHQG&RPSOHWH ,IWLSRXWFXUELVSURSRVHGQRWHWKHVHORFDWLRQVRQWKHSODQV&RPSOHWH &RRUGLQDWHFLYLODQGDUFKLWHFWXUDOSODQVWRPDWFKFXUUHQWO\JUDGHVDUHGLIIHUHQW,Q SURJUHVVDSSOLFDQWDFNQRZOHGJHGGLVFUHSDQF\&RPSOHWH .MHOOEHUJ7ZLQ3LQHV$SDUWPHQWV3UHOLP)LQDO3ODW 3ODQV±:6%(QJLQHHULQJ5HYLHZ -DQXDU\ 3DJH $GGDQLWHPLQWKHOHJHQGIRUWKHVSHFLDOW\SDYHPHQWDQGDW\SLFDOVHFWLRQRQWKHGHWDLOV SDJH$GGDGHWDLOIRUWKHHGJLQJDVZHOOLIDSSOLFDEOH&RPSOHWH ,WLVQRWFOHDUZKHUHWKHKHDY\GXW\SDYHPHQWLVORFDWHGLWHPLQOHJHQG$GGWKH KDWFKLQJWRWKHSODQSHUWKHJHRWHFKQLFDOHYDOXDWLRQDQGDW\SLFDOVHFWLRQRQWKHGHWDLOV VKHHW&RPSOHWHWKHOHJHQGZDVXSGDWHGWRUHPRYHWKLVLWHP *UDGLQJ3ODQ& 7KH&LW\¶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±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³0DLQWDLQ,QFK 6HSDUDWLRQ´5LJLG,QVXODWLRQ´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±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¶V VWDQGDUGV F $OOZDWHUPDLQDQGVDQLWDU\VHZHUWHVWLQJVKDOOEHGRQHLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH &LW\RI0RQWLFHOORVWDQGDUGVDQGVSHFLILFDWLRQV&RSLHVRIDOOWHVWUHVXOWVVKDOOEH VXEPLWWHGWRWKH&LW\3XEOLF:RUNV'LUHFWRU&LW\(QJLQHHUWKH2ZQHUDQGWKH (QJLQHHURI5HFRUG G :DWHUPDLQVKDOOKDYHDPLQLPXPFRYHURI¶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±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´HYHQW&1¶VVKRXOGEH PRGLILHGLQWKLVPRGHOHYHQWWRWRVLPXODWHQRLQILOWUDWLRQIUR]HQFRQGLWLRQV6WRUPZDWHU UHSRUWGDWHGLQFOXGHVWKHGD\VQRZPHOWPRGHOKRZHYHU&1VZHUHQRW DGMXVWHGWR3OHDVHXSGDWH&1V&RPSOHWH 3URYLGHVRLOERULQJVWRFRQILUPVRLOW\SHLQILOWUDWLRQUDWHVDQGJURXQGZDWHUHOHYDWLRQ &RQILUPWKDWWKHUHLVDIRRWVHSDUDWLRQEHWZHHQWKHERWWRPRI WKHLQILOWUDWLRQDUHDVDQG WKHJURXQGZDWHUHOHYDWLRQ&RPSOHWH 3URYLGHLQIRUPDWLRQRQSURSRVHGVWRUPVHZHUDQGGLVFKDUJHWRWKHLQILOWUDWLRQEDVLQ &RPSOHWH .MHOOEHUJ7ZLQ3LQHV$SDUWPHQWV3UHOLP)LQDO3ODW 3ODQV±:6%(QJLQHHULQJ5HYLHZ -DQXDU\ 3DJH 3UHWUHDWPHQWIRUUXQRIIWRLQILOWUDWLRQEDVLQLVUHTXLUHG3URYLGHSUHWUHDWPHQWGHYLFHDW FXUEFXWEHIRUHHQWHULQJWKHLQILOWUDWLRQEDVLQ&RPSOHWH $FFRUGLQJWRWKH&LW\¶VGHVLJQJXLGHOLQHVWKHPD[LPXPVLGHVORSHIRUWKHLQILOWUDWLRQ EDVLQVKRXOGEHVHH'HWDLORQSDJH&7KHFXUUHQWSODQVKRZVVORSHVDWD ZKLFKLVVWHHSHUWKDQDOORZHG&RPSOHWH 3URYLGHUDWLRQDOPHWKRGFDOFXODWLRQVFRQILUPLQJDGHTXDF\RIWKHVWRUPVHZHUGHVLJQIRU WKH\HDUVWRUPHYHQWLQFOXGLQJWKHWUHQFKGUDLQGHVLJQ&RPSOHWH )L[RYHUODSSLQJODEHOVRQXWLOLW\SODQ&RPSOHWH :DWHU4XDOLW\DQG9ROXPH5HGXFWLRQ $SSOLFDQWLVUHTXLUHGWRLQILOWUDWH´RYHUWKHQHWQHZLPSHUYLRXVDUHD&RPSOHWH 5HTXLUHG,QILOWUDWLRQ$PRXQW FI 3URSRVHG,QILOWUDWLRQ$PRXQW FI .MHOOEHUJ7ZLQ3LQHV$SDUWPHQWV3UHOLP)LQDO3ODW 3ODQV±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lanning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 1 3A. Public Hearing (CLOSED) - 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: 02/03/26 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, establishing a Data Center Planned Unit Development, including amendment to Sections 153.012 Definitions, 153.045 Industrial Base Zoning Districts, 153.046 Use Table, 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, establishing a Data Center Planned Unit Development, including amendment to Sections 153.012 Definitions, 153.045 Industrial Base Zoning Districts, 153.046 Use Table, 153.092 Accessory Use Standards and any other related sections of text necessary to define and regulate data center and technology campus land uses within the City, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission and to authorize the Chair of the Commission to execute said resolution. 3. Motion to postpone action on Resolution No. PC-2025-41. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 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. 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 adequately address changes in technology land uses, particularly how data center uses fit within the City’s plans for future growth. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 3 As such, City leaders first needed to determine whether and how to allow data centers as a specific land use within the City’s planning documents before decision on a specific project or development could be made. Land use policy as provided in the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan and regulation language within city codes must be adopted before any individual project can be considered for development in the community. Throughout 2025 and into 2026, the City held a series of public meetings and workshops to discuss how these unique land uses may be considered for development in Monticello. The meetings resulted in adopting amendments to the Monticello 2040 Plan to define the conditions under which data center land uses could be accommodated, and the drafting of a zoning ordinance specific to data center uses for consideration. Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan | Land Use Planning & Authority Land use planning is an authority granted to local governments by the State and is one of the City’s primary responsibilities. Specifically, Minnesota Statute 462 governs municipal planning and zoning. Land use regulation is intended to allow local governments to provide for public health, safety, and general welfare. In Minnesota, the foundation of land use planning is a Comprehensive Plan. The City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan is the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. The 2040 Plan is the city’s blueprint for growth and is the foundation upon which development and land use decisions are based. It is the official adopted policy regarding the future location, character, and quality of physical development, and the conservation and enjoyment of the natural environment. The 2040 Plan is used by the City Council, Planning Commission, other boards and Commissions, and City staff to inform and guide policy decisions regarding land use, development and infrastructure improvements within the City. Developers, real estate professionals and property owners also use the Plan as an informative document to understand the City’s vision and policies regarding land use and development. To address the potential for data center land uses, the City first reviewed the policies and land use objectives within the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. Following evaluation and a public hearing, the City adopted amendments to the Monticello 2040 Plan in early 2025 identifying the Light Industrial Park land use designation as appropriate to data center uses and outlining land use goals and priorities for data center development. The findings in support of the amendment supporting data center land uses included the potential to accomplish tax-base stability and diversity, and the potential to create employment including high-wage positions and levels of periodic employment as a component of the City’s economic development goals. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 4 As the City has continued to evaluate these uses, the development of data center facilities was also discussed as an opportunity to extend municipal utilities to the city’s growth areas and with the potential of reduced taxpayer impact, as the developer would be responsible for providing these utility extensions. The 2040 Plan amendments recognize that data center development has unique land use characteristics. These include the potential for significant land consumption, high-capacity demand on utilities, and off-site impacts to neighboring land uses. Data center development is also highly variable in scale, corresponding to related variability in benefit and impact. The City’s adopted 2040 Plan amendments addressed these land use concerns by outlining a series of review considerations for any data center land use. These include the following: 1. The City’s 2040 Plan recognizes data centers as a singularly unique land use due to size and scope. 2. Data center use locations will not create conflict with other land uses, especially residential land uses, through off-site impacts including unusual amounts of noise, lights, odors, or other similar aspects. Data center users will demonstrate site conditions that meet this condition and are consistent with other light industrial development. 3. Where data center development creates shortages in land supply, utility services, electric generation service to the broader area, or any other impacts on the City of Monticello or its neighboring communities, and which are not specifically mitigated by the data center developer and its associated partners, the City is under no obligation to accommodate the use within any land use district or location, or through any land use process. 4. Data center uses shall demonstrate convincingly that its burden on municipal services, infrastructure, or fiscal condition is completely mitigated by the data center project and its developers, and such mitigation is sustainable by its subsequent owners, users, and other related entities. 5. The data center will not inhibit future growth; it will accommodate and facilitate the extension of efficient and orderly municipal infrastructure to the edge of the development property consistent with the City’s plans for growth. 6. Full and clear assurances from both the data center use and the electric utility provider that data center development will not create threats of power loss to the community, nor limit the city’s other growth and development interests in the future. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 5 While the comprehensive plan provides broad guidance for land use policy, the zoning ordinance and other City codes 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 for the development of land in support of the City’s policy goals, detail the evaluation process for information provided by a land use applicant against those policies and ordinances, and establish enforcement provisions for the adopted ordinance and any approvals granted under it. City ordinances, including the zoning ordinance, should be prepared and applied consistent with state statutes and established land use case law. They must also balance the established goals for land development with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The Planning Commission and City Council held initial 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 in site size, design and operation exists. Through discussion, the City considered a variety of regulatory approaches. It was determined that a planned unit development approach would best address the City’s goals and complexity of data center development. A critical rationale for the use of PUD is that it requires a rezoning action. The use of rezoning provides for significant discretion on the part of the City, as it is a legislative action of the City. The use of DCPUD as proposed requires rezoning to the DCPUD District for any data center or data center campus use. Data centers would not be allowed outside of DCPUD zoning. Unlike the traditional PUD process, the proposed DCPUD approach does not allow the same level of flexibility from identified standards. Typical PUD zoning implies a level of flexibility with a companion level of added enhancement. The flexibility and enhancements are developed in a series of negotiated development goals through the PUD review process. In contrast, the Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 6 proposed DCPUD ordinance allows data centers as permitted uses, but only under a specific set of minimum performance standards. The PUD flexibility incorporated within the DCPUD district relates to those internal aspects of a proposed project that do not have substantive external impacts on the surrounding private property or on public facilities. 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. Public Hearing & Public Workshops The draft ordinance for a Data Center Planned Unit Development District was prepared and presented for consideration to the Planning Commission in August and September. A public hearing was held on the draft ordinance spanning both meetings. A considerable amount of public testimony was received during the hearing and in written form in August and September. In September, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and tabled action on the ordinance to allow for additional research and discussion, with guidance from the Planning Commission and City Council leading to next steps. The Planning Commission and City Council held four additional workshops in September and October of 2025. The workshops included discussion on how the draft ordinance currently addressed the concerns raised by the public during the hearings, and feedback on how the ordinance could be revised to further support effective regulation of the use in the interest of the community’s goals. Two public question and answer sessions were also held on September 24, 2025 and November 20, 2025. The feedback and comments received during the hearings and workshops resulted in significant revisions to the DCPUD ordinance. Staff requested consideration of the revised ordinance in November of 2025. The Planning Commission took the proposed ordinance amendment from the table and called for a public hearing for December 2, 2025 for the proposed ordinance amendment. In December of 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the revised draft of the DCPUD ordinance. Following additional public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing. During discussion, the Commission recognized the testimony received, as well as the number of written comments received. The Commission postponed action on the Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 7 recommendation decision, indicating a desire to further review the comments received and to confirm land use goals for data center uses with the City Council. The Commission requested a joint workshop with the Council. The Commission postponed action on the recommendation decision for the DCPUD ordinance during the regular meeting in January, citing the upcoming workshop with City Council on January 15, 2026. During the January joint workshop, staff provided supporting information on January site visits to data center campuses in central Iowa and reference information on Minnesota communities developing data center ordinances and projects. Among the Planning Commission and City Council members, there was consensus that preparation of a draft ordinance should continue, with one Council member stating opposition to continuing forward. Commissioners and Council members also provided comment on additional clarifications to be considered in the draft ordinance during the workshop. DCPUD Ordinance Components | Revised February Draft The proposed ordinance for consideration by the Planning Commission in February has been revised based on feedback during the January joint workshop, additional public comment, and additional research. The revisions have been made to balance the intent of comments with the City’s responsibility to adopt legal and enforceable ordinances. For purposes of review, the following outlines the ordinance elements and a summary of revisions made to the draft ordinance since December. Revision information is provided in italics. Numbering in the outline follows the draft ordinance enumeration. References with the draft ordinance to “chapter” are to the full zoning ordinance and references to “section” are to the DCPUD District. Definitions. These definitions are critical to the effectiveness of the ordinance 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 clarifies that only buildings within the PUD area eligible for floor area ratio calculations. This change was made in further support of the City’s goals for tax base development and diversification. Additional restrictions on data mining were added. As in the December draft, the proposed definitions will be located in the Definitions section of the zoning ordinance, not within the DCPUD zoning district section. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 8 (F)(1)Purpose. This statement outlines the intent of the district and 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. No revisions have been made to the statement from the December draft ordinance. (F)(2) 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 the financial commitment and dedication requirements for necessary infrastructure that may be required to serve sites. The recognition that public services may also be impacted is also noted. (F)(3) 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. No revisions from the December ordinance draft. (F)(4) 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 an allowance for telecommunication antennae that directly serve the DCPUD site, subject to the height and setback provisions of the DCPUD ordinance. (F)(5) 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 Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 9 intent of the 2040 Plan for data center development and the purpose of the data center ordinance. No revisions from the December ordinance draft. (F)(6) Temporary Uses. This section has been added. Data center campuses are often developed in phases over time and individual data center facilities are also frequently upgraded. These activities result in temporary construction yards and structures. This section allows specific temporary uses only. Later sections within the DCPUD detail further performance and submittal requirements for these areas. (F)(7) Environmental Review. No change from the December ordinance draft. (F)(8) 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. Noise Limits e. Lighting f. Landscaping and Screening g. Fencing Design and Placement Many of the performance standard areas have been revised to strengthen the minimum allowances. Additional or revised standards for back-up power generation, site landscaping, screening, and noise have been made. Performance standards for temporary uses have been added. The setback portion of the ordinance has been revised to further encourage the location of equipment that has the potential for off-site impact to the interior of the site. Where DCPUD sites do not incorporate this method of design, the setback has been revised to increase from 300’ to 500’. Setback for both when adjacent to industrial has been decreased. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 10 The ordinance language in this section, including specifically for noise and light, has been developed based on state statute, established case law, and the recommendations of the City Attorney. (F)(9) DCPUD Initiation of Proceedings. This section refers to the existing zoning ordinance as to those eligible to file a land use application. No change from the December ordinance draft. (F)(10) 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. Minor administrative revisions have been made to remove duplication or inconsistency and further note required financial responsibility of the applicant. (F)(11)-(13). DCPUD Concept Stage Submittal. The Concept Stage Submittal 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. Revised to incorporate additional community engagement and conceptually detail municipal utility extension requirements. (F)(14) Neighborhood Meeting. Added section to encourage a neighborhood meeting prior to formal application. (F)(15) DCPUD Rezoning and Development Stage Submittal Requirements. The list of required application materials is designed to provide the information necessary to determine if a DCPUD district should be created for a specific site and then evaluate whether a submitted application can prove consistency with the various standards of the district ordinance. For purposes of rezoning to establish the DCPUD District, the application materials need to support a rezoning decision. As a “Development Stage PUD,” it is specifically the developer/applicant’s responsibility to provide information on their specific project to verify that the application meets 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 Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 11 expected to comply with the minimum DCPUD performance standards, which will be verified at site plan review and building permit. The revised draft includes changes to the list of required submittals. Additions include a stakeholder engagement plan for sites over 20 acres, clarifications for phased sites, and narrative information for purposes of emergency response and preparation, and construction management. Other clarifications have been made related to power utility and telecommunication statements. Information on any accessory or temporary uses has been added to the submittal requirements. (F)(16) 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” (SIPA), 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. Clarifications to the site improvement plan agreement language are proposed to specify that a draft SIPA will be prepared for comment by the City Council at Development Stage but will not be subject to the Development Stage series of decisions. Where language for content of the SIPA was stricken, the language is specified instead in the SIPA section of ordinance. Other minor process revisions were also made. (F)(17) Final Stage Permit and Final Plat 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. No change from the December ordinance draft. (F)(18) 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. The section has been revised to clarify that the SIPA will be considered for approval with the Final Stage PUD. Where language for content of the SIPA was stricken, the language is specified instead in the SIPA section of ordinance. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 12 (F)(19) Site Improvement Plan Agreement. This clause specifies the use and role of this agreement in monitoring development and ongoing compliance. Revisions to detail specific content of the SIPA added, revised or consolidated from a prior reference. (F)(20) 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. No revisions from the December ordinance draft. (F)(21) 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. Timelines and process for revocation of a portion of the DCPUD due to non-use have been added. (F)(22) 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 expected to change over time, without need for revisions to the DCPUD zoning or its Site Improvement Plan Agreement. Clerical correction. 14. 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. No revisions from the December ordinance draft. 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. Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/2026 13 STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION The City adopted amendments to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan in early 2025 to allow data center land uses under a series of specific related considerations. Adoption of an ordinance regulating data center uses is recommended based on the current policies adopted in the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan and based on the findings identified in the resolution for approval. If the City determines that additional revisions to the ordinance are recommended, it can direct those revisions as part of the decision for adoption or postpone action to request the revisions be made and brought back for consideration. 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 should then begin 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. Ordinance No. 8XX – Draft (Redline) D. Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan - Light Industrial Park, Excerpt E. Monticello Strategic Transition Plan, Excerpt F. Setback, Height and Floor Area Ratio Examples G. Comment Response Summary H. Citizen Comments – Public Hearings I. Citizen Comments – Post December 2, 2025 Public Hearing J. City Land Use Process Timeline with Agenda/Minute Links 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, 153.090 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 February, 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. 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. Accessory uses or structures which are not buildings such as electrical substations, parking areas, etc. shall not be considered eligible floor area. 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, specifically including but not limited to cryptocurrency, 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 20,000 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 uses 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. ORDINANCE NO. 3 (a) Land is guided as Light Industrial Park in the City’s applicable Comprehensive Plan. (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 services or 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 will provide the necessary financial guarantees to extend necessary municipal utilities to the DCPUD site, and if developed in phases will avoid the stranding or incomplete extension of municipal infrastructure resources to the furthest extent of the DCPUD or other extension point as determined by the City. 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 ORDINANCE NO. 4 lands or other 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 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 electrical 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 ORDINANCE NO. 5 provisions of this chapter, except as otherwise prohibited or regulated by this section. (e) Roof-mounted solar-energy systems or green-roof installations. (f) EV charging stations. (g) Wireless telecommunication service antenna and support structure(s) necessary to the function of the DCPUD, subject to the requirements of this section for setback and height. (h) 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 Permit 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, except that temporary membrane building structures may be authorized under the requirements 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 this chapter. (f) Data mining as defined by this ordinance. (6) Temporary uses. Temporary uses allowed in the DCPUD are as follows, and are subject to the requirements of this section: (a) Temporary construction staging areas directly related to the applicable phase of development. (b) Temporary structures intended solely for the storage of construction materials directly related to the applicable development phase, or to the replacement of materials and equipment for the DCPUD. (7) 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 ORDINANCE NO. 6 may require separate environmental review may be completed after application. Such review is subject to the applicable provisions of this chapter. (8) 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, except in such case as the DCPUD site is a single previously platted lot, and the DCPUD 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 DCPUD be constructed at an FAR of less than .25, exclusive of the extent of approved site grading limits. (c) The minimum setback for all principal, accessory, and appurtenant structures shall be as follows. Table X-X Structure or Use Setback from DCPUD Property Line to Structure or Use within DCPUD (Setbacks are also applicable for parcels adjacent to the DCPUD boundary 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 Public parkland, or public recreational property Parcels guided or zoned commercial Parcels guided or zoned industrial Principal building structure(s) when any 100’ 200’ 200’ 100’ 100’ ORDINANCE NO. 7 mechanical equipment (including generators) is: • fully screened by principal building(s), or • surrounded by a solid wall structure from all points of the DCPUD boundary, or • located within a principal building(s), or • ground mounted on or along an interior façade of the site’s principal structure(s) Principal building structure(s) when any mechanical equipment (including generators) is oriented to any exterior portion of the structure(s) and/or non-ground mounted 200’ 500’ 500’ 200’ 100’ Off-Street Parking (including drive aisles) 100’ 150’ 150’ 50’ 50’ Off-Street Loading Facilities 100’ 150’ 150’ 100’ 100’ 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. ORDINANCE NO. 8 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 telecommunication antenna within the DCPUD may exceed this height up to a maximum of 100’ as specifically identified and approved in the Final Stage PUD. Electrical 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) Temporary uses within the DCPUD shall be subject to the following standards: i. Any temporary use(s) must be depicted in the Development and Final Stage Permit DCPUD Site Plans, including location and area of size, and authorized in the adopted DCPUD ordinance. ii. A specified commencement and termination date for the temporary use(s) shall be specifically authorized by the adopted DCPUD ordinance. iii. Setbacks shall be established by the adopted DCPUD ordinance. iv. All temporary construction staging areas must be fully paved. ORDINANCE NO. 9 v. Temporary buildings or structures must be fully screened in accordance with the standards of this section. vi. The maximum height of temporary structures shall be 30’. vii. Temporary construction lighting shall be subject to operational hours of 8 AM – 7 PM and shall be subject to the lighting standards of this chapter. (h) The DCPUD shall be designed and built to incorporate sound mitigation methods to reduce sound levels emanating from the DCPUD. Sound 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. i. Prior to approval, a Preliminary Noise Study shall be submitted by a third-party engineer providing ambient noise level information at the DCPUD property boundary and demonstrating to the City that the operation of the DCPUD facilities will comply with MPCA noise rules. ii. Upon commencement of operation of the DCPUD principal use facilities, the operator must conduct an additional noise study, as measured at the property line of the nearest residential property to the DCPUD or other noise sensitive use as reasonably determined by the City, demonstrating to the City that the operation of the data center complies with MPCA noise rules. iii. Upon commencement of the operation of the DCPUD, the operator of a DCPUD must provide a liaison between the hours of 8:00 am and 10:00 pm CST each day to respond to complaints about noise emanating from the DCPUD. iv. The City may order that the DCPUD operator complete an additional sound study once per year during peak operation of the DCPUD mechanical equipment. The DCPUD operator must provide the results of the noise study, conducted by a third-party engineer, to the City within 30 days of the request by the City or show proof that they have contracted with a third-party engineer and the results will be available in a reasonable amount of time. v. Pursuant to City Code 130.09(D0, the City may require a Noise Impact Statement for low-frequency sound emissions and demonstrate mitigation plans consistent with the recommendations of the Statement. ORDINANCE NO. 10 (i) Back-up power generators within the DCPUD may only be used for back- up electrical supply during a power outage or when requested by the electric utility provider for uses within the DCPUD. i. Testing of generators may only occur between the hours of 8 AM and 5 PM, Monday through Friday. A testing schedule must be filed annually with the City no later than January 15 of each year. (j) 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. (k) Any outdoor facilities or equipment such as back-up generators, parking and private circulation areas, temporary construction staging areas and temporary structures, other mechanical equipment regardless of location, security or chain link fencing when located within 200’ of the DCPUD property line, 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, with the exception of designated entrance points. Screening is subject to the following additioan requirements and exceptions: 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. 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. ORDINANCE NO. 11 v. In all cases, 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. (l) All trash enclosures and storage must be located within a structure and identified on DCPUD plans. (m) Rooftop and wall-mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened when viewed at comparable grade from adjoining properties, and from the public right of way via screening walls or parapets which match the building materials of the building on which they are located. (n) 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 or seeding 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. (o) 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 Section 153.060 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 berm of a minimum height of 10’ above the adjacent roadway centerline elevation or property line elevation directly adjacent (whichever is higher), with a 50% minimum evergreen species requirement, to be spaced throughout the buffer and located on the exterior down-slope of the berm. iii. The required perimeter buffer for the full DCPUD area shall be installed and completed with the first phase of development. ORDINANCE NO. 12 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. vi. The use of native species is encouraged. (p) 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. (q) 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. (r) The facility shall provide parking for employees or service personnel at a rate per §153.067, Parking Schedule #2. (s) Electrical substations directly serving the DCPUD shall be exempt from the District performance standard requirements of this section, but shall be subject to the following requirements: i. Must be located within the DCPUD boundary. 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 of this section. v. Electrical transmission lines extended to the substation are not subject to §153.065 Underground Utilities. (t) 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 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. ORDINANCE NO. 13 (9) 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. (10) DCPUD Application. (a) 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. (b) 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. (c) Applications for Preliminary and Final Plat as required by this section shall be submitted in accordance with § 152: Subdivisions. (d) All required applications are subject to the adopted fee and escrows established by City ordinance. (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. (11) 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. (b) Provide a forum for public engagement and 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. ORDINANCE NO. 14 (12) 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, including the timing for the extension of municipal utilities to the DCPUD and to adjacent properties, if applicable. (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) For sites over 20 acres, a stakeholder engagement plan detailing how the DCPUD operator will engage and communicate with residents, property owners, local utilities and the City throughout the DCPUD application and development process. (j) 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. 15 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. (13) 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. (14) Neighborhood Meeting. The DCPUD concept proposer is encouraged to host a neighborhood meeting prior to submission of a formal application for Development Stage Permit. ORDINANCE NO. 16 (15) 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 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 by phase (if applicable) including general projections for tax base, building valuation, sustainability in operations and site design, 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. For sites over 20 acres, a stakeholder engagement plan detailing how the DCPUD operator will engage and communicate with residents, property owners, local utilities, and the City throughout the DCPUD application and development process. vi. If the DCPUD is to be developed in phases, a proposed phasing of full DCPUD site development, including number of phases, development timeline for each phase and for the full DCPUD. vii. Calculation table detailing the gross area calculation of the full DCUD, the area calculation of each allowable exception to the DCFAR, and resulting FAR for each phase of the DCPUD and full DCPUD. viii. Maximum building height for any proposed principal structure on site and maximum height of any additional appurtenant, temporary, or accessory structure on site. ORDINANCE NO. 17 ix. Description of proposed building materials for all principal, temporary 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. iv. Information on any hazardous materials or operational processes which require specific or additional emergency management response or consideration. This shall include a statement providing for electronic hazardous waste disposal by a licensed operator. (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 setbacks as required by this section. iii. Layout of proposed lots with future lot and block numbers. iv. Area calculations for each lot within the DCPUD property boundary. v. Outlots planned for public dedication and/or open space. ORDINANCE NO. 18 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 proposed to be 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. (h) If the DCPUD is to be developed in phases, a 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 five years. (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) Preliminary Noise Study meeting the District performance standards requirements of this section. ORDINANCE NO. 19 (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, which shall be required for all sites over 20 acres and at the discretion of the City Engineer for sites under 20 acres, 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. 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. Necessary roadway and pedestrian improvements shall be designed in accordance with City standards. 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: ORDINANCE NO. 20 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 DCPUD boundary with phasing plan 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. 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. ORDINANCE NO. 21 (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 infrastructure and service demand. (s) For sites over 20 acres and for any DCPUD site to be developed in phases, a construction impact plan including designated construction traffic routes, hours of operations, and mitigation plans for lighting, noise, vibration and dust. (t) DCPUD sites shall be responsible for completion of the electric utility provider’s required studies and shall provide a statement indicating completion of the required study and summarize power capacity for the DCPUD, the proposed routing plan, and required electrical infrastructure improvements. (u) General statement of telecommunication system improvements so as to avoid any local service interruption during normal operations. (v) If applicable, proposed location, area and duration of any accessory or temporary uses within the DCPUD. (w) Any other information as directed by the Community Development Department required to evaluate the specific DCPUD proposal. (16) DCPUD Development Stage Permit, Preliminary Plat and DCPUD Rezoning Review. (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) The hearing for rezoning and Preliminary Plat may run concurrently with the hearing for the DCPUD Development Stage permit. (d) 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. ORDINANCE NO. 22 (e) As part of the review process for the DCPUD Development Stage Permit, a draft Site Improvement Plan Agreement (SIPA) following the requirements of this section shall be prepared by the City following a complete application submittal. Such draft agreement shall be provided for City Council comment, but shall not be part of the Development Stage Permit approval consideration. 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. (f) 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 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 Stage 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, and the City Council will hold any required public hearing. (g) Development Stage DCPUD approval shall occur by adoption of a rezoning ordinance for the subject property specifying the uses, 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. (h) 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. ORDINANCE NO. 23 (i) After consideration of the Planning Commission recommendation and/or hearing, 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, Development Stage DCPUD permit, and preliminary plat shall require the approval of the majority of all the members of the City Council, except where state law may specifically require a super majority. (j) After consideration of the Planning Commission recommendation and/or hearing, the City Council may, in its sole discretion, deny the Development Stage DCPUD permit, DCPUD rezoning, the 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. (17) 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 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 section. 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 ORDINANCE NO. 24 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 shall meet the requirements of this section. (18) 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 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. The final Site Improvement Plan Agreement shall be considered with the Final Stage PUD and Final Plat. Approval of the Final Stage DCPUD Permit, Final Plat and Site Improvement Plan Agreement 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 ORDINANCE NO. 25 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. (19) 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 detail and control the terms and conditions of the approval given by City Council, including but not limited to the approved DCPUD site improvement plans and performance standards, development phasing, adopted DCPUD ordinance, the required public improvements and completion dates for improvements, the fiscal requirements, guarantees and securities necessary for the construction of all required public improvements and timing of their submission, required site development fees and escrows and timing of their submission, specification of required public improvement warranties, 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. ORDINANCE NO. 26 (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. (20) 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. (21) 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 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 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 ORDINANCE NO. 27 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, the City Council may act after the 3 year period to revoke the DCPUD for the undeveloped portions of the DCPUD and require amendment to the governing Final Stage PUD approval and the SIPA, and rezone the undeveloped land to any other zoning district, following a public hearing to be held by the City Council. Extensions 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. (22) 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. ORDINANCE NO. 28 2. Eliminate, diminish, or vary from the minimum performance standards of this section. 3. Eliminate, diminish, or vary 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. (23) 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. (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 ORDINANCE NO. 29 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: 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. Accessory uses or structures which are not buildings such as electrical substations, parking areas, etc. shall not be considered eligible floor area. 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, specifically including but not limited to cryptocurrency, 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 205,000 square feet individually or when assembled in multiple temporary or portable structures and are not constructed of customary industrial b uilding 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 uses 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. ORDINANCE NO. 3 (a) Land is guided as Light Industrial Park in the City’s applicable Comprehensive Plan. (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 services or 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 extend necessary municipal utilities to the DCPUD site, and if developed in phases will avoid the stranding or incomplete extension of municipal infrastructure resources to the furthest extent of the DCPUD or other extension point as determined by the City. 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 ORDINANCE NO. 4 lands or other 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 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 electrical 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 ORDINANCE NO. 5 provisions of this chapter, except as otherwise prohibited or regulated by this section. (e) Roof-mounted solar-energy systems or green-roof installations. (f) EV charging stations. (g) Wireless telecommunication service antenna and support structure(s) necessary to the function of the DCPUD, subject to t he requirements of this section for setback and height. (g)(h) 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 Permit 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, except that temporary membrane building structures may be authorized under the requirements 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 thise chapter. (f) Data mining as defined by this ordinance. (6) Temporary uses. Temporary uses allowed in the DCPUD are as follows, and are subject to the requirements of this section: (a) Temporary construction staging areas directly related to the applicable phase of development. (b) Temporary structures intended solely for the storage of construction materials directly related to the applicable development phase, or to the replacement of materials and equipment for the DCPUD. (7) 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 d evelopment which ORDINANCE NO. 6 may require separate environmental review may be completed after application. Such review is subject to the applicable provisions of this chapter. (8) 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, except in such case as the DCPUD site is a single previously platted lot, and the DCPUD 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%, exclusive of the extent of approved site grading limits. (c) The minimum setback for all principal, accessory, and appurtenant structures shall be as follows. Table X-X Structure or Use Setback from DCPUD Property Line to Structure or Use within DCPUD (Setbacks are also applicable for parcels adjacent to the DCPUD boundary 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, Ppublic parkland, or public recreational property Parcels guided or zoned commercial Parcels guided or zoned industrial Principal building structure(s) when any 100’ 200’ 200’ 100’ 100’ ORDINANCE NO. 7 mechanical equipment (including generators) is: • fully screened by principal building(s), or • surrounded by a solid wall structure from all points of the DCPUD boundary, or • located within a principal building(s), or • is ground mounted located on or along an to the interior façade of the site’s principal structure(s) and ground mounted Principal building structure(s) when any mechanical equipment (including generators) is oriented to any exterior portion of the structure(s) and/or non-ground mounted 200’ 5300’ 5300’ 200’ 1200’ Off-Street Parking (including drive aisles) 100’ 150’ 150’ 50’ 50’ Off-Street Loading Facilities 100’ 150’ 150’ 100’ 100’ 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 ORDINANCE NO. 8 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 telecommunication antenna within the DCPUD may exceed this height up to a maximum of 100’ as specifically identified and approved in the Final Stage PUD. Electrical sSubstation 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) Temporary uses within the DCPUD shall be subject to the following standards: i. Any temporary use(s) must be depicted in the Development and Final Stage Permit DCPUD Site Plans, including location and area of size, and authorized in the adopted DCPUD ordinance. ii. A specified commencement and termination date for the temporary use(s) shall be specifically authorized by the adopted DCPUD ordinance. iii. Setbacks shall be established by the adopted DCPUD ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 9 iv. All temporary construction staging areas must be fully paved. v. Temporary buildings or structures must be fully screened in accordance with the standards of this section. vi. The maximum height of temporary structures shall be 30’. vii. Temporary construction lighting shall be subject to operational hours of 8 AM – 7 PM and shall be subject to the lighting standards of this chapter. (h) Noise The DCPUD shall be designed and built to incorporate sound mitigation methods to reduce sound levels emanating from the D CPUD. Sound 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. i. Prior to approval, a Preliminary Noise Study shall be submitted by a third-party engineer providing ambient noise level information at the DCPUD property boundary and demonstrating to the City that the operation of the DCPUD facilities will comply with MPCA noise rules. ii. Upon commencement of operation of the DCPUD principal use facilities, the operator must conduct an additional noise study, as measured at the property line of the nearest residential property to the DCPUD or other noise sensitive use as reasonably determined by the City, demonstrating to the City that the operation of the data center complies with MPCA noise rules. iii. Upon commencement of the operation of the DCPUD, the operator of a DCPUD must provide a liaison between the hours of 8:00 am and 10:00 pm CST each day to respond to complaints about noise emanating from the DCPUD. iv. The City may order that the DCPUD operator complete an additional sound study once per year during peak operation of the DCPUD mechanical equipment. The DCPUD operator must provide the results of the noise study, conducted by a third-party engineer, to the City within 30 days of the request by the City or show proof that they have contracted with a third-party engineer and the results will be available in a reasonable amount of time. (g)v. Pursuant to City Code 130.09(D0, the City may require a Noise Impact Statement for low-frequency sound emissions and demonstrate mitigation plans consistent with the recommendations of the Statement.emanating from the facility, or from any ORDINANCE NO. 10 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. 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)(i) Back-up power generators within the DCPUD may only be used for back-up power generation purposes electrical supply during a power outage or when requested by the electric utility provider for uses within the DCPUD. i. Testing of generators may only occur between the hours of 8 AM and 54 PM, Monday through Friday. A testing schedule must be filed annually with the City no later than January 15 of each year. (i)(j) 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)(k) Any outdoor facilities or equipment such as back-up generators, parking and private circulation areas, temporary construction staging areas and temporary structures, other mechanical equipment regardless of location, security or chain link fencing when located within 200’ of the ORDINANCE NO. 11 DCPUD property line, 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, with the exception of designated entrance points. Screening is subject to the following additioan requirements and exceptions: 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. 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. In all cases, fFences 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)(l) All trash enclosures and storage must be located within a structure and identified on DCPUD plans. (l)(m) Rooftop and wall-mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened when viewed from the adjoining property lines viewed at comparable grade from adjoining properties, and from the public right of way via screening walls or parapets which match the building materials of the building on which they are located. (m)(n) 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 or seeding in all ground cover areas not otherwise used for tree or shrub plantings except as exempted for approved native plantings. ORDINANCE NO. 12 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)(o) 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 Section 153.060 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 berm of a minimum height of 10’ above the adjacent roadway centerline elevation or property line elevation directly adjacent (whichever is higher), with a 250% minimum evergreen species requirement, to be spaced throughout the buffer and located on the exterior down-slope of the berm. 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. v.vi. The use of native species is encouraged. (o)(p) 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)(q) 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)(r) The facility shall provide parking for employees or service personnel at a rate per §153.067, Parking Schedule #2. ORDINANCE NO. 13 (r)(s) Electrical sSubstations directly servingwithin the DCPUD shall be exempt from the District performance standard requirements of this section, but shall be subject to the following requirements: i. Must be located within the DCPUD boundary. 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 of this section 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)(t) 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 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. (9) 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. (10) 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)(a) 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. ORDINANCE NO. 14 (c)(b) 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)(c) Applications for Preliminary and Final Plat as required by this section shall be submitted in accordance with § 152: Subdivisions. (d) All required applications are subject to the adopted fee and escrows established by City ordinance. (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. (11) 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. (b) Provide a forum for public engagement and 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. (12) 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. ORDINANCE NO. 15 (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, including the timing for the extension of municipal utilities to the DCPUD and to adjacent properties, if applicable. (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) For sites over 20 acres, a stakeholder engagement plan detailing how the DCPUD operator will engage and communicate with residents, property owners, local utilities and the City throughout the DCPUD application and development process. (i)(j) 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.). 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). ORDINANCE NO. 16 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. (132) 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. (143) Neighborhood Meeting. The DCPUD concept proposer is encouraged to host a neighborhood meeting prior to submission of a formal application for Development Stage Permit. (15) 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 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. ORDINANCE NO. 17 (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 by phase (if applicable) including general projections for tax base, building valuation, sustainability in operations and site design, 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. For sites over 20 acres, a stakeholder engagement plan detailing how the DCPUD operator will engage and communicate with residents, property owners, local utilities, and the City throughout the DCPUD application and development process. v.vi. If the DCPUD is to be developed in phases, a pProposed phasing of full DCPUD site development, including number of phases, development timeline for each phase and for the full DCPUD. vi.vii. Calculation table detailing the gross area calculation of the full DCUD, the area calculation of each allowable exception to the DCFAR, and resulting FAR for each phase of the DCPUD and full DCPUD . vii.viii. Maximum building height for any proposed principal structure on site and maximum height of any additional appurtenant, temporary, or accessory structure on site. viii.ix. Description of proposed building materials for all principal, temporary 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. ORDINANCE NO. 18 iii. Estimated building square footage within the DCPUD site improvement boundary by phase. iii.iv. Information on any hazardous materials or operational processes which require specific or additional emergency management response or consideration. This shall include a statement providing for electronic hazardous waste disposal by a licensed operator. (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 s as required by this section. iii. Layout of proposed lots with future lot and block numbers. iv. Area calculations for each parcelot 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 proposed to be located within the DCPUD, including area in acreage and applicable setback for substation and general height information . ORDINANCE NO. 19 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. (h) If the DCPUD is to be developed in phases, a gGraphic 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 five years. (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) Preliminary NNoise Sstudy meeting the District performance standards requirements of this section.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, which shall be required for all sites over 20 acres and at the discretion of the City Engineer for sites under 20 acres, evaluating: ORDINANCE NO. 20 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. 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. Necessary roadway and pedestrian improvements shall be designed in accordance with City standards. 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 ORDINANCE NO. 21 with phasing plan 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. vi. 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: ORDINANCE NO. 22 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 infrastructure and service demand. (s) For sites over 20 acres and for any DCPUD site to be developed in phases, a construction impact plan including designated construction traffic routes, hours of operations, and mitigation plans for lighting, noise, vibration and dust. (s)(t) DCPUD sites shall be responsible for completion of the electric utility provider’s required studies and shall provide a sStatement indicating completion of the required study and summarize , study, or permit provided by the electric utility provider which demonstrates adequate power 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)(u) General sStatement of telecommunication provider(s) information detailing sufficient system improvements so as to avoid any local service interruption during normal operations. (v) If applicable, proposed location, area and duration of any accessory or temporary uses within the DCPUD. (u)(w) Any other information as directed by the Community Development Department required to evaluate the specific DCPUD proposal. (164) DCPUD Development Stage Permit, Preliminary Plat and DCPUD Rezoning Review. (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) The hearing for rezoning and Preliminary Plat may run concurrently with the hearing for the DCPUD Development Stage permit. (c)(d) As part of the review process for the DCPUD applications, the Community Development Department shall generate an analysis of the ORDINANCE NO. 23 proposal against the Approval Criteria of this section to formulate a recommendation regarding the rezoning to the Planning Commission and City Council. (d)(e) As part of the review process for the DCPUD Development Stage Permit, a draft Site Improvement Plan Agreement (SIPA) following the requirements of this section shall be prepared by the City following athe 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 provided included for the City Council comment ’s review of the Development Stage Permit, but shall not be part of the Development Stage Permit approval consideration. 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)(f) 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 Ddevelopment Stage 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, and the City Council will hold any required public hearing. (f)(g) Development Stage DCPUD approval shall occur by adoption of a rezoning ordinance for the subject property specifying the uses, 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 ORDINANCE NO. 24 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)(h) 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)(i) 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, Development Stage DCPUD permit, and preliminary plat shall require the approval of the majority of all the members of the City Council, except where state law may specifically require a super majority except as may be exempted by state statute. (i)(j) 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, DCPUD rezoning, 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. (175) 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 time limits as necessary. The applicant shall submit such extension request no ORDINANCE NO. 25 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 sectionchapter. 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 shall meet the requirements of this section 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 and securities, escrows, ORDINANCE NO. 26 and warranties, and their timing of submission and any other information deemed necessary by the city;. (186) 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. The final Site Improvement Plan Agreement shall be considered with the Final Stage PUD and Final Plat. Approval of the PUD Final Stage DCPUD Permit, and Final Plat and Site Improvement Plan Agreement 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. (197) 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 detail and control the terms and conditions of the approval given by City Council, including but not limited include, at a minimum, reference to the approved DCPUD site improvement plans and performance standards, development phasing, adopted DCPUD ORDINANCE NO. 27 ordinance, the required public improvements and completion dates for improvements, and therelated fiscal requirements, guarantees and securities necessary for the construction of all required public improvements and he required letters of credit, all required development fees and payments and/or securities, escrowstiming of their submission, required site development fees and escrows and timing of their submission, specification of required public improvement and warrantiesand 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. (2018) 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. ORDINANCE NO. 28 (219) 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 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, the City Council may act after the 3 year period to revoke the DCPUD for the undeveloped portions of the DCPUD and require amendment to the governing Final Stage PUD approval and the SIPA, and rezone the undeveloped land to any other zoning district, following a public hearing to be held by the City Council. EOne extensions from this ORDINANCE NO. 29 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 approval, revoke the SIPA, and rezone the land to any other zoning district, following a public hearing to be held by the City Council. (220) 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 vaery 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. ORDINANCE NO. 30 (231) 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. (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__. ORDINANCE NO. 31 __________________________________ Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Jennifer Schreiber, City Clerk AYES: NAYS: 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 Data Center Planned Unit Development (DCPUD) Ordinance Public Comment Response Public participation and feedback have been critical to the City’s consideration of land use policy and regulations for data center uses. The table below provides a summary of comments received during the development of the Data Center Planned Unit Development (DCPUD) ordinance. The table provides response information on how a comment issue is addressed either by proposed ordinance and/or through other regulatory review processes. The table provides general themes referenced in the comments and may not be reflective of all specific individual comments. Comment Theme Response Electric Power In Minnesota, electric power generation, transmission and distribution are highly regulated by the state. Even with these regulatory protections in place, the proposed DCPUD ordinance includes two important requirements: • The application materials require confirmation they’ve completed necessary studies of the new demand and infrastructure with the power supplier. • Approval Criteria allowing the city to approve or deny projects based on whether they’ve adequately demonstrated power supplier capacity for existing customers and the city’s continued growth. Consumption (Grid strain, access to power) Individual electric utility providers require specific studies to understand system demand and capacity as well as to determine the infrastructure and service improvements necessary to serve large power users. These studies are completed at the request and cost of the new user. Rates Under recent state legislation, large data center users are subject to a specific rate review process when served by a public utility. The legislation includes protections for existing ratepayers and requires the large user to pay for their own related infrastructure investments and operations costs. [Chapter 12 - MN Laws] Environmental Concerns Minnesota statutes and rules provide the framework for projects requiring environmental review. In addition to comprehensive project review, specific aspects of a development may trigger separate environmental study and mitigation. The proposed DCPUD requires any applicable general environmental review to be complete before a land use application can be submitted. Details on any additional environmental review required, and federal or state permit status are also required as part of application information. Water Consumption Recent legislation adopted by the state outlines a specific process for large water users. [Chapter 12 - MN Laws] This is in addition to existing statutes and rules that include agency review requirements and permits for water consumption. The City is already responsible for complying with these with aquifer restrictions and pumping limits. The proposed DCPUD also includes: • Water studies evaluating the phased and full demand on the municipal system and available capacity. • A phasing plan to extend required infrastructure to serve proposed sites with municipal water and a corresponding financial plan for how the developer will fund the improvements. • Approval Criteria allowing the City to approve or deny projects based on both the demonstration of available water capacity without limitations to existing users or future growth as well as the applicants ability to provide financial guarantees for required infrastructure improvements. Air/Emissions The state’s existing regulations, along with any required environmental review processes, address air quality issues that may result from industrial or other land uses. With these rules in place, along with adopted building and fire codes, the City is advised against requiring specific mechanical operations systems. Water Resource Impacts (Quality, Wetlands, Stormwater, etc) The State of Minnesota has significant existing regulations for the protection and management of water resources, along with required environmental review processes intended to address water resource impacts resulting from development. For example, there is a very specific process for delineating wetlands and permitting any mitigation. The City is required to follow these for any development project. The City is also required to follow its state permitting for stormwater management and drinking water quality. The proposed DCPUD ordinance requires compliance with all sections of the City’s zoning ordinance, including those for drainage, erosion control and stormwater management. The DCPUD ordinance also has specific requirements for application submittals demonstrating compliance with stormwater management and the wetland review process. Wildlife Existing federal and state regulations, along with required environmental review, address impacts to protected species that may result from municipal growth. While development of any land may cause potential loss of habitat, the City’s adopted planning documents and ordinances are intended to protect land areas of significance. The Approval Criteria within the DCPUD also allows the City to consider how data center development relates to the achievement of the City’s long-range development goals, including those for natural resources. Hazardous Materials Hazardous materials handling is regulated by both federal and state agencies and may require specific permitting. Though recognizing these materials are regulated by other entities, the DCPUD ordinance includes an application requirement for additional information on any materials or processes that may require additional emergency response or consideration, including information on waste handling. Sustainability Practices Recent state legislation for large data centers sets building sustainability requirements, which must be accomplished within 3 years. [Chapter 12 - MN Laws] Further, the DCPUD ordinance encourages: • Use of native plantings • Use of sustainable building, site and operations design. • Allowable accessory uses like solar energy panels, green roof installations and EV charging. Loss of Land for Other Uses The City of Monticello and Monticello Township have an approved Orderly Annexation Agreement. The intent of this agreement is to allow areas of agricultural and related uses within a defined annexation area until urban development is proposed. The City has adopted a land use plan for that includes both land within the existing city limits and the annexation area, the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. It was adopted after months of public engagement and careful consideration by appointed and elected officials. The Plan lays out detailed information and study on land use, economic development, parks and recreation and public infrastructure. It also directs strategy for how the City will grow and how land will be used, both within its boundary and into the annexation area. The DCPUD includes: • A narrative within the application materials to help evaluate the public benefit of a project to the City’s overall land use goals. • Approval Criteria that allows the City to evaluate whether an application displaces other land uses critical to long- term growth and resiliency specific to its 2040 land use goals. Site Decommissioning or Overbuilding The Approval Criteria language within the DCPUD ordinance requires the City to evaluate the amount of land utilized for data center uses against its ability to achieve community goals as a fundamental finding for rezoning any land area to DCPUD. As related to the potential vacation of a site by a data center user, the DCPUD ordinance includes a provision for revoking unused portions of the DCPUD land area if not utilized within a specific amount of time. And, like any other development, if a use is discontinued, the property owner is still required to pay property taxes on land and buildings. The site is also eligible for re-use under zoning adopted by the City for the site at that time. Construction Impacts The DCPUD ordinance includes numerous provisions relating to construction activity, including: • Specifying what uses are allowed for temporary periods of time. • Performance standards for temporary uses, including limits on construction lighting and required screening. • Application materials describing the location and duration and how they will comply with ordinance standards. • A specific provision requiring large sites to have a construction impact plan. Noise The State of Minnesota regulates noise through administrative rules adopted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The City is advised against requiring noise regulations which are stricter than the state standard. However, the DCPUD requires: • A preliminary noise study at the property line of the nearest residential property. • Demonstration that the operation will comply with MPCA noise rules. • The DCPUD to be designed and built to include sound mitigation. • A designated point of contact to respond to any noise complaints. • Additional noise studies at peak operation to monitor compliance. The required Site Improvement Plan Agreement, which governs DCPUD approval, also requires noise compliance. Light Pollution The DCPUD ordinance requires strict light limits at the DCPUD property line and a minimum distance for light sources, which are intended to minimize light spillover. In addition, the DCPUD refers to the base code standards for general site lighting. The existing code requires downcast, fully shielded wall lighting and maximum light pole height. Job Creation & Employment The Monticello 2040 Plan recognizes that industrial land uses have the potential for creation of employment. In its findings for the consideration of data center development in light industrial areas, the City recognized that data centers have the potential to generate high- wage positions (although at a rate much less dense when compared to other light industrial users) and levels of periodic employment through site development and reinvestment. Zoning ordinances are intended to regulate the manner in which land develops. As such the DCPUD does not require specific employment counts. The applicant may submit employment information as part of their narrative on their proposed project, but it is not a decision-factor for zoning to DCPUD. Traffic and Road Impact For larger data center sites, a detailed traffic study is required by the DCPUD. The ordinance then requires the DCPUD developer to provide detail on the cost of required improvements identified by the study and information on their financial contribution. As with any new land development, development is required to pay for its own internal road network and to provide the necessary rights of way or easements to support the project. The DCPUD also includes planning for public roadways and non-vehicular facilities for necessary connections to adjacent parcels. Construction impact information on the roadway network is also a requirement. Municipal Infrastructure & Services The DCPUD includes a significant number of provisions related to the installation and cost participation for extension of public utilities and services. These include Approval Criteria, submittal requirements for studies on infrastructure and service demand, location, capacity and cost, and a Site Improvement Plan agreement detailing all infrastructure and service requirements and securities. In summary, consistent with the City’s current development practice, development must pay for the improvements required to develop and operate the proposed use. Taxpayer Impact The potential to achieve tax base stability and diversity in alignment with the City’s economic development goals was a component of the findings in support of amending the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. The DCPUD requests that applicants provide tax projection information as part of their narrative to help the City understand consistency with its broader land use goals. The DCPUD also supports the opportunity to extend municipal utilities to the city’s growth areas, with the potential of reduced taxpayer impact, as the DCPUD outlines the developer’s responsibility for providing these utility extensions. Residential Proximity The Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan carefully considered how to achieve a resilient mix of residential, park, commercial, and industrial land, understanding that each component is critical to long-term vitality. As these uses have varying impacts, the City utilizes land use planning and regulatory tools, including buffers, setbacks, screening, and other site development requirements to facilitate development requests while balancing impacts to adjacent land uses. With each request for rezoning, the DCPUD includes Approval Criteria that allows the City to evaluate how a DCPUD proposal meets its land use goals and its interaction with other land use designations, such as residential uses. The DCPUD ordinance also includes specific site development requirements to limit off-site impacts to other land uses, including residential uses. These include setbacks, and restrictions or limits for outdoor storage, light, and noise. Property Values Property values established for taxation purposes relate first to the specific type or class of land for the specific site. For example, whether a site is residential, commercial or industrial. Assessors then analyze factors such as comparable recent sales, property characteristics like size, age, condition, and recent property improvements. To consider compatibility and minimize the potential for impacts to surrounding uses, the DCPUD ordinance requires greater setbacks and light requirements when adjacent to residential uses, limits outdoor storage, provides noise limitations and monitoring, and requires standards for site screening and buffering. Aesthetics The City of Monticello’s ordinances for industrial uses are intended to align with the 2040 Plan’s expectations for complementary visual aesthetics. The DCPUD is consistent with the existing ordinance’s industrial building standards, which do not allow exterior metal finish for principal buildings. The ordinance also incorporates screening and perimeter buffering requirements which are more intense than the base zoning ordinance requirements for other industrial uses. Transparency & Public Process The City has used multiple forms of notice, communication, and meeting formats to provide the opportunity for the public to participate in the process for data center land uses. A series of public meetings, workshops and open houses to discuss and evaluate the land use and ordinance considerations for data centers has been held since July of 2024. These meetings are noticed in accordance with state law. In many cases, these meetings/events have also been publicized on the City website, social media outlets, and printed communications. Public hearings for the Monticello 2040 Plan amendments and the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance for the DCPUD are published in the Monticello Times and posted to the City’s bulletin board and website. Agenda information and minutes for all meetings are available on the City’s website. Use of Incentives The use of any economic development incentives is not related to the regulations for zoning, which are intended to control the characteristics of land development. Use of economic development tools for development are subject to other state laws, as well as the adopted plans, policies and program requirements of the City and City of Monticello Economic Development Authority. While not specifically addressed in the ordinance, local policymakers have continually noted they do not believe incentives like Tax Increment Financing or Tax Abatement are appropriate for this type of development. Community Character & Quality of Life Monticello has a long history of supporting industrial development in our community. The Monticello 2040 Plan recognizes that foundation and supports the continued expansion and diversification of this sector for tax base and employment opportunity. Land uses evolve and change and the City’s obligation is to consider policies and ordinances for these land uses. In evaluating data center land uses, the City recognized that diversification of the City’s industrial uses is consistent with the Monticello 2040 Plan. With the appropriate regulatory tools, data centers are an opportunity to support a stable city tax base and facilitate additional growth consistent with the Plan’s other goals. The DCPUD regulations are intended to provide that appropriate level of regulation. The DCPUD incorporates a series of Approval Criteria for the specific purpose of allowing the City to determine how a data center use aligns with the Monticello 2040 Plan’s goals for the growth, development and resilience of this community. Clarity of Ordinance Requirements & Allowances The DCPUD has been revised to address issues relating to site development and review requirements or processes that are unique to data center uses. Using the City’s general PUD and light industrial zoning standards as a base, the language within the DCPUD has been developed to both strengthen and clarify requirements given the variability and unique development characteristics of data center uses. 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: seharper13@broadband-mn.com 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: 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 From: To:Angela Schumann Subject:Data Center Date:Monday, August 11, 2025 5:47:02 PM 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 From: To:Angela Schumann Subject:Concerns Regarding Proposed Data Center Near Featherstone Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 8:29:20 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. Kelsey Hamel From: 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: 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: To:Angela Schumann Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 9:53:15 AM 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: To:Development Services Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 5:02:33 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. Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone From: To:Angela Schumann Subject:Opposition to Data Center Development in Monticello Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 11:03:02 AM 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: 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: To:Angela Schumann Subject:Opposition to Data Center Date:Tuesday, August 12, 2025 10:53:16 AM 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: To:Angela Schumann Subject:Opposition to data center Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2025 1:08:13 PM Dear Angela, I’m writing as a concerned resident and parent in the ESTABLISHED Featherstoneneighborhood regarding the proposed data center planned for the area just outside ourcommunity. While I understand the importance of economic development andtechnological infrastructure, I have serious concerns about the potential impact this projectwill have on our neighborhood especially for families with children. Our community is home to many small children who regularly play outdoors and walk orbike in the area. The increased traffic from construction vehicles and ongoing operationsposes significant safety risks. Heavy truck traffic and commuter vehicles will also add tocongestion 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 systemsand backup generators, which could disturb the quiet character of our neighborhood bothday and night. Air pollution from increased traffic, as well as the potential environmentalfootprint of such a large facility, raises further concerns for the health and well-being of ourresidents. Beyond immediate safety and quality-of-life issues, I’m also concerned about the long-termeffects on property values, the strain on local infrastructure, and the precedent it sets forfuture industrial development so close to residential areas. Our neighborhood (Featherstone) has been expanding and is scheduled to be expandedfurther to Hwy 25 I believe. I have seen the plans. We did not buy our homes 10+ years agowith 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 builtin town? Monticello will soon run out of land. Then what to expand the tax base? When wemoved 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 alternativelocations that would not place an industrial-scale facility in such close proximity to familyneighborhoods. Our community’s safety, environment, and quality of life should remain atop priority in development decisions. Thank you for your time, and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concernsfurther. Thanks, Shawn From: To:Angela Schumann Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2025 6:50:23 PM 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: To:Rachel Leonard; Angela Schumann; Tyler Bevier Cc: 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: To:Development Services; Angela Schumann; Charlotte Gabler; Lloyd Hilgart; Tracy Hinz; Lee Martie; Kip Christianson Subject:Monticello Tech LLC Data center Date:Monday, August 18, 2025 8:52:52 PM 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: 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 From: 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: 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: 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: To:Angela Schumann; Jennifer Schreiber; Development Services Subject:Data Center Feedback Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 12:55:31 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: 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 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: 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 From: 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 From: 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 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 505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362 From: 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 shit 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: 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: To:Angela Schumann Subject:Fw: Public Comment - Data Center Consideration Date:Friday, August 22, 2025 9:02:18 PM 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: To:Angela Schumann; Tyler Bevier; Development Services Subject:Data Centers Objection Date:Saturday, August 23, 2025 8:44:06 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: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: 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 From: 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: 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: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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Sarah Scribner 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 88th St NE in 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 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 State Highway 25 NE, 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. 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: 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: 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: 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: To:Development Services Subject:Rezoning. Date:Monday, September 1, 2025 3:57:42 PM My name is Russ Hendrickson, , 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. 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: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: 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: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: 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: 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: 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: To:Lloyd Hilgart Cc:Rachel Leonard; Angela Schumann Subject:In the interests of time... Date:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:59:46 PM 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: To:Angela Schumann Cc:Rachel Leonard; Lloyd Hilgart; Development Services Subject:Further Comments with questions Date:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 1:32:36 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 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: To:Angela Schumann Subject:Data Center Concerns Date:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 4:57:00 PM Dear Angela Schumann, 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 3363 87th St. NE. 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 the Community Development Director, 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: 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: 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: 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: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: 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: 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. 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: To:Charlotte Gabler Cc:Angela Schumann; Rachel Leonard Subject:Re: Question about non-disclosure agreements Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 1:00:35 PM Nevermind. I was confused on the wording. I just need to ask for copies of non-disclosure agreements for each city council member if there is one. Thank you again. On Wed, Sep 3, 2025, 12:24 PM Ted <> wrote: Hello, Thank you for the timely response. Regarding the data request that is only for inspection and copies. I will see if the other council members will reply to my question. Theodore Keith. On Wed, Sep 3, 2025, 12:09 PM Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@monticellomn.gov> wrote: Good Afternoon Ted- Thank you for the email. I am including City Administrator Rachel Leonard on this as well as Community Development Director Angela Schumann. I appreciate your feedback. There are a lot of unknowns at this time but please know we are doing our diligence to make sure we understand pros/cons/impacts. Please note I have NOT signed any NDA's. You can request a data request through the city here https://www.monticellomn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/203/City-of-Monticello- Data-Request-Form-PDF?bidId= No formal applications have been submitted. We have had 2 interested parties reach out since 2024-one was interested in a site within the Otter Creek Business Park and the other is in the orderly annexation/growth area south of town-the 500+/- acre area. No decisions have been made about any specific projects, just relating to land use/zoning codes. Land use/zoning codes help us better regulate. Because of the interest in the 500+/- area, this also triggered a much bigger review for environmental, city infrastructure (water, sewer, roads), and those interested parties also have to work with Xcel to see if Xcel is able to provide the necessary power. The Xcel analysis can take a while as well. Please continue to share feedback as you see items on the city website for public notices/meeting agendas. Any questions please give City Hall a call 763-295-2711 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: Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 12:03 PM To: Kip Christianson <Kip.Christianson@MonticelloMN.gov>; Tracy Hinz <Tracy.Hinz@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lee Martie <Lee.Martie@MonticelloMN.gov>; Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>; Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Question about non-disclosure agreements 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: 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. 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: 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: 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 From: 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: 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 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. From: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 Davern Ave, Monticello township From: 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: 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: 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 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 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: 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: 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: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? 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: ericastonestreet.org 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: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: 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 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 From: 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: To:Development Services; Lloyd Hilgart; Charlotte Gabler; Tracy Hinz; Lee Martie; Kip Christianson Subject:Oct 7th workshop Date:Sunday, November 2, 2025 11:34:11 AM 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: To:Jennifer Schreiber Cc:Angela Schumann Subject:Request for draft amendment to City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 8:06:17 AM Jennifer: I plan to attend this evenings 7 p.m. November 3rd Workshop – Joint City Council and Planning Commission. I do not see a copy of the draft document on the city’s website where I see the Agenda for tonight’s meeting. Thus, I am requesting a copy of the draft amendment to City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance that the City Council and Commissioners will have a copy of as review for tonight’s workshop. Are you able to email a copy of the draft? Respectfully, Lynne Fleming Voice/Text: From: 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 9:31:56 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:Jennifer Schreiber To:City Council Email List Cc:Angela Schumann; Rachel Leonard Subject:FW: NO data center Date:Friday, November 14, 2025 10:07:53 AM Attachments:image001.png Just an FYI~ Have a good weekend. Jennifer Schreiber City Clerk 763-271-3204 505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362 MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News 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: 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: 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:Charlotte Gabler To: 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: 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 Monticello, Minnesota 55362 From:Charlotte Gabler To: 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 From: To:Lloyd Hilgart; Charlotte Gabler; Tracy Hinz; Lee Martie; Kip Christianson; Development Services Subject:Input Date:Tuesday, November 25, 2025 9:30:18 PM Hello all, My family moved to Monticello 10 years ago this December. We use to be able to open our windows and hear the cows in the summer. All of that is gone now farm land is being turned into houses, so be it, we can deal with this. What i have an issue with is the city continuing to spend and increase our taxes. There are no votes or community out-reach to see how what people want, no you just do it and it is what it is. Well enough is enough. You can see how many people do not want this Data center. Sure it would bring in construction jobs short term, but after that its going to raise our electrical bill, possibly effect our drinking water which already isn't the greatest to start with. At this point, please listen to the people that voted you in. No data centers! Ann McDonald From: To:Angela Schumann Subject:Public comment on Data Centers Date:Saturday, November 29, 2025 4:19:13 PM Hello, Angela, I would like to make this part of the comments for the City Council and Zoning Commission to consider: City Council has said it is listening to our concerns, they share those concerns, and those concerns are being worked into the AUAR and proposed regulations. That’s great. Suppose everything “passes”, and some future company[ies] is willing to meet all the requirements/regulations set forth. We still have the problem that regardless of that, the community does NOT want a data center, or even light industrial use of these areas, regulations or otherwise. I would like the Council and all involved parties to consider: LET’S JUST SAY NO. These data centers would take hundreds of acres of land! We raise honeybees. We do not want to see such a high loss of forage of native plants for our bees or any other local pollinators. Pollinator species are struggling enough. Let’s just say no! Our water resources are not infinite. Groundwater aquifers can only go so far. Monticello is a fast-growing city. Is it drawing from the same aquifer as neighboring cities? We have a private well drawing from those aquifers as well. As these aquifers become depleted over time, cities may need to dig deeper wells. People may need to dig deeper wells for their residents. Will we need to ultimately ration water?? There is a hierarchy in Minnesota statute over water uses. Municipal uses are at the top. And these data centers want to go under the city's permit. If there was a time of scarcity, and we did have to do some rationing, municipal is the highest use. So those data centers get into that highest use of municipal, which is above agriculture. What will that do to farmers, livestock and crops? Let’s just say no! Industrial buildings of any kind are known for being eyesores. They have their place, but it such a residential/agricultural area, Industrial doesn’t “fit”. There is a national housing crisis. Why are we not using these areas for natural expansion of housing, yards and gardens? These areas should be kept for agricultural and/or residential use. Let’s just say no! Please protect our land and resources! Thank you, From:Kip Christianson To:Angela Schumann Subject:DCPUD last minute notes Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 8:00:09 AM Ms. Schumann- This is excellent! I have a few running notes from my review, which may or may not be important depending on where they are. Exec summary pp8 - section 7 - building height listed twice. Less important, wondering if something was perhaps omitted, if just a duplicate, no biggie. Resolution, pp3 - bullet 9 Clearly …. Its various goals and *align with*?? Draft ordinance pp10 (7)(o) fencing - can we include wrought iron as a decorative and common non-screening security fencing (13)(a)(vi) - not certain whether these acronyms were prior introduced/correct. (13)(n)(iii) - Projected*? KCC Proposed insert between (13)(o) & (p) Narrative of Public safety infrastructure impact, service/training/equipments and proposal to address/fund/mitigate those impacts whether provided for entirely privately/paid for to supplement deficiencies to public infrastructure, or some hybrid of the two. (To be included in proposed/final SIPA and any subsequent stages) (16)(c) “PUD” —> DCPUD? (17)(a) - Site Improvement *Plan* Agreement (17)(g) including *clearing or*?? grading (19)(c) - “If” then what? Partial sentence perhaps corrected by punctuation. Struggling to follow the timelines of this section. (20) - “PUD” —> “DCPUD” for consistency? From: To:Angela Schumann Cc: Subject:Comments to DCPUD Ordinance Draft Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 2:01:56 PM Attachments:Monticello DCPUD Ordinance Considerations.docx DCPUD Comment Summary.docx Dear Mr. Mayor, Council Members, Planning Commissioners and City Staff, On behalf of Monticello Tech, I we would like to share our gratitude to all of you and commend you on your thoroughness and professionalism throughout this process. We appreciate the time and energy you have put into crafting this ordinance to regulate development while protecting City interests. Monticello Tech has been interested in developing a data center project and been working with City staff since the summer of 2024. During this time, we have attended open houses, City initiated workshops, Planning Commission meetings and City Council meetings. In addition, we have heard directly from many area residents and local businesses. We have listened closely to the concerns as you all have as well. As a result of this process, we would like to offer the following comments. The comments are shaped after listening to feedback as well as speaking with industry experts in the data center space, including but not limited to electrical engineers, civil engineers, environmental engineers, data center experts, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and others. As it relates to the DCPUD ordinance specifically, we wanted to highlight a number of things within the draft ordinance that we are supportive of and also a handful of comments that are intended to incorporate both public feedback as well industry expertise. The rework of the initial draft has incorporated many of the concerns we have heard but do believe some subtle modifications may be needed. Increased setbacks, additional screening and noise monitoring are now part of the draft ordinance. We are in support of those ideas and appreciate those concerns being addressed after listening to public comment. We have put together an overview chart as well as a summary of suggestions for your review. We thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Luke Appert Luke Appert Executive Director Brokerage Services The information contained in this email (including any attachments) is confidential, may be subject to legal or other professional privilege and contain copyright material, and is intended for use by the named recipient(s) only. Access to or use of this email or its attachments by anyone else is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you may not use, disclose, copy or distribute this email or its attachments (or any part thereof), nor take or omit to take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or email and delete it, and all copies thereof, including all attachments, from your system. Any confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this email has been sent to you by mistake. Although we have taken reasonable precautions to reduce the risk of transmitting software viruses, we accept no liability for any loss or damage caused by this email or its attachments due to viruses, interference, interception, corruption or unapproved access. For information on how your personal information is processed, including information on how to exercise state or country specific Privacy Rights please view our privacy notice here: https://www.cushmanwakefield.com/en/privacy-and-cookies DCPUD Ordinance Suggestions and Considerations Primary Concerns - Public substation exempt from requirements in PUD. If needed, subject to zoning ordinance. o Commentary: it is common public substations are not subject to these strict standards (setbacks, screening, lot coverage, etc.). It’s also common that this would be a separate lot owned by the utility company and does not need to be zoned DCPUD to be a permitted use. o Occurs in several instances throughout document. o Recommended approach/language:  Public utility substations are exempt from the district performance requirements and standards of this chapter. - City to provide noise monitoring, not a typical developer responsibility for noise monitoring after construction is complete. o Section: ‘District Performance Standards’, part (i). o Recommended approach/language:  Noise monitoring shall be conducted at least twice per year by the City, or by an environmental professional hired by the City. Property owner shall provide to City an escrow equivalent to 5 years of sound monitoring and testing. Property owner shall replenish escrow account on a yearly basis. - DCFAR shall include accessory buildings and uses (i.e. mechanical yards) in the FAR calculation. o Section: ‘Definitions’ o Recommend approach/language:  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 data center building(s) and accessory buildings and uses (i.e. mechanical equipment yards, utility substations, etc.) by the total gross land area of the proposed Data Center Planned Unit Development… - Wetlands excluded from increased setback requirements. o Section ‘District Performance Standards’ Table X-X. o Recommended approach/language:  Remove “Delineated Wetland” from 3rd column.  Setbacks from delineated wetlands per City and or MN DNR requirements. - DCPUD not held to meeting FAR for each phase of development (if based on entirety of property area). o Section: ‘District Performance Standards’, part d. o Recommended approach/language:  Remove or revise sentence “At no time shall any individual developed phase of the DCPUD be constructed at an FAR of less than 25%”. Development can agree to a .25 ratio but it is likely that the first phase will grade a larger area and may not meet the .25 ratio on the onset of the development. - Wetland delineation not required beyond boundary of project impacts. o Section: ‘DCPUD Concept Stage Submission Review’, part (h) o Recommended approach/language:  Delineation and functional assessment of wetland and/or watercourses over the DCPUD property dated within the last five years, provided the wetlands or watercourses have not been substantially modified. • Wetland delineations are valid for 5 years in Minnesota, per MN Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). It’s not common to delineate offsite wetlands as part of a private development, unless offsite infrastructure is proposed to impact. - Include analysis of impacts to surrounding private utility systems and mitigation required o Section: ‘DCPUD Development Stage Permit, Preliminary Plat, and Rezoning Application Submittal Requirements’. o The private utility (power, telecommunications, etc.) is responsible for ensuring there will not be adverse effects to their system due to the proposed project. This should not be a contingency for a rezoning. o Recommended to strike private utility study requirements to be submitted as part of rezoning application. - Site Improvement Plan Agreement final execution not to be part of development stage and rezoning consideration. SIPA will come after rezoning is approved; Escrow not necessarily due at this time. o Section: ‘DCPUD Development Stage Permit & DCPUD Rezoning Review’. o Recommended approach/language:  Remove section (d) from this section.  Include verbiage in section ‘Site Improvement Plan Agreement’. • A SIPA shall be negotiated with City staff for the DCPUD’s proposed improvements, as was previously outlined in the DCPUD rezoning. The SIPA shall undergo City Council approval following the DCPUD rezoning adoption and approval. • Revise verbiage of section (b) The agreement shall outline, 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 payments and/or securities, escrows, and warranties, and their timing of submission, and any other reasonable information deemed necessary by the City. • Add language The agreement shall detail and control 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. • Add language The application for PUD SIPA shall be considered by the City Council at a public meeting. Approval of the Site Improvement Performance Agreement shall be by simple majority vote of all members of the City Council, except where State law may specifically require a super majority. - Cannot revoke previously approved DCPUD zoning o Section: ‘Timeline for performance’, part (c). o Recommended approach/language:  Remove section (c) regarding ability for city to revoke the DCPUD, governing Final Stage PUD approval, SIPA, etc. • Alternative: incorporate language stating that the city may revoke the above on if it is City-owned property. Secondary Concerns - DCPUD may not be required to extend public utilities to furthest extent of DCPUD. o Section: ‘Approval Criteria’, part (e). o Recommended approach/language:  The DCPUD, if developed in phases, will provide the necessary planning and financial guarantees to avoid the stranding or incomplete extension of municipal infrastructure resources to the furthest extent of the PUD or as deemed practical and appropriate by the City Engineer. Except where expressly approved by the City Council, all public rights of way shall be dedicated and/or extended to limits of the property zoned DCPUD as a part of first-phase facilitate extension to adjoining property. - Private wireless telecommunications service antennae and support structures are an approved Accessory Use o Section: ‘Accessory Uses’. o Recommended approach/language:  Add Commercial private wireless telecommunications service antennae and support structure(s) necessary for the function of the DCPUD development, subject to the regulations of this chapter. - Clarify to exclude drive aisles in setback table (Table X-X) o Section: ‘District Performance Standards’ Table X-X o Recommended approach/language:  Off-Street Parking (excluding drive aisles). - 100% opacity screening not required for security or chain link fencing o Section: ‘District Performance Standards’, part (j). o Recommended approach/language:  Any outdoor facilities or equipment such as back-up generators, parking and private circulation areas, other mechanical equipment, 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, where located within 200’ of the property line. • A developer could likely live with providing screening for security fencing if the last stipulation about ‘200’ of the property line’ is included. - Broaden allowance and specify “sodding” to include seeding or approved equal o Section: ‘District Performance Standards’, part (m).i. o Recommended approach/language.  The DCPUD shall provide for established turf (sod, seed, or approved equal) in all ground cover areas not otherwise used for tree or shrub plantings, except as exempted for approved native plantings or internal mechanical yards. Rock mulch is an approved ground cover in internal mechanical yards where not visible to adjacent property(s) or public rights of way. - Survey not required 200’ beyond property boundary o Section: ‘DCPUD Development Stage Permit, Preliminary Plat, and Rezoning Application Submittal requirements’, part (j). o Recommended approach/language.  Conceptual grading, drainage, and erosion control plan prepared by a registered professional engineer providing for stormwater management planning based on the City’s published stormwater management requirements. Item Concern Suggestion Floor Area Ratio Calculation of DCPUD Floor Area Ratio Accessory buildings/uses (i.e. substation(s) and mechanical yards) directly used by primary data center buildings to be included in FAR calculation. Floor Area Ratio Maintaining a .25 ratio during each phase Ensure the .25 ratio is for the full site development, not for each individual phase. For example, if it is a 10 building campus, 1 building will likely not meet the FAR if the entire property is several hundred acres. Setbacks/screening No significant concern, consider revision of qualifying language for screening of perimeter fencing Either omit/reduce 100% opacity screening requirement for perimeter security fence (if within 200’ of property line) or only require 100% opacity screening if fencing is less than 200’ from property line. Building Height Rooftop Equipment No concern with the 50 foot height of building but it is likely that equipment such as antennas may be needed in excess of 65 feet. SIPA SIPA Sequencing Move SIPA hearing and finalization to after rezoning approval, when more information is available specific to infrastructure improvements. City and Applicant will negotiate details of what is included in SIPA as design progresses after rezoning is approved. Noise Monitoring How to monitor Create an escrow with the City for annual monitoring by a third party. It is not practical to have continuous monitoring. Public Substation/Switching Station Not specific to the developer The public utility substation/switching station will be owned by power utility and platted as a separate lot, out of the developers control. Privately owned substations will be subject to setback and screening requirements of this chapter. Development Phases Sequencing We suggest modification to what is included in each development stage. We are not disagreeing with what is being required but believe things should be reordered. Landscaping/Buffering /Screening No significant concern, except as noted above for fencing Consider rewording “sodding” to “sod, seed, or approved equal” to allow for alternative means of establishing grass. Additionally, consideration for allowing rock mulch in mechanical yards where not visible to adjacent property(s) or public rights-of-way. Revoking DCPUD Approvals City may not revoke rezoning approval based on time for performance, for a privately owned parcel(s) If the owner of the land is the City, the City may require stipulations for time for performance. Offsite Wetland and Survey Requirement of topographic survey and wetland delineation Developer is not required to delineate wetlands or provide survey within 200’ of property boundary, unless there are proposed offsite impacts to these areas. Industry standard is ~25’ of survey beyond property boundary (pending accessibility) and offsite wetlands are not typically delineated as part of proposed project application. From: To:Development Services Subject:No Data Center!! Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 10:01:57 PM Please listen to us… we do not want a data center in our back yard! There are to many unknowns of how this will effect us! Potentially draining our water supply, raising our electric bill, the constant noise. From years of construction to decreased home values this is unacceptable. Who would ever move to Monticello with this in your back yard! I moved to Monticello in June of this year with zero knowledge of this being talked about and I guarantee you, my family and I would not have made the move. Monticello is a beautiful town and we need to keep it that way!! I hope you can sit back and listen to what we have to say!! We Do Not Want A Data Center Thank you Gavin 89th street NE Sent from my iPhone From: To:Development Services Subject:No data center! Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 11:18:49 PM Resident of 3 years this idea of this data center completely blows my mind that a city would even want to have something like this. If this goes through I will be one block away. We’re talking 8-10 years of construction and not a single person would want to listen to that going on everyday for that long . We already have problems with power outages and now your gonna bring something in that is going to require mass amount of electricity. Please stop and think about the residents of Monticello before making such aPoor decision. Please no data center! Regards Tony block at 89th st ne Sent from my iPhone From: To:Angela Schumann; Development Services Subject:Opposition to Data Center Development in Monticello Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 2:17:39 PM Dear Members of the Monticello Planning Commission and City Council, I am writing as a Monticello resident to express my strong opposition to allowing large-scale data centers or “technology campuses” in our community. I also want to note that I work a blue-collar job in the HVAC trade, which gives me firsthand experience with mechanical systems, electrical loads, heat rejection, and the infrastructure demands that large facilities place on a community. Because of this background, I am especially aware of the scale of energy use, cooling requirements, and equipment stresses involved in data center operations—and my concerns come from both a resident’s and a technician’s perspective. From my viewpoint, the risks and costs to residents clearly outweigh any potential benefits that have been mentioned so far. Specifically: • Energy and grid strain: Data centers are enormous electricity users. They threaten to put long-term strain on our local grid, increase the risk of outages, and potentially drive up utility rates for everyday residents and small businesses—people who do not have the resources of a massive corporation. • Water use and environmental impact: Many data centers require significant water for cooling and generate substantial heat and noise. This raises concerns about long-term impacts on local water resources, environmental quality, and the overall character of Monticello. • Limited community benefit: There has been no compelling evidence that these facilities would provide substantial, long-term local jobs or meaningful tax benefits when compared to the scale of infrastructure and energy demands they create. • Quality of life and property values: Noise from cooling equipment, increased electrical infrastructure, possible substation expansion, and truck traffic threaten nearby neighborhoods, property values, and the small-town atmosphere that residents value. Given these concerns, I ask you to: 1. Reject data centers as a permitted or conditional use in our community, or 2. At minimum, adopt very strict regulations and limits that heavily restrict where and how they can be built, while prioritizing the health, safety, and financial interests of residents over outside corporate interests. Please treat this email as my formal statement of opposition regarding data center development in Monticello. I respectfully request that my comments be added to the public record for the relevant hearings and discussions. Thank you for taking the concerns of working residents seriously, including those of us who understand the technical implications these facilities would bring to Monticello’s infrastructure. From: To:Development Services Subject:NO DATA CENTER! Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 9:22:57 PM I'm not sure if you've seen the petition that is against setting up an ordinance to allow data centers, but as of 9:18 pm on Dec. 1st, it is currently at 1,235 signatures. That is nearly 10% of the population of Monticello, which I think is a fairly good indication that WE DO NOT WANT DATA CENTERS in Monticello. There is no long-term job creation from a data center--only temporary during construction of the facility. After it is operational, the facility will likely be maintained by a skeleton crew with occasional visits from operations or service technicians. There is no lasting local economic benefit where it matters most - the working-class residents of Monticello. Areas with operational data centers have also seen nearby home values decline significantly. I highly doubt any homeowners surrounding the proposed site would appreciate their home's market value dropping, especially with the new housing development nearby. And let's talk about the electricity use. Our aging infrastructure, despite being on the literal doorstep of a nuclear power plant, will not be able handle such a large drain on electricity. As a resident who lives less than a mile from the power plant, I can tell you from experience that it doesn't take much to cause a power outage. Current grids that weren't designed to handle the current number of customers would only suffer further by diverting huge amounts of electricity to a Data Center. These are only three of multiple negative impacts of data centers, and I'm not even going to touch on the negative environmental impacts data centers cause. The data and research is out there. One of the things I love most about Monticello is the natural beauty surrounding us - I would hate to see water sources compromised because of greed. In short, please listen to your constituents when we say NO DATA CENTER IN MONTICELLO. Respectfully, Rachel Dolan From: To:Development Services Subject:Data Center Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 7:40:42 PM Importance:High Good evening, As a third-generation Monticello resident, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the construction of any data center in our city, or anywhere in Minnesota for that matter. Data centers come with significant environmental and public-health concerns. This is not speculation; it is well documented and easily verified through independent research. From excessive water consumption to massive energy demands and ongoing noise pollution, these facilities create risks fundamentally incompatible with the long-term well-being of our community. Our city already enforces lawn watering restrictions during the summer, yet a single data center would consume an extraordinary amount of water without facing similar limitations. Furthermore, data centers create very few permanent jobs. While some temporary construction employment may occur, the long-term economic return is minimal compared to the impact of genuine small-business development. Monticello should prioritize local entrepreneurs, new businesses, and sustainable growth... not projects that drain resources while offering zero benefit in return. Monticello taxpayers deserve and expect 100% transparency. This proposed data center would be placed in our backyards, affecting not just current residents but future generations. The lack of openness from certain council members and the city administrator is both unacceptable and deeply concerning. You were elected to represent and listen to the taxpayers, not to advance campaign interests or personal agendas. I am also requesting greater transparency from Councilmember Kip Christianson. The community deserves to know who has financially supported his previous and current campaigns. If Councilmember Christianson believes a data center is an ideal fit for a community, perhaps it should be proposed in his own hometown of Rockford... not in the backyards of Monticello residents who strongly oppose it. Below are several questions for the City Council and City Administrator, for which I expect clear, documented, and timely responses: 1. Who has signed nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) related to this proposed project? 2. Would any of you personally choose to live next to a data center or purchase a home beside one? This facility would be quite literally in my backyard. 3. What specific benefits does a data center provide to Monticello? Please offer detailed, accurate information and cite all sources. 4. What are the documented negative impacts a data center would have on Monticello? Again, please include supporting citations. 5. Why is the City pursuing data centers instead of investing in small- business expansion, local economic development, or additional housing options? 6. When will Councilmember Kip Christianson publicly release the full list of donors for his past and current campaigns? I look forward to your transparent and prompt responses. Thank you. From: To:Development Services Subject:Data center Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 8:42:47 PM City Council members, I am writing to share my opinion that placing two data centers in Monticello is an awful plan. I am a 23 year resident of this town and am in disbelief that the council is even considering this as an option. * It’s unacceptable that the city council is allowing billionaires to come into our town and steal Monticello’s water. Water is a precious resource that should be guarded by the stewards of the city not sold off to the highest bidder. *The town’s zoning choices seem haphazard, with major industrial development added as an afterthought next to residential areas. The gigantic apartment building recently built by Walmart is 2 miles away from the proposed data center. A large scale data center would generate substantial pollution, including diesel exhaust from backup generators, constant noise, heat discharge, and a massive increase in energy consumption. These impacts put nearby residential neighborhoods at risk. *The noise pollution from a facility of this scale is incompatible with nearby residential living, due to round-the-clock equipment noise and periodic generator testing. *A large scale data center will require massive electrical consumption, driving up energy costs for the community. *A data center provides 20-50 jobs long term. Not worth it! * When the data center closes, then what? The town is left with an ugly massive concrete reminder that citizens were sold out. *A closed data center usually becomes a massive, expensive, hard-to-reuse property that reduces tax revenue and provides no long-term benefit to the community. I urge the Council to consider alternative developments that bring real jobs, sustainable tax revenue, and minimal environmental impact—such as mixed-use development, light industry, small business districts, or renewable energy projects. These options strengthen the tax base without harming the quality of life for the people who already live here. This is not the legacy that any city council member would be proud to leave their children. Even a discussion of a data center is bringing friction and bad feelings to our town. Is this the project you want in Monticello to have your name stamped on? My own kids graduated with some of your kids. I told them over Thanksgiving who was on the city council and they could not believe you would be a proponent of two data centers in their hometown. This is the legacy you will leave our kids. Respectfully, Tina Forster From:Charlotte Gabler To:Angela Schumann; Rachel Leonard Subject:DCPUD Zoning Amendment On Tonight"s PC Agenda Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 10:17:32 AM Good Morning- Just a few notes....and yes, please share with Planning Commission. **2 Approval Section Item B. I believe we should have a subsection that has verbiage that land can not be rezoned from any other designation to I-1 for the purpose of a data center. The land should already be zoned I-1. **J-can we list the specific station in this section? **Section 6-should this say State/Federal law? And should we have verbiage that we use the the strictest of the two? **Setback table. Under the first primary building-we should use 300' not 200' to keep consistency. **Section G Noise. Should we again have verbiage that lists which ever law is the strictest? My final piece is on FAR. I think we should go less than .25 and use .10 or .15. 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: To:Development Services Subject:Opposition to the Proposed Data Center in Monticello Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 10:25:53 PM Good evening- I am writing to share my concerns about the proposed data center project. While I understand the desire for development, this type of facility does not align with the character or long-term needs of our community. A data center brings significant noise, construction disruption, heavy utility demand, and ongoing industrial activity to an area that is primarily residential and family-focused. Many residents are also concerned about the potential impact on nearby neighborhoods and property values, as well as the strain such a large facility could place on local infrastructure. Monticello deserves projects that contribute directly to the community, support local families, and enhance the quality of life we value here. A data center simply does not offer those benefits. I respectfully ask the Council to reconsider and oppose this project. Thank you for your time and attention, Kurt Hedtke From: To:Development Services Subject:A Neighbor’s Perspective on the Proposed Data Center Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 9:21:32 PM Hello Council Members, I am writing to you as a resident, a parent, and someone deeply invested in the future of our city. I do not believe a data center is the right type of development for the wonderful community of Monticello. My family and I live in the neighborhood directly across from the proposed location. We built our home in 2023 with the intention that this would be our forever home. It is difficult to express how heavy it feels to think about years of construction, ongoing noise, and permanent industrial presence so close to our home and our children. We chose Monticello intentionally. We were excited to raise our family here, just as my father did when he grew up in this same community. I ask each of you to place yourselves in the shoes of the families who live nearby. Not from the perspective of infrastructure or tax strategy, but from the perspective of people. Ask yourselves what kind of environment we are creating for our neighbors, our children, and the next generation. While I understand the need for a strong tax base, I do not believe this path aligns with the values and quality of life that make Monticello special. There are several real concerns for a small town when it comes to large data center development: Persistent noise from cooling systems and backup generators, which can impact everyday peace and livability. Significant water and energy consumption that can strain local resources without providing proportional community benefit. Limited local job creation paired with long term industrial impact on surrounding neighborhoods and property values. I understand this land is zoned for light industrial use, and I support responsible development. However, the way we develop matters deeply. Any project in this area should enhance our city, not detract from it. It should be visually appealing, thoughtfully designed, shielded by substantial berms and mature trees, and surrounded by well maintained landscaping that reflects pride in our community. Our residents deserve development that represents Monticello in the best light. In closing, I respectfully ask you to reflect on this decision through a personal lens. When you think about your own home, your own family, and the legacy you want to leave behind, does this project truly align with the kind of community we are striving to protect and grow together? Thank you for your time, your service, and for considering the human impact of this decision. Keith Samuelson From: To:Development Services Subject:Data Center Ordinance Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 6:43:15 PM Good evening, As residents of Monticello since 1998, we have grave concerns about allowing any data center to be built in our state, let alone in Monticello. First of all, data centers are terrible for the environment and people's health. This is not a debatable topic. The data is out there. Secondly, data centers don't bring many long-term jobs. They bring some short-term jobs, but that is it. Instead of having data centers, the city should be focusing on small business development, which brings money to the local economy - unlike data centers. Also, Kip Christianson needs to share the list of donors who have given money to his past campaign and his future campaign. Finally, we have some questions for our city council members that I would like answered. 1. Who has signed an NDA for these projects? 2. Would you like to live "next to" a data center? 3. What are the benefits for our community of having a data center, well, actually two data centers? Please be specific and cite your sources. 4. What are the negative impacts for our community of having a data center, well, actually two data centers? Please be specific and cite your sources. 5. Why are you considering data centers for Monticello? 6. When will Kip Christianson share his donors list with the residents of Monticello? We look forward to your responses. Jesse and Allison Sirovy From: To:Development Services Subject:Data Centers Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 4:03:58 PM Good Afternoon, I’m messaging in regard to the data centers. I have many objections to them being built in Monticello especially so close to a residential area. I live on 87th Street and I’m aware of the plan for one of them to be built on 85th Street. I’m concerned that many of the reasons I chose to move to Monticello and to the area I live in would be impacted by a data center being built here & I know I’m not alone in this feeling. My family & I enjoy the rural aspect of the area we live in. My husband and I moved to Monticello in 2014 & built our house in 2017. We love the area so much that we moved our moms & my aunt to the area as well. They own homes here too. I have concerns regarding the noise pollution these data centers create even when sound barriers are erected. I’m concerned about water usage, power usage and how it will impact our usage both in availability & cost. I’m concerned about the pollution these data centers expose the residents to. I’m also concerned that it will impact the value of our homes. I know we have to consider plans to move Monticello in a forward direction but I don’t think that this is the way to do it. Thank you for considering my concerns on this important issue. Thank you, Jenna VanDenBoom Sent from my iPhone From: To:Development Services Subject:No Data Center In Monticello Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 9:40:56 PM I'm not sure if you've seen the petition that is against setting up an ordinance to allow data centers, but as of 9:18 pm on Dec. 1st, it is currently at 1,235 signatures. That is nearly 10% of the population of Monticello, which I think is a fairly good indication that WE DO NOT WANT DATA CENTERS in Monticello. There is no long-term job creation from a data center--only temporary during construction of the facility. After it is operational, the facility will likely be maintained by a skeleton crew with occasional visits from operations or service technicians. There is no lasting local economic benefit where it matters most - the working-class residents of Monticello. Areas with operational data centers have also seen nearby home values decline significantly. I highly doubt any homeowners surrounding the proposed site would appreciate their home's market value dropping, especially with the new housing development nearby. And let's talk about the electricity use. Our aging infrastructure, despite being on the literal doorstep of a nuclear power plant, will not be able handle such a large drain on electricity. As a resident who lives less than a mile from the power plant, I can tell you from experience that it doesn't take much to cause a power outage. Current grids that weren't designed to handle the current number of customers would only suffer further by diverting huge amounts of electricity to a Data Center. These are only three of multiple negative impacts of data centers, and I'm not even going to touch on the negative environmental impacts data centers cause. The data and research is out there. One of the things I love most about Monticello is the natural beauty surrounding us - I would hate to see water sources compromised because of greed. In short, please listen to your constituents when we say NO DATA CENTER IN MONTICELLO. Respectfully. Mike Zawatzke (Tax Payer within Monticello Mn) From: To:Development Services Subject:Data center: vote NO Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 2:53:30 PM I just want to express my disapproval of allowing a data center in Monticello. I do not believe that is something in the best interest for our city. Please vote against this project. Rod Anderson From: To:Development Services Subject:No Data Center! Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 8:56:30 AM “Tax Base!!” That’s the only thing I have heard from anyone from the city regarding why this is a good idea. I would be more sympathetic to that statement if every-time I drove around our wonderful town I didn’t see a new business being built. Data Centers are for dying towns, not thriving towns. I'm not sure if you've seen the petition that is against setting up an ordinance to allow data centers, but as of 9:18 pm on Dec. 1st, it is currently at 1,235 signatures. That is nearly 10% of the population of Monticello, which I think is a fairly good indication that WE DO NOT WANT DATA CENTERS in Monticello. There is no long-term job creation from a data center--only temporary during construction of the facility. After it is operational, the facility will likely be maintained by a skeleton crew with occasional visits from operations or service technicians. There is no lasting local economic benefit where it matters most - the working-class residents of Monticello. Areas with operational data centers have also seen nearby home values decline significantly. I highly doubt any homeowners surrounding the proposed site would appreciate their home's market value dropping, especially with the new housing development nearby. And let's talk about the electricity use. Our aging infrastructure, despite being on the literal doorstep of a nuclear power plant, will not be able handle such a large drain on electricity. As a resident who lives less than a mile from the power plant, I can tell you from experience that it doesn't take much to cause a power outage. Current grids that weren't designed to handle the current number of customers would only suffer further by diverting huge amounts of electricity to a Data Center. These are only three of multiple negative impacts of data centers, and I'm not even going to touch on the negative environmental impacts data centers cause. The data and research is out there. One of the things I love most about Monticello is the natural beauty surrounding us - I would hate to see water sources compromised because of greed. In short, please listen to your constituents when we say NO DATA CENTER IN MONTICELLO. Respectfully. Rod Arnold From: To:Development Services Subject:NO DATA CENTER Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 2:16:09 PM December 2, 2025 City Council City of Monticello Monticello, MN 55362 Dear Members of the Monticello City Council, We are writing to you as concerned residents regarding the recently announced proposal to establish a data center within the city of Monticello. We recognize the potential for economic development and technological advancement that such a project could bring to our community. However, we believe it is essential to carefully consider both the benefits and the possible impacts this development may have on our city. First and foremost, we appreciate the city’s efforts to attract innovative industries. The increased tax revenue from a data center could support public services and infrastructure improvements. At the same time, we are mindful of several key concerns. Data centers are known for their substantial energy and water consumption, which could place additional strain on Monticello’s utilities. Not to mention the homes with wells that could be impacted. We would like to request further information regarding the center’s anticipated resource requirements and the measures being taken to ensure sustainable operations. Transparency on how environmental standards and energy efficiency will be prioritized is of utmost importance to our community. As a resident of Monticello Township and nearly directly adjacent to the proposed data center I am very concerned about its direct impact on the use and enjoyment of my property. Furthermore, we hope the city will consider the impact on local traffic patterns, noise levels, and the potential for increased development in nearby residential areas. We encourage the council to hold public forums and actively engage with Monticello residents to address these concerns and incorporate community feedback into the decision-making process. In conclusion, while we are open to progress and innovation, we ask that the City of Monticello proceed with careful planning and ongoing public dialogue. By working together, we can ensure that any new development serves the best interests of our city and its residents, both now and in the future. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. We look forward to your response and to participating in future discussions. Sincerely, Polly and Chet Augustson Monticello 55362 From: To:Development Services Subject:Data center concerns Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 2:57:32 PM Hello, I wanted to add myself to the chorus of concerned citizens who are adamantly against building a data center in Monticello. I know by now you've probably heard a lot of arguments, but one aspect that I don't think most people see is also one of the areas where I'm sure the city sees a positive outcome to having a data center - tax burden. We know that data centers don't create jobs in the long term, but solely create short-term work for construction workers during the building process. Typically the centers themselves are run remotely by very small crews. But, AI is the next big thing right now and I'm sure there's some sort of incentive if one doesn't look too far on paper about the company owning the data center taking on a great deal of the city's tax burden. The issue with that is AI is driving a massive economic bubble the likes of which we haven't seen. Right now the only reason that we're not technically in recession (even though inflation and declining job availability painter very different picture) is because about six tech companies have gone so all in on their AI projects that they've essentially become "too big to fail" in their eyes, so they're in a loop of just constantly borrowing huge sums of money from one another hoping that they can figure out how to make the real profits of these ventures match the projections of their investors. The issue with this is a recent study from MIT showed that 95% of AI projects and tools on the market right now have absolutely zero chance of turning a profit. Our entire economy is hinging on six boards of directors who know this and also know the only way to keep the bubble from crashing entirely is to continually borrow more and more to keep their projection up - this is not sound economic policy. So my biggest concern is when we give Monticello Tech LLC, which I have seen is allegedly a sock company owned up the chain by Black Rock, this huge amount of land to build an extremely expensive data center and the air bubble bursts, how big a bag is the city left holding? When the company is unable to provide the promised money towards the tax burden, what does that do to our city government? What do we do with the mass of server farm that is no longer in use when the bubble bursts? This for me is the primary concern, above giving 55 acres of land to Black Rock, a company that is driving the national housing crisis by artificially inflating home values. Above concerns about how it will affect our electric bills. Among concerns that these data centers are being built not just for LLM AI models but as part of a massive push for surveillance of citizens and privacy violations by companies like Palantir. On equal footing with concerns about how it will strain our power grid, which is not built to accommodate the kind of power draw that a data center needs, and how it will deplete and pollute our water supply and air quality. Over 10% of the population of Monticello has signed a petition saying no to a data center in Monticello. There can be arguments made for data centers that are not primarily in use for running LLM AI models, but with how the economy is operating right now I am almost certain that any proposed data center is going to be built primarily for these models. And I don't think there is any benefit to anyone but a few sock companies owned by a predatory corporation in even entertaining the idea. Melanie Barthelmes Nelson NASM Certified CPT, CES, SFS, PES Owner, Vital Roots Fitness From: To:Development Services Subject:Data center Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 12:30:51 PM Hello, I am expressing my serious concerns for a data center in Monticello. I am one of the thousands that have signed the petition. I believe that this will negatively affect the environment, quality of life, and have devastating economic impacts on the community. I ask that new construction of this magnitude be brought to the voters of Monticello. Sincerely, Vikki Buck Sent from my iPhone From: To:Development Services Subject:Data Center Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 7:55:33 AM WE DO NOT WANT DATA CENTERS in Monticello. December 2, 2025 Attention: Monticello Community Development and City Council Re: Data Center Planned Use Development Hearing Public Comment _____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Members and City Officials, We would be fools to welcome a data center into our community. We would be fools to usher in an industry that is currently and willfully unregulated at the federal level. We would be fools to think that we know all there is to know about an industry that is growing faster than any of the research and economic data can track. The investors are tracking their immediate monetary gains, and we would be fools to believe the assurances that they offer to push their way into our beautiful community. The data center and AI business models are far too immense and economically powerful to think that a small city government is possibly going to address the vast number of immediate and long-term negative impacts that these operations involve. We are no match for them, and they know it. The only power we have is now, when we can still sa y NO. We would be fools to invest in expensive infrastructure and services to accommodate an industry that has a track record of taking far more than they give to any community. Roads, water supply, waste water treatment, energy, fire protection, law enforcement – the needs are immense and the common folks will suffer the most...billionaires can afford the doubling or tripling of costs - regular people cannot. If you want to see future investment or maintenance of current homes and businesses fall away, then by all means welcome in a couple of huge players that will explicitly or effectively dictate every major expenditure and land use decision going forward. If the tax base is failing to cover city expenses right now, it is certainly not going to be solved by ushering in an industry that is known to find every loophole and work-around to make as money as possible and to pay as little as is allowed. We would be fools to not read the writing on the wall and educate ourselves on the real cost of data centers being located around the country. We would be fools to look the other way and somehow think our story will be different, to believe that we are smarter than those towns and cities have unsuccessfully tried to make these centers work for their communities instead of against them. We would be fools to dream that adherence to a newly drawn ordinance will be stellar and trustworthy. It won’t be, because what really drives these operations is the bottom line - their own, not yours and mine. And when those standards are not met, or the realization that this ordinance missed something vitally important, well then we would be fools to believe that our eventual costs of legal representation will not be outspent and won by the billion dollars of backing these companies possess. They will win, and we will pay again. We would be fools to hand over our natural resources -land, air, wildlife, water to the highest bidder who will quickly disappear from the equation when mitigation and clean up becomes necessary someday – and it will become necessary. Some things cannot be undone, some mistakes don’t allow for second chances, at least not in the span of our lifetimes. We would be fools to negate the careful stewardship and land use decisions that have fostered growth and the protection our community resources for over one hundred years by introducing an industry that has one goal and one goal only: TO MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE. The environment is not their concern. The current and future residents of Monticello are not their concern. The water quality is not their concern. And no, our supply is not endless. The electricity costs for the rest of us are not their concern. The impact on wildlife, traffic, noise, air quality – none of these are their concern. We would be fools to believe otherwise. Representative government only works for citizens when the elected officials seek to answer to the people. The people of Monticello do not want this. The people of Monticello want growth that supports all aspects of their community, not only an immediate monetary one that cannot even be soundly proven yet. The people here want job opportunities that expand our human capital, not hand it off to billionaire companies that see their employees as expenditures rather than valuable people who love their hometown. Speaking of which, we would be fools to believe that the relative handful of jobs these monstrosities will offer will even begin to offset the serious and permanent economic losses that surrounding landowners and residents will bear because of them. Surrounding land values will drop, this is not even a question. Which one of you will be first in line to buy a neighboring property or even think of investing in one that will be hooked to the same water, sewer and energy supplies when we know those costs for everyone will skyrocket due to continual growing demands? We all must be fools to think that this industry, so quick to grab land and resources away from small communities, is ever going to sustain itself – they are not even setting out to do that initially. We would be fools to think that this AI boom they are making fortunes from is ever going to work in the favor of everyday citizens. If that were the case, these companies would be fast-tracking technology for their cooling needs and energy uses – and reigning in irresponsible building before the systems can handle it. They are not doing that. Rather, they are grabbing what they can for as long as communities will allow it because that is the cheap way for them to do business. My God, there is constant arguing about the use of public funds to improve health and safety for people – right or wrong, nobody wants to pay for anybody else’s food, health care or housing. Yet here we are, ready to fork over the very land and resources that our next generations will need…for what? So that an already insanely wealthy industry can get more for themselves. So that they can leave the messes and fixes to the next generation. “Do no harm.” This is a defining principle in medicine and ethics. I believe that most of us, no matter our vocation in life, strive to achieve a standard even higher than that. Most of us seek to leave our community, workplace and home better than it was when we arrived. Parents not only meet their children’s current needs, but attempt to save for their futures. Small businesses sidestep risky investments in order to avoid big losses. Both forgo notoriety and novelty at times in order to be stable and consistent providers now and in the future. How then can just a handful of elected officials make a conscious choice to support a land use that has major deficits, drawbacks and dangers associated with its operation. How dare local businesses get stuck with high costs and lower values because the big dogs and greedy hogs are allowed to come in and drive up demand the demand for every resource. How dare a major risk be taken that could cause harm to our children’s future home and lifestyles. And for what? To be the first in the county? To claim a small part in a mega-scale operation? To stubbornly insist that the promised tax-base and economic outcome for the city trumps the concern, safety and well-being of its citizens? The residents and businesses who have long invested and taken care of this city and the surrounding township deserve the respect of the current city council. You owe these multinational, billionaire investors nothing – you owe your loyalty to the locals who elected you. We are not fools. We see what is happening. We hear about the non-disclosure agreements. We wonder who will actually make financial gains from this. We wonder how future campaigns are funded, and whom leaders will really answer to and represent going forward. Because we know how the sausage is made sometimes. For now, we read and educate ourselves about the true costs of the big data center business. We understand that those increased demands will result in our higher costs because a billion-dollar entities are never going to pay their fair share…that’s not how the money is made. Nope, we are no fools. And, we see the AI wave – tsunami to be exact – barreling toward us. We anticipate its impact on the jobs we hold now, and wonder how everyone will continue to make a living-wage when AI replaces them in the workforce. We certainly know we will not be able to afford the increased costs of living in Monticello if a data center drives up our basic utilities and robs us of land values and resources. Please listen to your constituents because they are not fools. At least they didn’t think they were when they gave you their vote and entrusted you with their representation. Sincerely, Nancy Kopff Monticello, MN 55362 December 2, 2025 Attention: Monticello Community Development and City Council Re: Data Center Planned Use Development Hearing Public Comment _____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Members and City Officials, We would be fools to welcome a data center into our community. We would be fools to usher in an industry that is currently and willfully unregulated at the federal level. We would be fools to think that we know all there is to know about an industry that is growing faster than any of the research and economic data can track. The investors are tracking their immediate monetary gains, and we would be fools to believe the assurances that they offer to push their way into our beautiful community. The data center and AI business models are far too immense and economically powerful to think that a small city government is possibly going to address the vast number of immediate and long-term negative impacts that these operations involve. We are no match for them, and they know it. The only power we have is now, when we can still sa y NO. We would be fools to invest in expensive infrastructure and services to accommodate an industry that has a track record of taking far more than they give to any community. Roads, water supply, waste water treatment, energy, fire protection, law enforcement – the needs are immense and the common folks will suffer the most...billionaires can afford the doubling or tripling of costs - regular people cannot. If you want to see future investment or maintenance of current homes and businesses fall away, then by all means welcome in a couple of huge players that will explicitly or effectively dictate every major expenditure and land use decision going forward. If the tax base is failing to cover city expenses right now, it is certainly not going to be solved by ushering in an industry that is known to find every loophole and work-around to make as money as possible and to pay as little as is allowed. We would be fools to not read the writing on the wall and educate ourselves on the real cost of data centers being located around the country. We would be fools to look the other way and somehow think our story will be different, to believe that we are smarter than those towns and cities have unsuccessfully tried to make these centers work for their communities instead of against them. We would be fools to dream that adherence to a newly drawn ordinance will be stellar and trustworthy. It won’t be, because what really drives these operations is the bottom line - their own, not yours and mine. And when those standards are not met, or the realization that this ordinance missed something vitally important, well then we would be fools to believe that our eventual costs of legal representation will not be outspent and won by the billion dollars of backing these companies possess. They will win, and we will pay again. We would be fools to hand over our natural resources -land, air, wildlife, water to the highest bidder who will quickly disappear from the equation when mitigation and clean up becomes necessary someday – and it will become necessary. Some things cannot be undone, some mistakes don’t allow for second chances, at least not in the span of our lifetimes. We would be fools to negate the careful stewardship and land use decisions that have fostered growth and the protection our community resources for over one hundred years by introducing an industry that has one goal and one goal only: TO MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE. The environment is not their concern. The current and future residents of Monticello are not their concern. The water quality is not their concern. And no, our supply is not endless. The electricity costs for the rest of us are not their concern. The impact on wildlife, traffic, noise, air quality – none of these are their concern. We would be fools to believe otherwise. Representative government only works for citizens when the elected officials seek to answer to the people. The people of Monticello do not want this. The people of Monticello want growth that supports all aspects of their community, not only an immediate monetary one that cannot even be soundly proven yet. The people here want job opportunities that expand our human capital, not hand it off to billionaire companies that see their employees as expenditures rather than valuable people who love their hometown. Speaking of which, we would be fools to believe that the relative handful of jobs these monstrosities will offer will even begin to offset the serious and permanent economic losses that surrounding landowners and residents will bear because of them. Surrounding land values will drop, this is not even a question. Which one of you will be first in line to buy a neighboring property or even think of investing in one that will be hooked to the same water, sewer and energy supplies when we know those costs for everyone will skyrocket due to continual growing demands? We all must be fools to think that this industry, so quick to grab land and resources away from small communities, is ever going to sustain itself – they are not even setting out to do that initially. We would be fools to think that this AI boom they are making fortunes from is ever going to work in the favor of everyday citizens. If that were the case, these companies would be fast-tracking technology for their cooling needs and energy uses – and reigning in irresponsible building before the systems can handle it. They are not doing that. Rather, they are grabbing what they can for as long as communities will allow it because that is the cheap way for them to do business. My God, there is constant arguing about the use of public funds to improve health and safety for people – right or wrong, nobody wants to pay for anybody else’s food, health care or housing. Yet here we are, ready to fork over the very land and resources that our next generations will need…for what? So that an already insanely wealthy industry can get more for themselves. So that they can leave the messes and fixes to the next generation. “Do no harm.” This is a defining principle in medicine and ethics. I believe that most of us, no matter our vocation in life, strive to achieve a standard even higher than that. Most of us seek to leave our community, workplace and home better than it was when we arrived. Parents not only meet their children’s current needs, but attempt to save for their futures. Small businesses sidestep risky investments in order to avoid big losses. Both forgo notoriety and novelty at times in order to be stable and consistent providers now and in the future. How then can just a handful of elected officials make a conscious choice to support a land use that has major deficits, drawbacks and dangers associated with its operation. How dare local businesses get stuck with high costs and lower values because the big dogs and greedy hogs are allowed to come in and drive up demand the demand for every resource. How dare a major risk be taken that could cause harm to our children’s future home and lifestyles. And for what? To be the first in the county? To claim a small part in a mega-scale operation? To stubbornly insist that the promised tax-base and economic outcome for the city trumps the concern, safety and well-being of its citizens? The residents and businesses who have long invested and taken care of this city and the surrounding township deserve the respect of the current city council. You owe these multinational, billionaire investors nothing – you owe your loyalty to the locals who elected you. We are not fools. We see what is happening. We hear about the non-disclosure agreements. We wonder who will actually make financial gains from this. We wonder how future campaigns are funded, and whom leaders will really answer to and represent going forward. Because we know how the sausage is made sometimes. For now, we read and educate ourselves about the true costs of the big data center business. We understand that those increased demands will result in our higher costs because a billion-dollar entities are never going to pay their fair share…that’s not how the money is made. Nope, we are no fools. And, we see the AI wave – tsunami to be exact – barreling toward us. We anticipate its impact on the jobs we hold now, and wonder how everyone will continue to make a living-wage when AI replaces them in the workforce. We certainly know we will not be able to afford the increased costs of living in Monticello if a data center drives up our basic utilities and robs us of land values and resources. Please listen to your constituents because they are not fools. At least they didn’t think they were when they gave you their vote and entrusted you with their representation. Sincerely, Nancy Kopff 1490 75th Street NE Monticello, MN 55362 From: To:Development Services Subject:Data Centers Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:13:09 AM Please do not let the data centers come to our beautiful town. Karen Dehmer From: To:Development Services Subject:No Data Centers now or Ever in Monticello Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:04:37 AM Hello, My name is Dennis DuFrane. I live in the Featherstone development and have been a resident since 2019. I love this town and my community so much that when we decided to build our dream home, we chose to do so in the same area. I have proudly shared my affection for this small town since we moved here! Our community in this neighborhood is second to none. We spend many nights in large groups, enjoying each other's company while our kids play together. However, all of this is at risk due to the proposed data center(s) being planned literally in our backyard. After conducting extensive research, I find no value in this project for my neighbors or me; I only see potential negatives. My biggest concern is why this has been in discussion for over a year, yet most of my neighbors, including myself, were unaware. Why didn't the city send out letters, as they have in the past for events like tree trimming or the Stellis Health facility proposal on Highway 25 a few years ago? I personally do not use social media, which makes this situation feel quite sneaky. It’s particularly concerning that the company behind this project is operating under a shell company called Monticello LLC. As mentioned, we love it here; we built our dream house and invested significantly in upgrades to make it our own. My wife and I both work remotely and could have chosen anywhere to live, but we stayed here for the quality of life, lower taxes, and a community that cares about its residents. We have volunteered at local schools and small businesses because we care too! Allowing a data center to be within 500 feet of my home is absolutely unacceptable. There are numerous concerns: 1. Long-Term Construction: Data centers often require extensive construction periods, sometimes lasting over a decade, leading to prolonged disruption in the community. 2. Constant Noise Pollution: Data centers operate 24/7/365, generating noise that can exceed 75 decibels, which is comparable to the sound of a vacuum cleaner running in your home. 3. Decreased Property Values: Studies show that properties near data centers can lose 10- 20% of their value, which could mean a loss of $75,000 to $100,000 for my home, making it nearly impossible to sell. 4. Resource Strain: Data centers consume vast amounts of electricity and water—up to 2 million gallons a day—putting additional strain on our already limited local resources. Which can lead to thermal pollution and negatively impact local water quality. When heated water is discharged back into nearby bodies of water, it can disrupt aquatic ecosystems, potentially leading to harmful algae blooms that produce toxins harmful to both human health and local wildlife. 5. Environmental Concerns: Many data centers have been linked to air and water pollution. For example, a report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicated that facilities can contribute to increased cancer risk in nearby communities due to emissions. 6. Lack of Communication: The absence of proactive communication from the city regarding this project is alarming, as community engagement is crucial for transparency. 7. Economic Viability: The tech industry has seen a recent trend of overspending with diminishing returns. What happens if funding dries up and the construction remains unfinished? This could leave our community with a vacant and unproductive facility. I urge you to consider the significant impact this proposal could have on our community and the quality of life we cherish. Choose People over Profit. Do the right thing! This is a bad idea! Thank you for your attention to these critical concerns. Sincerely, Dennis DuFrane From:Charlotte Gabler To: Cc:Rachel Leonard; Angela Schumann Subject:Re: No Data Center Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 8:36:53 AM Good Morning Deb- Thank you for your email. I have included City Administrator Rachel Leonard and Community Development Direct Angela Schumann. I appreciate your feedback and information. 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: de Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 8:35 AM To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: No Data Center To the Monticello City Council and Development committee, Earlier today I signed a petition in opposition to a proposed data center in Monticello. Currently, the petition has over 1200 signatures, an indication of the number of people opposed to this development plan. My opposition to the proposed AI data center development is based on evidence gathered from other communities around our nation with data centers that are already seeing and documenting data about the negative impact these centers are having on their towns. The potential negative impacts on our community are significant and outweigh any perceived benefits. The 4 key reasons for my opposition are: Strain on Water Resources: Data centers are massive water consumers for cooling, which often leads to water shortages, decreased water pressure, and potential water contamination for our residents, especially during dry periods. Given the recent drought in 2024, this is a major concern for a community already facing water restrictions each summer. Infrastructure and Financial Burden: The immense power demands of a data center will likely require costly upgrades to our electrical grid and would lead to higher utility bills for residents, as has been seen in other communities, some increases as high as 700%. Also, the city may be forced to bear the costs for increased water and sewer infrastructure that a data center would require. Quality of Life and Noise Pollution: Data centers operate with loud, constant noise from cooling fans and backup generators that can run day and night. This noise pollution will significantly decrease the quality of life for nearby residents, especially those in the newer developments in the southeast side of town and could negatively affect property values. Environmental and Health Risks: The generators required for backup power can emit toxic air pollutants from diesel fuel and fuel leaks, potentially creating unhealthy air quality for the surrounding area. Monthly testing of the generators will release emissions that will pose respiratory risks to those with underlying health conditions. Additionally, the large water usage and potential for contamination raise significant environmental and health concerns for the community. For these reasons I implore you to prioritize the long term well-being and quality of life for the residents of Monticello by rejecting the proposal for a data center. Sincerely, Deb Ebner Sent from AOL on Android From: To:Development Services Subject:Data Center Zoning Ordinance Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 1:10:40 AM Hello Monticello Planning commission and city council, When Viewing and trying to get an understanding of the current draft ordinance, I have Concerns. It seems to not address one of the big issues that most people in Monticello have. That concern is the Proximity of a Data center to its residents. What is missing in this draft is an acknowledgment to the existing residents. The people that have helped build this town and make it great. I think an extremly important word here is- EXISTING resident! It is your duty to maintain the reason they moved here and have stayed. Allowing this ordinance to a 200-300 foot set back to existing residence is beyond disrespectful. Moving a data center away from Existing residence helps mitigate a lot of the issues that data centers bring. eliminating direct issues of noise, light, and emissions pollution. It also helps to ease the construction phases of noise, traffic and the finished product of large industrial buildings that intrude the landscape. Having large setbacks from properties will also help regulate the size of a data center and help with the amount of water and power used. Acknowledge your Existing residents by keeping Data centers away from our residential properties, we should be talking thousands of feet as a minimum not hundreds in this ordinance. When it comes to section H back up generators, It needs to more clear and detailed about non usage of generators with peak shaving. There should be a quick section on how a data center shall not have a contract with Xcel or any power company for peak shaving. This includes giving power back to the grid and or being removed from the grid to run on its own generation. The detail will help close loop holes. Peak shaving with generators causes long hours of run time set by power demands from the power company and has no place anywhere near residents. Again the further way these are from residents the less issues and ordinances need to be in place. I have attended when possible as many of the city planning data center ordinance meetings this fall to try and listen and understand the possibilities and obstacles a data center would bring to this community. I try and bring a center isle view until I get a good handle on the positives and negatives of a subject. Something my parents and my schooling growing up here in Monticello have taught me. Small employment equal to the size of facility, large amount of land usage, big power and water usage, invasive to surrounding properties with noise, light and emissions, devalued neighboring properties and the only real positive presented was temporary construction work and a tax income? The simple truth is the cons out way the pros when trying to place this too close to peoples points of refuge. Planning commission and City council, What is a resident, a residential property, a Home? Is the purpose, value and peace of what they stand for a priority to you? -Evan Gerzema Monticello Township resident Modern data‑centers consume vast quantities of water for evaporative cooling. Inthe Maui, Hawaii data‑center cluster, water withdrawals rose by 30 million gallonsper day, prompting the county to impose emergency water‑use restrictions forresidents 1 . Similarly, a 2022 U.S. EPA report found that data‑center coolingaccounted for up to 10 % of municipal water demand in several arid regions,leading to reduced pressure and occasional contamination incidents duringdroughts 2 . With the 2024 drought already tightening our own water supply, therisk of shortages and degraded water quality is immediate. 2. Heavy infrastructure costs and soaring electricity billsThe Power Consumption Advisory Committee of the California Public UtilitiesCommission estimated that a 100‑MW data‑center can push local distributionupgrades by $15–$20 million, a cost that is typically passed on to ratepayers 3 .In St. John’s, Newfoundland, residential electricity rates jumped ≈ 650 % after a newhyperscale facility was built, as documented by the provincial regulator’s 2023 audit4 . Residents of similar towns have reported monthly electric bills climbingby $70–$120 solely because the grid had to accommodate the data‑center’s load. 3. Noise pollution and diminished quality of lifeContinuous operation of high‑capacity chillers and diesel backup generators createspersistent low‑frequency noise. A field study conducted by the University ofWashington’s Environmental Sound Lab measured average sound levels of 55–60dB(A) inside nearby homes of a Seattle‑area data‑center, a level comparable toheavy traffic and sufficient to affect sleep and concentration 5 . Property‑valueanalyses in Northern Virginia showed a 3–5 % depreciation for homes within ahalf‑mile radius of a newly built data‑center, attributed largely to perceived noiseand visual intrusion 6 . 4. Environmental and health hazards from diesel generators and chemical runoffBackup generators, typically diesel‑powered, emit nitrogen oxides (NOₓ), particulatematter (PM₂.₅), and sulfur dioxide (SO₂)—pollutants linked to respiratory ailments.The European Environment Agency recorded a 40 % increase in ambient PM₂.₅concentrations during routine generator testing at a Dutch data‑center park 7 .Moreover, accidental fuel leaks have contaminated groundwater in North Carolina’s“Data‑Center Corridor,” prompting a state health department investigation thatidentified elevated benzene levels in nearby wells 8 . These findings highlight thetangible health risks that could accompany a similar facility in Monticello. CALL TO ACTION Given the documented water scarcity, financial burden, noise intrusion, andenvironmental‑health threats demonstrated in other communities, I respectfully urge theplanning commission to reject any proposal for a data‑center in Monticello and reject anyre-zoning efforts and instead prioritize the long‑term well‑being and quality of life of ourresidents. REFERENCES 1. Maui County Water District, “Emergency Water Restrictions Issued AfterData‑Center Expansion” (June 2023). 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Water Use Impacts of Large‑Scale Data Centers” (Technical Report 2022). 3. California Public Utilities Commission, “Power Consumption Advisory CommitteeFindings on Data‑Center Grid Impacts” (2021). 4. Newfoundland and Labrador Energy Board, “Post‑Implementation Review of St.John’s Data‑Center Electricity Rates” (2023). 5. University of Washington – Environmental Sound Lab, “Acoustic Impact Assessmentof Data‑Center Facilities” (Journal of Applied Acoustics 2022). 6. National Association of Realtors, “Property Value Trends Near Data‑CenterDevelopments” (2022). 7. European Environment Agency, “Air Quality Effects of Diesel Generators atData‑Center Sites” (2021). 8. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, “GroundwaterContamination Investigation – Data‑Center Corridor” (2022). -Elisabeth Glidd Monticello, MN From: To:Lloyd Hilgart; Kip Christianson; Charlotte Gabler; Tracy Hinz; Lee Martie; Development Services Subject:Voicing my opposition to the data center - Property owner in Monticello - Visual distance from proposed location - Mental Health Therapist - Concerned Citizen Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:32:06 AM Hello, I have added my name to the petition opposing the proposed AI data‑center in Monticello.The petition now exceeds 1,200 signatures. My opposition is grounded in concrete evidence from communities across the United Statesthat already host large‑scale data‑centers. The documented harms in those locales faroutweigh any speculative benefits for Monticello. Our group is searching for an environmental attorney to assist us inthis matter. We will also be strongly invested in discovering anyfinancial incentives for county/city board members who stronglyfavor this proposal despite the MANY environmental and quality oflife impacts for our residents. FOUR DOCUMENTED REASONS FOR OPPOSITION 1. Severe strain on local water resourcesModern data‑centers consume vast quantities of water for evaporative cooling. Inthe Maui, Hawaii data‑center cluster, water withdrawals rose by 30 million gallons perday, prompting the county to impose emergency water‑use restrictions for residents1 . Similarly, a 2022 U.S. EPA report found that data‑center cooling accountedfor up to 10 % of municipal water demand in several arid regions, leading to reducedpressure and occasional contamination incidents during droughts 2 . With the2024 drought already tightening our own water supply, the risk of shortages anddegraded water quality is immediate. 2. Heavy infrastructure costs and soaring electricity billsThe Power Consumption Advisory Committee of the California Public UtilitiesCommission estimated that a 100‑MW data‑center can push local distributionupgrades by $15–$20 million, a cost that is typically passed on to ratepayers 3 .In St. John’s, Newfoundland, residential electricity rates jumped ≈ 650 % after a newhyperscale facility was built, as documented by the provincial regulator’s 2023 audit4 . Residents of similar towns have reported monthly electric bills climbing by $70–$120 solely because the grid had to accommodate the data‑center’s load. 3. Noise pollution and diminished quality of lifeContinuous operation of high‑capacity chillers and diesel backup generators createspersistent low‑frequency noise. A field study conducted by the University ofWashington’s Environmental Sound Lab measured average sound levels of 55–60dB(A) inside nearby homes of a Seattle‑area data‑center, a level comparable to heavytraffic and sufficient to affect sleep and concentration 5 . Property‑value analysesin Northern Virginia showed a 3–5 % depreciation for homes within a half‑mile radiusof a newly built data‑center, attributed largely to perceived noise and visual intrusion6 . 4. Environmental and health hazards from diesel generators and chemical runoffBackup generators, typically diesel‑powered, emit nitrogen oxides (NOₓ), particulatematter (PM₂.₅), and sulfur dioxide (SO₂)—pollutants linked to respiratory ailments.The European Environment Agency recorded a 40 % increase in ambient PM₂.₅concentrations during routine generator testing at a Dutch data‑center park 7 .Moreover, accidental fuel leaks have contaminated groundwater in North Carolina’s“Data‑Center Corridor,” prompting a state health department investigation thatidentified elevated benzene levels in nearby wells 8 . These findings highlight thetangible health risks that could accompany a similar facility in Monticello. CALL TO ACTION Given the documented water scarcity, financial burden, noise intrusion, andenvironmental‑health threats demonstrated in other communities, I respectfully urge theplanning commission to reject any proposal for a data‑center in Monticello and reject anyre-zoning efforts and instead prioritize the long‑term well‑being and quality of life of ourresidents. REFERENCES 1. Maui County Water District, “Emergency Water Restrictions Issued After Data‑CenterExpansion” (June 2023). 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Water Use Impacts of Large‑Scale DataCenters” (Technical Report 2022). 3. California Public Utilities Commission, “Power Consumption Advisory CommitteeFindings on Data‑Center Grid Impacts” (2021). 4. Newfoundland and Labrador Energy Board, “Post‑Implementation Review of St. John’sData‑Center Electricity Rates” (2023). 5. University of Washington – Environmental Sound Lab, “Acoustic Impact Assessmentof Data‑Center Facilities” (Journal of Applied Acoustics 2022). 6. National Association of Realtors, “Property Value Trends Near Data‑CenterDevelopments” (2022). 7. European Environment Agency, “Air Quality Effects of Diesel Generators atData‑Center Sites” (2021). 8. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, “GroundwaterContamination Investigation – Data‑Center Corridor” (2022). -Elisabeth Gliddon, MA, Monticello, MN 55362 - From: To:Development Services Subject:Data Center Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 1:25:02 PM To Community Development and City Council: Please add to the ordinance being written for Data Centers in Monticello, MN: “Must Supply own power” to the ordinance relating to data centers in Monticello. I believe this statement added to the ordinance would deter for now the Data Center being proposed and I would hope and pray that you all vote : “NO to this Data Center in Monticello. Please prioritize the long term well being and quality of life for the residents of Monticello by rejecting any proposal for a data center and add to the ordinance for this and future requests for a data center that they have to supply their own power. Zona Gutzwiller Monticello MN 55362 From: To:Development Services Subject:Add "Must Supply their own power" to the ordinance relating to data centers and vote NO to Data Center in 2025/26 Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:45:56 AM To Community Development and City Council: Please add to the ordinance being written for Data Centers in Monticello, MN: “Must Supply own power” to the ordinance relating to data centers in Monticello. I believe this statement added to the ordinance would deter for now the Data Center being proposed and I would hope and pray that you all vote : “NO to this Data Center in Monticello” My reasons for NOT wanting a Data Center in Monticello are as follows: Strain on water resources Infrastructure and Financial Burden. Power demands and water and sewer demands. Quality of Life/Noise and Emissions Environmental and Health Concerns/Risks. Toxic air pollutants. Decline in property values and sky-rocketing electricity prices. Please prioritize the long term well being and quality of life for the residents of Monticello by rejecting any proposal for a data center and add to the ordinance for this and future requests for a data center that they have to supply their own power and water!!!!!! Iris Iris Harris, Monticello, MN 55362 From: To:Development Services Subject:Add "Must Supply their own power" to the ordinance relating to data centers and vote NO to Data Center in 2025/26 Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 1:05:07 PM To Community Development and City Council: Please add to the ordinance being written for Data Centers in Monticello, MN: “Must Supply own power” to the ordinance relating to data centers in Monticello. I believe this statement added to the ordinance would deter for now the Data Center being proposed and I would hope and pray that you all vote : “NO to this Data Center in Monticello” My reasons for NOT wanting a Data Center in Monticello are as follows: Strain on water resources Infrastructure and Financial Burden. Power demands and water and sewer demands. Quality of Life/Noise and Emissions Environmental and Health Concerns/Risks. Toxic air pollutants. Decline in property values and sky-rocketing electricity prices. Please prioritize the long term well being and quality of life for the residents of Monticello by rejecting any proposal for a data center and add to the ordinance for this and future requests for a data center that they have to supply their own power and water!!!!!! Mike & Cindy Jacobson Monticello, MN From: To:Development Services Subject:data center Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 3:57:05 PM Hello, As a resident who moved away from Minneapolis, and one who does NOT want to turn our communities into another Maple Grove, I am hoping that the committee/city council will consider the following: 1. Many, if not most of us are struggling under the current economy. An increase in tax bills or any kind of assessment to improve the existing electric grid and water delivery structure would be a hardship to residents. We should not be subsidizing improvements so that investors from outside our community, who will not have to live near said data centers, can profit. Any upgrades to the existing systems should fall entirely on the data center owners. 2. Additionally, if (when) the community experiences another drought, water usage limits should be applied to data centers before residents experience limits/cutoffs. 3. The average lifespan of a data center is 10-15 years. While every tech company is racing to be the first in the pack, there are only about 7 major tech players competing in the AI race. When the AI bubble bursts, or data centers are no longer profitable, the investors will no- doubt leave their 500-acre toxic monstrosities for communities to clean up. There should be a requirement that any data center holds enough funds in escrow to demolish all structures and reclaim the land, making it safe for housing, schools, parks and water consumption again. If these companies don’t have funds to fix their destruction, certainly the community will not be able to afford it later. And we all know how easily companies can skip town, leaving carcinogenic forever-chemicals in their wake. 4. What kind of testing will be conducted for carcinogens and PFAS in the on-site land, surrounding land, surrounding homes, wells, and groundwater? If these chemicals are found, how will the city handle resolve the problems? If cancer rates start showing up, how will the city reimburse residents? We know that the data center investors will have millions to fight any lawsuits. Where does that leave local families? See the article “Amazon Data Center Linked to Cluster of Rare Cancers” on Futurism.com (toxins were from a 10,000 square foot data center – and we are considering a 500-acre site???). Please remember that the local government is supposed to do what is best for residents. While a massive data center could be the city’s largest taxpayer, it is not in the best interest of residents. This is not what we want. Sincerely, Tracey Johnson From: To:Development Services Subject:DCPUD PUBLIC HEARING of 12/2/2025 Public Comment; PDF of comment below is attached. Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 3:32:41 PM Attachments:Data Center Letter.pdf December 2, 2025 Attention: Monticello Community Development and City Council Re: Data Center Planned Use Development Hearing Public Comment _____________________________________________________________________________ Monticello City Council Members and City Officials, We would be fools to welcome a data center into our community. We would be fools to usher in an industry that is currently and willfully unregulated at the federal level. We would be fools to think that we know all there is to know about an industry that is growing faster than any of the research and economic data can track. The investors are tracking their immediate monetary gains, and we would be fools to believe the assurances that they offer to push their way into our beautiful community. The data center and AI business models are far too immense and economically powerful to think that a small city government is possibly going to address the vast number of immediate and long-term negative impacts that these operations involve. We are no match for them, and they know it. The only power we have is now, when we can still say NO. We would be fools to invest in expensive infrastructure and services to accommodate an industry that has a track record of taking far more than they give to any community. Roads, water supply, waste water treatment, energy, fire protection, law enforcement – the needs are immense and the common folks will suffer the most...billionaires can afford the doubling or tripling of costs - regular people cannot. If you want to see future investment or maintenance of current homes and businesses fall away, then by all means welcome in a couple of huge players that will explicitly or effectively dictate every major expenditure and land use decision going forward. If the tax base is failing to cover city expenses right now, it is certainly not going to be solved by ushering in an industry that is known to find every loophole and work-around to make as money as possible and to pay as little as is allowed. We would be fools to not read the writing on the wall and educate ourselves on the real cost of data centers being located around the country. We would be fools to look the other way and somehow think our story will be different, to believe that we are smarter than those towns and cities have unsuccessfully tried to make these centers work for their communities instead of against them. We would be fools to dream that adherence to a newly drawn ordinance will be stellar and trustworthy. It won’t be, because what really drives these operations is the bottom line - their own, not yours and mine. And when those standards are not met, or the realization that this ordinance missed something vitally important, well then we would be fools to believe that our eventual costs of legal representation will not be outspent and won by the billion dollars of backing these companies possess. They will win, and we will pay again. We would be fools to hand over our natural resources -land, air, wildlife, water to the highest bidder who will quickly disappear from the equation when mitigation and clean up becomes necessary someday – and it will become necessary. Some things cannot be undone, some mistakes don’t allow for second chances, at least not in the span of our lifetimes. We would be fools to negate the careful stewardship and land use decisions that have fostered growth and the protection our community resources for over one hundred years by introducing an industry that has one goal and one goal only: TO MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE. The environment is not their concern. The current and future residents of Monticello are not their concern. The water quality is not their concern. And no, our supply is not endless. The electricity costs for the rest of us are not their concern. The impact on wildlife, traffic, noise, air quality – none of these are their concern. We would be fools to believe otherwise. Representative government only works for citizens when the elected officials seek to answer to the people. The people of Monticello do not want this. The people of Monticello want growth that supports all aspects of their community, not only an immediate monetary one that cannot even be soundly proven yet. The people here want job opportunities that expand our human capital, not hand it off to billionaire companies that see their employees as expenditures rather than valuable people who love their hometown. Speaking of which, we would be fools to believe that the relative handful of jobs these monstrosities will offer will even begin to offset the serious and permanent economic losses that surrounding landowners and residents will bear because of them. Surrounding land values will drop, this is not even a question. Which one of you will be first in line to buy a neighboring property or even think of investing in one that will be hooked to the same water, sewer and energy supplies when we know those costs for everyone will skyrocket due to continual growing demands? We all must be fools to think that this industry, so quick to grab land and resources away from small communities, is ever going to sustain itself – they are not even setting out to do that initially. We would be fools to think that this AI boom they are making fortunes from is ever going to work in the favor of everyday citizens. If that were the case, these companies would be fast-tracking technology for their cooling needs and energy uses – and reigning in irresponsible building before the systems can handle it. They are not doing that. Rather, they are grabbing what they can for as long as communities will allow it because that is the cheap way for them to do business. My God, there is constant arguing about the use of public funds to improve health and safety for people – right or wrong, nobody wants to pay for anybody else’s food, health care or housing. Yet here we are, ready to fork over the very land and resources that our next generations will need…for what? So that an already insanely wealthy industry can get more for themselves. So that they can leave the messes and fixes to the next generation. “Do no harm.” This is a defining principle in medicine and ethics. I believe that most of us, no matter our vocation in life, strive to achieve a standard even higher than that. Most of us seek to leave our community, workplace and home better than it was when we arrived. Parents not only meet their children’s current needs, but attempt to save for their futures. Small businesses sidestep risky investments in order to avoid big losses. Both forgo notoriety and novelty at times in order to be stable and consistent providers now and in the future. How then can just a handful of elected officials make a conscious choice to support a land use that has major deficits, drawbacks and dangers associated with its operation. How dare local businesses get stuck with high costs and lower values because the big dogs and greedy hogs are allowed to come in and drive up demand the demand for every resource. How dare a major risk be taken that could cause harm to our children’s future home and lifestyles. And for what? To be the first in the county? To claim a small part in a mega-scale operation? To stubbornly insist that the promised tax-base and economic outcome for the city trumps the concern, safety and well-being of its citizens? The residents and businesses who have long invested and taken care of this city and the surrounding township deserve the respect of the current city council. You owe these multinational, billionaire investors nothing – you owe your loyalty to the locals who elected you. We are not fools. We see what is happening. We hear about the non-disclosure agreements. We wonder who will actually make financial gains from this. We wonder how future campaigns are funded, and whom leaders will really answer to and represent going forward. Because we know how the sausage is made sometimes. For now, we read and educate ourselves about the true costs of the big data center business. We understand that those increased demands will result in our higher costs because a billion-dollar entities are never going to pay their fair share…that’s not how the money is made. Nope, we are no fools. And, we see the AI wave – tsunami to be exact – barreling toward us. We anticipate its impact on the jobs we hold now, and wonder how everyone will continue to make a living-wage when AI replaces them in the workforce. We certainly know we will not be able to afford the increased costs of living in Monticello if a data center drives up our basic utilities and robs us of land values and resources. Please listen to your constituents because they are not fools. At least they didn’t think they were when they gave you their vote and entrusted you with their representation. Sincerely, Nancy Kopff Monticello, MN 55362 From: To:Angela Schumann Subject:Re: Monticello Industrial Development - Draft AUAR Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 8:23:26 AM I cannot be at the meeting tonight. Please address how we can make these voter approved/denied Sent from my iPad On Nov 19, 2025, at 10:57 AM, Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@monticellomn.gov> wrote: On behalf of the City of Monticello, please find below a link to the Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan for the Monticello Industrial Development study area. The City of Monticello approved the Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan for distribution at the November 10, 2025, City Council Meeting. Environmental Reviews | Monticello, MN The AUAR process provides local governments with the opportunity to evaluate how different land uses may impact the community's environment, providing environmental analysis before major development occurs and helping inform future land use decisions. An AUAR is not a project approval document; it provides information useful to planning for the management and mitigation of impacts. The Monticello Industrial AUAR evaluates two development land use scenarios, a light industrial park land use scenario as outlined in the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan and a technology campus (data center) land use scenario. This AUAR study area encompasses approximately 550 acres on 16 parcels in Monticello Township, Minnesota. The study area is comprised of land generally located south of 85th St NE, west of Edmonson Ave NE, and east of Davidson Ave NE, within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. The public is invited to review and provide comment on the Draft AUAR and mitigation plan. You are receiving this email because you have previously provided comments on the Monticello Industrial AUAR Scoping Document. The 30-day comment period began on November 18, 2025. Comments will be accepted through 4:00 PM on December 18, 2025, and should be addressed to: angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov. An Open House on Thursday, November 20, 2025 is also scheduled as an opportunity for additional public information and feedback on the Monticello Industrial AUAR. The Open House will be held from 6-8 PM at the Monticello Community Center. From: To:Development Services Subject:Data Center Ordinance Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 3:49:06 PM Hello, I am a Distributed Systems Engineer with well over a decade of experience in the industry, currently residing in Montcello. I've worked at DigitalOcean and seen how the data centers containing our servers operated. I've also worked in the AI space, building the distributed communication layer between domain experts and a human-in-the-loop AI trainer that retrained models as new data samples were added. I do not see data centers as a way to add long-term value to our town. At best, they will create temporary construction jobs, but none of those jobs will last. Once a data center is operational, most of the time they can be maintained by a few engineers and security personnel - almost all of the jobs added by a data center will be done remotely. Even companies that require engineers to work from an office will have them work in some office in Minneapolis, or even farther remote (like San Francisco). As long as they have one or two on-site engineers to handle hardware failures, literally all software failures can be handled from anywhere on the planet. Even new server installs are usually accomplished remotely via a PXE boot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preboot_Execution_Environment). At DigitalOcean, we actually had controls for all of our server hardware in a chat bot. All I had to do was open the correct channel in slack and type "./reboot <server-name>" to reboot a server. And we had similar controls for wiping a server and installing a new operating system, or updating SSH (remote access) settings, or any number of other controls. The only time I've ever had to contact someone physically in the datacenter was when a hard drive failed. Personally, I do not believe that allowing companies to build data centers in our town or township is a good long-term investment at all, and I generally am opposed to such legislation. Especially now, when the LLM bubble is so close to bursting - we might end up with a data center hosting only a handful of servers. However, if we do decide to allow datacenters to be built in our township, our legislation should very clearly benefit our town. The companies that use the datacenter will receive massive benefits, so our town must also see benefits - beyond the handful of (mostly low-paying) jobs it creates. At minimum, we should require them to use (and pay for) Fibernet, and ideally invest in improvements to our town's internet infrastructure. If possible, we should require companies with backbone networks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backbone_network), such as AWS, Google, and Valve, to host exit/entry nodes to their user-facing backbones for our town if they want to host any of their servers in our town. We should require companies that host very high heat servers (like AI or blockchain servers) to invest in environmental infrastructure, to keep their environmental impact in line with normal server hosting. I hope that we can focus on growing our town in more long-term-beneficial ways than data centers provide; but if we decide to take the short term benefits of allowing data centers in our town, requiring data center owners or companies hosting servers in those data centers to invest in our town would at least mitigate the long-term damage. -Sam https://git.sr.ht/~nelsam https://github.com/nelsam "As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual certainty, and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life -- so I became a scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop so you can meet girls." -- Matt Cartmill From: To:Development Services Subject:Questions for Tonight"s Data Center Meeting Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 4:00:02 PM My husband and I along with our 3 children recently moved to Monticello to a brand new housing development. We moved from Hastings where the safety of the drinking water was ruined by 3M located in Cottage Grove but managed to pollute 14 communities. Even though 3M has been fined and had to pay large sums of money, the water supply won't have treatment plants ready until 2029 AND while people continue to drink and shower and cook with their polluted water, they will have to pay large amounts of the cost with 3M only providing PART of the solution. 3M's plant in cottage grove is 680,000 square feet. You know whats insane? The smallest proposal for a data center is twice that size AND water is only one of the issues that a data center is going to create. So I have some questions: 1. What restrictions will the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency be putting on the data centers prior to building the data centers? 2. What legal protections does Monticello have in place to ensure that their residents will not be paying extra on their water bills, electricity bills, or clean up of pollution caused by the Data Centers? I have many more questions so keep your eyes peeled for more but am submitting for deadline From: To:Development Services Subject:Stop Pushing to Build Data Centers in Monticello Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 12:48:02 AM Hello City of Monticello, It was a dream of my husband and I to move to central Minnesota so we could be closer to family. For the last five years we worked and saved, and our dream came true when we moved to Monticello in August 2025. Shortly after we arrived, we were horrified to learn that Monticello is seriously embarking on creating an ordinance and making it possible for data centers to be built here. Would we have considered moving somewhere else had we known beforehand? The answer is yes, very likely. I was able to attend the Q&A event in November and I left with more worries than what I arrived with. Why does the city of Monticello favor the idea of data centers so much? It feels very short-sighted to say that it will provide jobs (which would be very temporary,) and small- minded that the building of data centers would help pay for our aging infrastructure. As a new resident in the area, I can say I'd rather pay the taxes on taking care of our infrastructure, than the trade-off for high water and electrical usage that would be directly caused by data centers. PLEASE think about the long-term effects and consequences of what having a data center in Monticello will do! No money is worth the huge drain of our city's natural resources, and the long-term effect it will have on the growth of this city. Do you like that people have been moving here? There will be less of that if a data center is built in Monticello, and I'm confident that there will be plenty of Monticello natives who will leave. I have two young kids at home, and I don't want my children growing up in a town where quick money is prioritized over the safety and well-being of Monticello residents. Thank you for your time - please see that there are LOT of Monticello residents who don't want a data center in our community! Elena Patterson “How lucky I am to have something that makes saying goodbye so hard.” - A.A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh From: To:Development Services; Lloyd Hilgart; Kip Christianson; Charlotte Gabler; Tracy Hinz; Lee Martie Subject:Oppose Data Center Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:01:23 AM Hello, I have added my name to the petition opposing the proposed AI data‑center inMonticello. The petition now exceeds 1,200 signatures.My opposition is grounded in concrete evidence from communities across the United Statesthat already host large‑scale data‑centers. The documented harms in those locales faroutweigh any speculative benefits for Monticello. Our group is searching for an environmental attorney to assist us in this matter. We will alsobe strongly invested in discovering any financial incentives for county/city board memberswho strongly favor this proposal despite the MANY environmental and quality of lifeimpacts for our residents.Issues of concern: Severe strain on local water resourcesModern data‑centers consume vast quantities of water for evaporative cooling. In the Maui,Hawaii data‑center cluster, water withdrawals rose by 30 million gallons per day, promptingthe county to impose emergency water‑use restrictions for residents 1 . Similarly, a2022 U.S. EPA report found that data‑center cooling accounted for up to 10 % of municipalwater demand in several arid regions, leading to reduced pressure and occasionalcontamination incidents during droughts 2 . With the 2024 drought already tighteningour own water supply, the risk of shortages and degraded water quality is immediate. Heavy infrastructure costs and soaring electricity billsThe Power Consumption Advisory Committee of the California Public UtilitiesCommission estimated that a 100‑MW data‑center can push local distribution upgradesby $15–$20 million, a cost that is typically passed on to ratepayers 3 . In St. John’s,Newfoundland, residential electricity rates jumped ≈ 650 % after a new hyperscale facilitywas built, as documented by the provincial regulator’s 2023 audit 4 . Residents of similartowns have reported monthly electric bills climbing by $70–$120 solely because the gridhad to accommodate the data‑center’s load. Noise pollution and diminished quality of lifeContinuous operation of high‑capacity chillers and diesel backup generators createspersistent low‑frequency noise. A field study conducted by the University of Washington’sEnvironmental Sound Lab measured average sound levels of 55–60 dB(A) inside nearbyhomes of a Seattle‑area data‑center, a level comparable to heavy traffic and sufficient to affect sleep and concentration 5 . Property ‑value analyses in Northern Virginia showeda 3–5 % depreciation for homes within a half‑mile radius of a newly built data‑center,attributed largely to perceived noise and visual intrusion 6 . Environmental and health hazards from diesel generators and chemical runoffBackup generators, typically diesel‑powered, emit nitrogen oxides (NOₓ), particulate matter(PM₂.₅), and sulfur dioxide (SO₂)—pollutants linked to respiratory ailments. The EuropeanEnvironment Agency recorded a 40 % increase in ambient PM₂.₅ concentrations duringroutine generator testing at a Dutch data‑center park 7 . Moreover, accidental fuel leakshave contaminated groundwater in North Carolina’s “Data‑Center Corridor,” prompting astate health department investigation that identified elevated benzene levels in nearbywells 8 . These findings highlight the tangible health risks that could accompany a similarfacility in Monticello.Call to actionGiven the documented water scarcity, financial burden, noise intrusion, andenvironmental‑health threats demonstrated in other communities, I respectfully urge theplanning commission to reject any proposal for a data‑center in Monticello and reject anyre-zoning efforts and instead prioritize the long‑term well‑being and quality of life of ourresidents. References Maui County Water District, “Emergency Water Restrictions Issued After Data‑CenterExpansion” (June 2023). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Water Use Impacts of Large‑Scale DataCenters” (Technical Report 2022). California Public Utilities Commission, “Power Consumption Advisory Committee Findingson Data‑Center Grid Impacts” (2021). Newfoundland and Labrador Energy Board, “Post‑Implementation Review of St. John’sData‑Center Electricity Rates” (2023). University of Washington – Environmental Sound Lab, “Acoustic Impact Assessment ofData‑Center Facilities” (Journal of Applied Acoustics 2022). National Association of Realtors, “Property Value Trends Near Data‑CenterDevelopments” (2022). European Environment Agency, “Air Quality Effects of Diesel Generators at Data‑CenterSites” (2021). North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, “Groundwater ContaminationInvestigation – Data‑Center Corridor” (2022). Thank you, Angelique Petitta From: To:Development Services Subject:NO DATA CENTER Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 8:21:08 AM Hello- I am writing to share my concerns around a data center coming to Monticello. This is a family community that prides itself on community well-being, local businesses thriving and overall community health. All these things would be put at risk with the addition of a data center. The proposed location is near a residential area; MY residential area, that is home to several families with small children. The environmental impact, the health impact and the property value impact SHOULD be of utmost concern to you. A data center impacts water and electricity. We the constituents of Monticello do not want to see a data center in our area and I'm surprised that this would be considered in an area that prides itself on community. Property values will decrease while property taxes increase. As a concerned voting resident of Monticello; I do not support data centers in our area and neither should you. Thank you. N. Turner From: To:Development Services Subject:Data Center Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 12:36:33 PM Good morning, I have been a resident of Monticello most of my life I was born and raised here. 5 years ago we purchased our current home directly south of the proposed data center/technology campus it borders our property line. I was astonished to discover all that has been done on this project with zero effort to inform those who are directly reflected. The most disgusting part of this in my opinion is the failure of “democracy.” Living in Monticello Township we vote for the council members for Monticello Township and cannot vote for city counsel and Mayor of the city of Monticello and yet the decision of what is to happen to our properties is determined by the city officials. How is that democracy? If you drive by the properties in and around the proposed location nearly every driveway has a “No Data Center” sign. We are unable to vote but it is clear how we would. There are very nice homes being built directly across form the site and the town is naturally expanding this way. Data Centers have extremely high electrical and water consumption. The wells in the area including my own would be drawing from the same aquafer and will be dried up, access to clean drinking water is considered to be the largest contributor to better health and greater life expectancy in the last 200 years. Electrical consumption by data centers is unparalleled with the upcoming closings of the coal plants in Becker outside of adding an additional reactor, outages during peak consumption times like hot summer days seem inevitable. The area is also not equipped for high traffic we live on County Road 37 just west of Edmonson Ave/117. In the Summer my kids frequently ask if they ask if they can walk to Wal-Mart I always say no because the 2 potential roads they would use to walk to town are curvy, narrow, and shoulder less. This is a limitation brought on by the lakes and ponds and would be difficult to change. Having heavy trucks coming in with building materials and etc. would be dangerous and irresponsible. To recap my concerns are as follows -Lack of democracy for property owners affected -Excessive water consumption used for cooling will degrade water quality and deplete aquafer -Massive power consumption will overrun the electrical grid - Poor zoning roads are not equipped to handle the traffic and loads and property values will inevitably go down in surrounding area that is currently growing well. A little over 20 years ago hostile annexation concerns caused the people in my area to protest and boycott the municipal liquor store I really hope it does not come to that, but I fear it is the only recourse available for township citizens affected by this initiative. I urge you all to take time and ask people in the surrounding neighborhoods what their thoughts are I am confident the majority will be against and the rest are unaware of the potential repercussions. I appreciate you taking time to hear my concerns and pray you consider the residents over the revenue. Thank you, Tony Weiss M.B.A, B.S From: To:Development Services Subject:Objection to allowing Data Centers in Monticello Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:50:10 AM To: City of Monticello Planning Commission Members Date: 12/2/2025 Re: Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code Members of the Planning Commission, As a concerned resident who has happily owned property in Monticello for 22 years and is now faced with the grim reality of a data center being built in my back yard, I urge you to think about what this means for the families of Monticello. We were just faced with an important referendum to put our kids and community first and the voters voted in favor of this referendum to support our community and positively impact the lives of the families who call this community home. Now, YOU, those who represent the families in this wonderful community are now faced with a decision on whether to allow these data centers. Please vote to protect our city, our residents and our families from these data centers and the impact that this will have! We do not want them here. We do not need them here. This Amendment is extremely important and if this is approved, the damage is done and there is no turning back. Please DENY this Amendment! My concerns are many. Data centers consume massive amounts of energy, strain local water supplies, create major noise and light pollution and create enormous land use conflicts. I do not want a data center in my back yard consuming these massive amounts of energy, straining local water supplies and creating noise and light pollution. I don't want a data center impacting my home value. The potential data center site that I am a neighbor to, also abuts the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park. How can we allow this to happen next to a Regional Park? The city has put so many resources into making Bertram Chain of Lakes an attraction that is enjoyed and utilized by many. Allowing a data center to impact this beautiful park that serves the community just doesn't make sense. Please DENY this Amendment. Choose our community, our families and our resources first, rather than these data centers. Thank you, Carrie Winter Monticello, MN Exhibit I Citizen Comments – Post December 2, 2025 Public Hearing From:Charlotte Gabler Cc:Rachel Leonard; Angela Schumann Subject:Re: Proposed Data Center Date:Thursday, January 8, 2026 1:57:14 PM Good Afternoon David- Thank you for the email. I have included City Administrator Rachel Leonard as well as Community Development Director Angela Schumann. I appreciate your feedback on data centers and the community as a whole. It is nice to hear that our progress in revitalizing downtown is making an impact. 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: David Skoblik Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 6:41 PM To: Lloyd Hilgart <Lloyd.Hilgart@MonticelloMN.gov>; Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>; Tracy Hinz <Tracy.Hinz@MonticelloMN.gov>; Kip Christianson <Kip.Christianson@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lee Martie <Lee.Martie@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Proposed Data Center Mr. Mayor and Council Members- I am writing as I have been unable to attend one of the council meetings and other opportunities to discuss the proposal for a data center in Monticello. As a resident of Monticello for the last 6 years, I have seen improvements to the city. I do not believe a Data Center would be one of them. I oppose the impact this facility would have on Monticello and it's residents in the long term. I would rather see additional investments in infrastructure, additional and updated walking paths, nature areas, attracting stores like Trader Joe's, and the continued revitalizing of downtown with small businesses. Thank you. David Skoblik Monticello, MN 55362 From: To:Lloyd Hilgart; Tracy Hinz; Kip Christianson; Angela Schumann; Charlotte Gabler; Lee Martie; Rachel Leonard Subject:NO DATA CENTER Date:Saturday, January 17, 2026 8:03:29 PM I am writing to express my significant concerns regarding the proposed data center asking that you vote NO on anything that could possibly allow for one to be built in Monticello. How can any of you say that there is little opposition for this thing when literally hundreds of people have shown up at meetings in opposition, signed a petition against it and I'm sure are emailing you constantly about it. I have yet to see anyone give reasons why this would be a good thing for our city that would outweigh the negatives. Our property values would go down as much as 30% (which would also mean less funding for the schools since about 20% of school funding is from proprty taxes), constant noise pollution of 60 decibels 24/7, higher electricity bills for the community and a strain on our water supply. I would like each of you to reply to me and tell me what is so good about this monstrosity that would make all of those negatives worth it. And Kip, I don't want you to reply with your phone number and a response to "call anytime" which is literally the only thing you seem to put on any Facebook pages you're in. I've lived in Monticello for 20 years. You are voted in to be the voice of the people of this city. The people DO NOT want this. Looks like Charlotte is the only one willing to speak for us. Charlotte, you have my continued support. Anyone that votes against the will of the people will not. Respectfully, Amie From: To:Angela Schumann Subject:Monticello Data Center Date:Saturday, January 17, 2026 11:41:38 AM To city leaders considering the data center: I am a Monticello resident since 2015 and brought my family here to "escape" the chaos of Hennepin county, the violence, the business, etc...I am a healthcare worker of 30 years and work for Fairview and HCMC in the STAB bays daily witnessing the worst of what humans do it eachother. What is the status of the prominent "Block 52 redevelopment" project? Where are all the businesses/restaurants promised there? " 30,000 square feet of commercial space, including a new restaurant and patio." per the cities website. And what is the status of the "Pointes at Cedar" development that will be a "catalyst for grown and community"? How does the data center fit into this "catalyst for growth and community"? The Pointes at Cedar is 0.8 miles away from the proposed data center. How far away were residential homes in the data centers visited in Iowa? If you don't have room for a data center that fits within the city and vision for the community, you simply say NO. You don't put a DATA CENTER, next to an established neighborhood. Reviewing the documents for this weeks meeting, all I see is money. Where else are positives? Why do we need all this money? If money is the concern, why not the city of Monticello build their own data center and cut out the middle man? I grew up in North Dakota and recall the oil boom there, especially in WIlliston, ND. They got a HUGE influx of tax money and build tons of elaborate infrastructure. Beautiful school, community centers, etc.... Yet, now, no one wants to live there due to what they did with the city and it's industrialization. You can build all the parks, playgrounds, ponds, hockey rinks, and community buildings you want. If the city is filled with industrial infrastructure, people won't want to live here. And annexing this land for "light industrial" use. Where are new homes going to be build for the potential future of this city? Is this the legacy you want to leave for the city of Monticello? From: To:Angela Schumann; Rachel Leonard Subject:DCPUD questions Date:Sunday, January 18, 2026 8:15:36 PM Good morning Angela & Rachel, noticed a paragraph in the new DCPUD I didn't recall seeing before and confirmed it wasn't in the August version. Section 1, Data Center paragraph ends with: The term Data Center shall not include data mining as defined by this ordinance. However a couple paragraphs later is this: 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. 1. Was this requested by the developer or why was it added to the ordinance? 2. Does this mean that data mining is an approved use if it is housed in temporary or portable structures less than 5,000 sq ft? 3. What is considered temporary? How long could they be on site? 4. What type of portable or temporary structures would they be? 5. How many could there be? 6. What type of structure would that be considered in the setback section. Thank you, Lisa Keenan equipment access. Diesel generators can create noise, air pollution, and operational risks. Increased truck traffic during construction and maintenance adds wear to roads and raises safety concerns for nearby neighborhoods. Fifth, data centers can shift financial risk to residents. When large users receive favorable utility rates or tax abatements, the long-term cost of maintaining infrastructure is often passed on to local ratepayers and taxpayers. Residents should not subsidize a private, highly profitable industry that provides limited local benefit. Sixth, approving a data center sets a precedent that could encourage additional similar developments. This risks transforming Monticello into a utility-heavy industrial hub rather than a balanced community focused on livability, environmental stewardship, and sustainable growth. Seventh, they introduce long-term environmental and health risks that disproportionately affect nearby neighborhoods, businesses, children, seniors, and those with existing health conditions. Data Centers release heat and emissions, toxic air pollutants which are harmful to residents. Finally, I am concerned about the decision-making process itself. Projects of this scale deserve robust public engagement, transparent cost–benefit analysis, and environmental review. Residents should have meaningful opportunities to provide input before irreversible land-use decisions are made. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the City of Monticello to require restrictions in the ordinance that are prohibitive and reject the proposed data center projects and instead prioritize development that: Creates long-term, well-paying jobs Protects water and natural resources Strengthens our tax base without shifting risk to residents Preserves community character and quality of life This should not cost us our health or our future and I will not vote for you again if this is approved. Thank you for your time and consideration. I expect my comments to be included in the public record and carefully weighed in all deliberations related to this proposal. Sincerely, Iris Hoglund Harris Monticello Resident From:Angela Schumann To:Tyler Bevier Subject:FW: Resident questions Date:Thursday, January 29, 2026 8:17:41 AM Attachments:image001.png Another. I am going through my email box. 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: Lloyd Hilgart <Lloyd.Hilgart@MonticelloMN.gov> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2026 12:13 PM To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Resident questions Hi, this is Jenna. I’m sorry it took me a little longer than I had anticipated to formulate my list of questions for you. Thank you for your time the other day & for being willing to address my questions/concerns. 1. How do community members who have lived next to data centers feel about the data centers? Like in Altoona & Waukee? Have they noticed any increase in health issues? 2. Have hospitals/clinics in cities with a data center noticed an increase in patients with respiratory illnesses, cancers, etc.? Are there studies backing up these findings? 3. What types of chemicals are used in the closed loop systems? Incidences they have leaked? Consequences if they leak? 4. What chemicals are used in whatever type of data center they are building? 5. How are they going to meet the power demand without generators? What happens during an outage? Will there be any type of generators used for anything? Is the nuclear power plant going to be fixed or just add more power capacity further stressing an overstressed system? Are they just going to keep extending the power plant’s usage? Have the data centers forced their needs in the communities after they are in the process of being built or after they are built? Ie: didn’t need generators but now they do. From:Angela Schumann To:Tyler Bevier Subject:FW: No Data Center PLEASE!!! Date:Thursday, January 29, 2026 8:17:14 AM Attachments:image001.png Sorry. One more to save and add to “after” .pdf. 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: Kelly Stephens Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2026 8:20 PM To: Tracy Hinz <Tracy.Hinz@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lloyd Hilgart <Lloyd.Hilgart@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lee Martie <Lee.Martie@MonticelloMN.gov>; Kip.christian@monticellomn.gov; Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>; Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov> Cc: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: No Data Center PLEASE!!! Lloyd.hilgart@MonticelloMN.gov Charlotte.gabler@MonticelloMN.gov Tracy.hinz@MonticelloMN.gov Lee.martie@MonticelloMN.gov Kip.christian@MonticelloMN.gov Angela.schumann@MonticelloMN.gov Rachel.leonard@MonticelloMN.gov Only one of these people has shown care for our neighborhood atmosphere, good health for humans, and animal safety. Data Centers are not good humans. The money it might create here is not worth the detrimental impact on humans. !!!! Noise pollution is very bad for humans, (especially children) and irritate pets! and drive wildlife away for up to 2 miles. We love the outdoors, the wildlife, and happy pets. Stay away from this area. Babies cry more, children and pets become more irritable. Does this sound like a good plan? Water pollution, the data center can consume up to 5 million gallons a day. 20% will not evaporate into the air, it will overwhelm our Wastewater facilities. Biocides, corrosion inhibitors, and acids, anti-scaling agents make to water Unusable Forever. Heavy metals, total dissolved solids, and PFAS - forever chemicals - pose long term risk to humans, pets, and wildlife. The run-off or "blowdown" water from the data center introduces Contaminated water into the eco system. There is Pelican Lake, just waiting to be destroyed for the fish and waterfowl. That is Not nice. It also will go into local ground water and into our water systems and Contaminate Humans. Horrible idea. Does this sound like a good plan to take care of Monticello people? If you want a data center, put it in your back yard. Not mine. Actually please don't put it anywhere near Monticello ground water. Air pollution- Significant CO2 leads to public health risks as it pollutes our area leading to respiratory diseases, cardiovascular conditions, and elevates cancer risks. Our children are growing up here. Stay out of this area! Please. We will not longer get to see the night stars because of the data center lights. That is insult to injury. Do Not do this. Please understand most of us do not have time to call and email about this. But my hope is that all of this area let you know how we All feel. We all hate the idea. Lloyd 763-286-7462, 763-295-2807 Tracy 612-269-9537 Kip 763-443-0599 Lee 612-812-1939 Angela 763-271-3224 Rachel 763-271-3275 If you call leave a message because they won't answer. Make sure you email them. From: To:Angela Schumann Subject:Fwd: Data Center Ordinance Complaints Date:Friday, January 16, 2026 6:06:50 PM ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Alexander Coady Date: Fri, Jan 16, 2026, 6:05 PM Subject: Data Center Ordinance Complaints To: <Lloyd.hilgart@monticellomn.gov> Cc: <Charlotte.Gabler@monticellomn.gov>, <tracy.hinz@monticellomn.gov>, <lee.martie@monticellomn.gov>, <kip.christianson@monticellomn.gov> Hi Lloyd, I went to the joint commission yesterday, and I've got to say, I was REALLY unimpressed. For context, I've been to a bunch of the data center ordinance public comment sessions, and I can say from personal experience, that just about every single one of those people that were there yesterday, were also at those same public comment sessions, and every one of them were saying "No, no, no" to data centers time and time again, and yet, the very notion of having our representatives say no to these tech giants doesn't seem to be even remotely on the table. Instead, what we got, and what we seem to be constantly getting is a bunch of our representatives treating us like children who don't want to eat their vegetables. A bunch of passive "try it, you might like it," "it won't be as bad as you think" and "we think you're overreacting" type reactions. And when we aren't getting, what feels like gaslit, we seem to be getting passively threatened with comments like, "well of we don't get that fancy data regulation to open the door for the data center you don't want, then we'll just have to open the door for an even scarier light industrial company that'll be even harder to regulate." Which, to be honest, feels very uncreative, and a purely bad argument to me, like, you're the local government, if you feel like the current ordinance for other industries isnt powerful enough to let you protect your citizens, then don't you have the power to change or update that? Like, that's clearly an empty threat to scare a population into submission. No one cheered at the end of the session yesterday, and there's a reason for that. In summary, I, and I'm sure many others feel invalidated, betrayed, gaslight, and honestly, abused by this whole process. It feels like we're getting one no matter what, and honestly, if we do, i'm ready to abandon the town that abandoned me, and until I get the funds to do so, i'm ready to drive to other towns to avoid paying the city tax. From: To:Development Services Subject:Data Center Date:Friday, January 16, 2026 12:41:52 PM Good afternoon. I wanted to discuss the Data Center and it's proposed site. For context, I reside in Featherstone. We moved to Monticello three years ago from Texas. Prior to moving, we visited many other areas all across the twin cities. It was, in fact a full 6 months of us visiting areas and researching what area would be best for our family. The most important factor was choosing a town that we felt would be supportive of our profoundly Autistic son, who is now 6. We originally concluded St Michael would be the best fit but after visiting Monticello, it became quite apparent that we found our forever town. We viewed several areas of Monticello and determined that Featherstone and its surrounding area was absolutely perfect. We felt Monticello was a FAMILY FIRST town, which was a refreshing appeal. During nice weather, we spend most of our days outside. That's important to note as our child has extreme auditory sensitivities. As it is now, we listen to birds and other children playing. Over the summer, we had to limit our time when there was construction in our neighborhood due to sound levels (neighbor a few houses down had a deck build). We knew this was a temporary issue and did our best to work through that. Fast forward to now and the thought of a operating 24/7 Data Center. The developer compared the sound we would hear to a vacuum. Well, hearing that 'vacuum' sound 24/7 will be maddening! We purchased our home, have made so many improvements to meet our sons needs and would not recover those in the event we are forced to sell. There is also no long-term data in regards to health effects from noise and pollution. Its also important to note that 3 of our family members also moved to Monticello, purchased homes and contribute to Monticellos businesses as a result. While we don't want to move, the impact to our son may force it. We are not opposed to growth but the growth must be beneficial for more that just tax purposes for the city. Restaurants, stores, anything that would not only bring jobs but provide a service/goods to the Residents of Monticello. We are opposed to having such a massive DC next door to our neighborhood. It should have been better planned to not butt up against Residential. We would NEVER have bought our home in Featherstone had we knew a DC was in planning. Should Monticello proceed, it should be in a area NOT surrounded by existing Residential. It should be where in any future Residential areas are built, the people purchasing a home can make the informed decision to live next to a DC or not. You are all making the decision for us that as Residents right next door are ALL absolutely OPPOSED to. At this point, I am truly sick over this. I have not attended meetings as I cannot leave my Autistic child and as he vocally stims, I am not able to bring him to meetings with me. My husband is also out working hard to provide financially for us and is not home to watch our son for me to attend. Thank you so much for your time. Monica Primeau From: To:Rachel Leonard Subject:Monticello Data Centers Date:Friday, January 23, 2026 12:14:56 PM Hello Rachel, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my opposition to allowing data centers in Monticello, including the proposed location at Edmonson Ave and Hwy 25, for the following reasons: 1. Insufficient Information on Long-Term Effects There is currently inadequate data on the long-term environmental and health impacts of these centers on nearby residents. No ordinance permitting data centers should be implemented until thorough research and sufficient time have provided clarity on their potential effects on the surrounding area. 2. Preserving Monticello’s Small-Town Character Monticello retains its small-town charm, even amidst the current push for growth. Adding large commercial buildings like data centers would detract from this unique appeal, which does not align with what many residents want for our community. 3. Minimal Job Creation Data centers do not create a significant number of jobs to justify their presence in Monticello. The economic benefit they provide does not outweigh the potential downsides for our community. 4. Concerns About Council Member Motivations It appears that some council members supporting the data centers may be prioritizing personal or political gain over the health and well-being of our community. No financial incentive can compensate for the potential risks to our residents’ quality of life. I urge the mayor and city council members to carefully reconsider the long-term implications of allowing data centers in Monticello and to prioritize the interests and well-being of our community above all else. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Amber Cutsforth Monticello Resident Monticello, MN 55362 From: To:Rachel Leonard Subject:Monticello Data Centers Date:Tuesday, January 20, 2026 9:38:15 AM Morning Rachel, I know I have made statements regarding land use for data centers publicly and in some emails. I wanted to state my position on this as, I and my family do not want any data centers in Monticello. My address is ( Hunters Crossing ) as to make sure you prove I’m a Monticello resident. 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. • What is the long-term economic benefit to residents? How can you say that the effect of lower property values, high cost financially and medically are worth the slight benefit? Health & Environment • What backup systems are being used? • Are diesel generators involved? • How often are they tested or run? • What pollution is released when they are used? What can you do about the noise and it’s effects and why would you want this? How does this effect Human bodies? What studies have been done? Transparency and Other questions and comments • Are water and energy use publicly reported? • Can residents see those numbers? • What oversight exists if usage exceeds projections? Is this already an under the table done deal? Once it’s here, how can we ever get rid of it or stop more from coming? How can we stop it from bringing in more and more low income housing and rentals to Monticello which already has waayyy too much without any substantial higher quality housing because of it’s negative impact on property value and desire to live in a community with Data Centers? you can say this isn’t true…but it is! This isn’t about being anti-technology. It’s about being informed before irreversible decisions are made. Because data centers don’t live in “the cloud.” they live next to residential neighborhoods. PLEASE SAY NO TO THE DATA CENTERS IN MONTICELLO!!! THE FEW BENEFITS DOES NOT OUTWEIGHT THE COST TO THIS COMMUNITY!!! Iris Harris, Resident of Monticello Infrastructure • Were our systems designed for AI-scale, 24/7 demand? • What breaks first if demand spikes faster than upgrades? • How long do upgrades take compared to how fast this facility comes online? Jobs vs. Reality • How many permanent local jobs will exist after construction? Hardly any…maybe a half dozen at the most, do you think that is worth the cost? • How many will be temporary? • What is the long-term economic benefit to residents? How can you say that the effect of lower property values, high cost financially and medically are worth the slight benefit? Health & Environment • What backup systems are being used? • Are diesel generators involved? • How often are they tested or run? • What pollution is released when they are used? What can you do about the noise and it’s effects and why would you want this? How does this effect Human bodies? What studies have been done? Transparency and Other questions and comments • Are water and energy use publicly reported? • Can residents see those numbers? • What oversight exists if usage exceeds projections? Is this already an under the table done deal? Once it’s here, how can we ever get rid of it or stop more from coming? How can we stop it from bringing in more and more low income housing and rentals to Monticello which already has waayyy too much without any substantial higher quality housing because of it’s negative impact on property value and desire to live in a community with Data Centers? you can say this isn’t true…but it is! This isn’t about being anti-technology. It’s about being informed before irreversible decisions are made. Because data centers don’t live in “the cloud.” they live next to residential neighborhoods. PLEASE SAY NO TO THE DATA CENTERS IN MONTICELLO!!! THE FEW BENEFITS DOES NOT OUTWEIGHT THE COST TO THIS COMMUNITY!!! Mike & Cindy Jacobson From: To:Rachel Leonard Subject:Data Center Date:Thursday, January 22, 2026 8:02:02 PM HI, just another citizen thats strongly AGAINST the DATA CENTER in or near Monticello. Please pass on this email to all concerned ! Don Januszewski Don Januszewski Monticello, Mn. 55362 equipment access. Diesel generators can create noise, air pollution, and operational risks. Increased truck traffic during construction and maintenance adds wear to roads and raises safety concerns for nearby neighborhoods. Fifth, data centers can shift financial risk to residents. When large users receive favorable utility rates or tax abatements, the long-term cost of maintaining infrastructure is often passed on to local ratepayers and taxpayers. Residents should not subsidize a private, highly profitable industry that provides limited local benefit. Sixth, approving a data center sets a precedent that could encourage additional similar developments. This risks transforming Monticello into a utility-heavy industrial hub rather than a balanced community focused on livability, environmental stewardship, and sustainable growth. Seventh, they introduce long-term environmental and health risks that disproportionately affect nearby neighborhoods, businesses, children, seniors, and those with existing health conditions. Data Centers release heat and emissions, toxic air pollutants which are harmful to residents. Finally, I am concerned about the decision-making process itself. Projects of this scale deserve robust public engagement, transparent cost–benefit analysis, and environmental review. Residents should have meaningful opportunities to provide input before irreversible land-use decisions are made. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the City of Monticello to require restrictions in the ordinance that are prohibitive and reject the proposed data center projects and instead prioritize development that: Creates long-term, well-paying jobs Protects water and natural resources Strengthens our tax base without shifting risk to residents Preserves community character and quality of life This should not cost us our health or our future and I will not vote for you again if this is approved. Thank you for your time and consideration. I expect my comments to be included in the public record and carefully weighed in all deliberations related to this proposal. Sincerely, Iris Hoglund Harris Monticello Resident From: To:Development Services Subject:DCPUD Ordinance Feedback Date:Friday, January 23, 2026 4:13:20 PM Data Center Ordinance Feedback: I want to start out by saying that I am having a really difficult time comparing the Data Centers in Des Moines, Iowa to the potential Data Center in Monticello. To begin with the size of West Des Moines, Iowa is 39.48 mi2, Waukee is 21.49 mi2, Altoona is 11.69mi2 and Monticello is only 9.3mi2. The data center in West Des Moines is built on 600 acres and the acres for the potential Monticello one is 550 acres. That means that Monticello is potentially going to have a data center the same size as a city that is 4X bigger. The information in the West Des Moines data sheets do not show a house that is closer than 720 feet to residential while the potential one in Monticello could be as close as 300 feet to residential with other portions closer to 50 feet. Another concern I have, is that, I have yet to hear about any communication with the communities that these data centers reside in which means we are not getting the full picture. I’ve been in contact now with two different community pages asking questions about the impact of the data centers there. One person stated “That’s way too close. If you have any ability to deter this, I would. They are so bright. The construction alone will make it a PITA to travel through that area for years, and your utility bills are likely to rise as they drive up demand for power. Depending on if you’re in a rural or urban area it can drive down your property values.” This was in response to me referencing the 600 ft setback that Mr. Frattalone stated at the developer meeting and they would be allowed to have the main structure within 300 ft according to the DCPUD. This is clearly a very different perspective from the one offered by this ordinance documentation. Many of us routinely use Highway 25, Edmonson, & 85th Street to get to & from our destinations. The construction alone would greatly exacerbate our commutes when there’s already a congestion issue on Highway 25. From what I understand the people that went to tour the data centers were only able to view them from outside. Were all sides toured? How close were you able to get to the data centers? Were they currently operating? I noted that under the noise heading it says that there have been no complaints & that there was no generator or mechanical equipment noise. Yet, one of the city requirements listed under West Des Moines is to increase & improve buffering for new sites. Why if there are no issues would they require improvement? The cities representatives have a reason to want these data centers because of the money they bring into the city’s budget but for the community it is a net loss in the impact it has on our health, our utilities, and the drop in value of our homes. This community has a lot invested in Monticello and our homes are our biggest assets. The potential loss we will experience due to this decision is too great for many to endure. I also firmly believe that the city is not considering the potential risk & financial loss to the city in making a deal with a big corporation. All that matters to big corporations is their bottom line and they will not operate at a loss which means the financial cost of making a deal with a Data Center Company & then operating costs are severely being underestimated. I highly encourage Monticello’s planning committee to investigate the cost of legal fees for this type of situation. It costs money to chase money. In addition, we’ve been told that after investing money into a Data Center in Monticello the corporation will have incentive to invest more for updates but what happens when it’s the actual building that can no longer meet the needs of the internal parts? It will make more sense to start over and build a new building than to invest in retrofitting the existing building. These data centers typically have a 15-25 year lifespan and that is evidenced by the last 40 years of Data Center history. If they’re so upgradable why do we need so many? In the DCPUD requested modifications: Section 2 Subsection 7 Part C on page 6 of the document it sets the Setbacks for the 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 as 100ft, 200ft, 200ft, 100ft, 100ft and the Principal building structure (s) when mechanical equipment (including generators) is oriented to any exterior portion of the structure (s) and/or non-ground mounted as 200ft, 300ft, 300ft, 200ft, 200ft. I would ask the council to consider moving all setbacks associated with the main structure (s) to start at 1,500 feet to prevent needs to mitigate issues with noise, light, etc. Especially, since the developer themselves have stated they only intend to use 10-12% of the 550 acres for the main structure there should be no need to have it so close to residential property. Section 2 Subsection 7 Part G regarding noise. In the DCPUD documents it is stated that there was no observed noise by the data centers & no complaints of noise. I remember one council member discussing making stricter guidelines to prevent noise pollution and another council member objecting stating that was a bad idea because then we would be required to enforce it during the joint session. I believe that if the council wants the public to accept a data center when we clearly don’t want it here and it being here for the sole benefit of the city taxes that in good faith the city should agree to stricter standards than the state of Minnesota pollution control standards & rules. I would also ask that we require an independent company hired by the city to monitor and enforce the noise pollution standards. An appropriate dB for the constant humming should be set at 55 dBA or less regardless of hour of the day. And since the data center will be set further back, positioned to cocoon the noise, & the city representatives & council members who observed the DCs in Des Moines state they heard nothing then it shouldn’t be an issue to accommodate this standard & it shouldn’t cost the city much of anything to enforce it. Section 2 Subsection 7 Part H regarding testing of generators. I didn’t see a limit as to how often they can test their generators. Is it an everyday test? Also, I believe it would be in our best interest if we defined what we mean by being used for back up power generation purposes. Are they going to be used for example in a power outage? I think we should set the limit to be in an emergency case only to be used to turn the lights back on scenario. Section 2 Subsection 7 Part I regarding Lighting. I would ask that no external light source to be located closer than 1,000 feet from residential and that it shouldn’t be aimed toward residential properties. Section 2 Subsection 7 Part N subpart ii. Regarding the buffer including 25% minimum Evergreen species. I would like the council to increase it to 90% Evergreen species because they don’t lose their leaves and will be more effective at buffering. Under the form DCPUD Ordinance-Proposed February Ordinance -I agree we need limits for hours of operation for the construction period between 8am-5pm would be appropriate -I would ask the city to require reimbursement for any loss in home value or that the Data center has to offer to purchase any house within a mile of the development. If property values are supposed to go up or at the very least lose no value this should be easy enough to require. -We should require a construction bond to be written into the agreement -We need to require an EIS -Additional things to consider would be regarding the water use needing to be limited. If a closed loop system is to be used we need to know what chemicals are used and what the risks associated are. We also need to require independent water testing by a third party recommended by the city not the Data Center corporation. Jenna VanDenBoom Sent from my iPhone From: To:Development Services Subject:Fwd: Date Center Noise Date:Sunday, January 25, 2026 4:53:33 PM Attachments:12188210180_1809196120184664114625.amr Planning Commission: Toward the end of the January 15th joint workshop PC member Rick Kothenbeutel made a comment to the effect that data center noise was the same as noise from high voltage electrical lines. I tried searching the web multiple times, using different wording but, couldn't find any info to confirm this was correct. My husband called the MCEA and asked them if they could confirm this? Attached is the voicemail they left stating that it can be similar but can vary a lot. Please let me know if you are unable to listen to the voicemail. Mr Kothenbeutel - if you could please share the source of your information, stating it is the same, I would appreciate it. Thank you, Lisa Keenan From: To:Charlotte Gabler Cc:Rachel Leonard Subject:Re: Taxpayer- Monticello Library and Data Ctr review Date:Monday, January 26, 2026 12:00:43 PM Charlotte, If property taxes don’t come down (reduce)to the Monti city and county taxpayers, then there is absolutely no need to put a data ctr anywhere in Monticello. It would make no feasible sense and there is no benefit then back to Monti taxpayers at all. Please be sure this makes it into public comments from me. Regards, JV On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 9:51 AM Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@monticellomn.gov> wrote: Good Morning James- Thank you for the email. I am including City Administrator Rachel Leonard as well. I do not believe the library improvements will raise property taxes. The parking lot improvements are being covered through a grant that was applied for. The City owns the building (and has for years), the operations of payroll/books and related are actually Great River Regional Library, and the yearly stipend the City does provide is a budgeted item. The library uses that towards programming. I am going to assume you were reading through the agenda from the 1/12/2026 meeting-item 2N. https://monticellomn.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/ 01122026-1229? html=true Thank you for the feedback on the properties near Bertram. As I have shared before relating to a potential data center IF one should apply and IF one should be approved. Electricity/Gas: As a city, we do not set the rates. This is set by the electric provider with the state's public utilities commission. For example, Xcel can ask to increase their rates and submit to the public utilities commission. There will be some debate, etc. and if the public utilities commission grants then yes, a rate increase could occur. And/or raise any Monticello city utility cost to taxpayer at all? The proposed Monticello Data Ctr should not go by the Bertam Park area as I think that area would be more prime for residential. The amount of MN fraud, corruption, and deceit of our politicians should be way more than enough to offset any kind of taxpayer increases on anything for the next 10-20 years. Regards, JV Monticello taxpayer From: To:elo ment Ser ices Cc: Subject:DCPUD ORDINANCE FEEDBACK Date:Monday January 26 2026 6:01:28 PM Hello, I am not always the best at wording things and trying to get my point made clearly. With that being said I have taken notes and this is what I have in a scattered way. You have better training than I do of figuring out wording of things for documents than I do. So hopefully you can figure out what I am trying to say. · To minimize the likelihood of noise impact, data centers should not be located within a 2.5-mile radius of sensitive facilities such as schools, healthcare facilities, etc. Data centers must be within two miles of existing high voltage electrical transmission lines, Notice and an opportunity to participate in decision-making must be given to all those living or owning property within a 1-2 mile(s) of a proposed data center, and Generators should be required to meet Tier 4 emission standards and the amount of fuel stored on site should be limited. If the data center building is located less than 500 feet from an R (residential) district or a property developed with a residential use, it should include changes in building height or other design techniques to provide variation in building mass as viewed from the nearby residential district. There are reports that disturbing noise levels can extend up to 3,000 feet from some data centers and less disturbing noise may be detected as far away as two miles. A portion of data center noise appears to be low frequency which we may not hear but can still affect our health and well-being. Data center buildings must be located far enough from homes that sufficient space is available for creating highly-effective visual buffers (95% opacity). Some jurisdictions require that data center buildings must be at least 300 feet from residential property lines and other sensitive land uses. While some data centers are single-story, 30-foot-tall buildings, newer facilities are multistory and much taller. The shadow cast by data center buildings must not fall on nearby residential properties. With the noise disturbance I believe the restriction should be 2 miles. As with noise, calling upon you decision-makers to require the applicant to first demonstrate that they are making maximum use of battery systems to minimize the need for diesel- or gas-powered generators. Additionally, the applicant should provide the funds for retaining an independent expert to assess the potential health impacts if any diesel generators will serve as a backup power source. Measures such as Tier 4 generators should be required to minimize diesel particulate emissions. If the cooling water source will be an underground aquifer, then will the data center withdrawal cause water levels to drop to a point that other users can no longer obtain enough water? This would be especially critical issue if area homes and other users obtain water from relatively shallow wells. If a surface body like a lake, reservoir, river or even a stream will be the data center water source then will the withdrawal exceed the safe or sustainable yield of the water body? Safe or sustainable yield is the amount of water that can be withdrawn without adversely affecting aquatic ecosystems or other water users. If a data center will use water from a public system, then will it cause water pressure to drop below that needed for fire suppression and other uses? Note that some jurisdictions require data center applicants to consider using wastewater for cooling. If a data center is proposed near a sewerline or wastewater treatment plant then this option should be considered with the data center developer covering all associated costs. A data center proposal should only be considered after a thorough noise impact analysis has been made available to decision-makers as well as all area residents and other interested parties. The analysis should be conducted by an independent party hired by the decision-making body but paid for by the applicant. The analysis should prove that the data center will not cause noise levels that exceed applicable standards at the data center property line. Noise is measured in decibels (dB); specifically, A-weighted decibels or dBA. Low-frequency (bass) noise is measured in C-weighted decibels or dBC. The independent study should address both A- and C- weighted noise impacts. Residential noise standards vary throughout the U.S. and may range from: No more than 45 to 55 dBA at night, and 55 to 60 dBA during the day. The lower decibel limits are most applicable when a data center is near homes, a school, hospital, or other sensitive land uses. At some highly sensitive land uses such a school or a hospital a limit of 35 dBA may be warranted. For further background see the CEDS How to Stop Disturbing Noise webpage. Data center applicants should be required to submit a plan showing proposed lighting and any proposed measures intended to prevent light trespass and dark sky impacts. The Dark Sky Society publication Guidelines for Good Exterior Lighting Plans contains a number of important safeguards such as “Light levels at the property line should not exceed 0 1 footcandles (fc) adjacent to business properties, and 0 05 fc (the brightest moonlight is 0 01 fc) at residential property boundaries ” A proposed data center lighting plan should show that this and the other 11 Dark Sky Society Guidelines are met. I hope this information is understood and helpful in adjustments. Sincerely, Ty Weiss Monticello Residen Monticello, MN 55362 From: To:Development Services Subject:DCPUD ORDINANCE FEEDBACK Date:Tuesday, January 27, 2026 3:07:32 PM Referencing Monticello 2040+ Vision and Plan for changes to DCPUD. Plan reads: Data Centers must 1. Not conflict with nearby homes or businesses. This means avoiding unusual noise, light, odors, or other effects that aren't typical for light industrial areas. Section 2 (7)(c) Table X-X Setback from Residential CURRENT: 300ft CHANGE: 1500ft Reason: To avoid conflict with nearby homes per Monticello 2040+ Vision and Plan Section 2 (7)(d) CURRENT: Maximun height for principal and accessory structures shall be no higher than 50'. CHANGE: Maximum height for principal and accessory structures shall be no higher that 35'. Reason: per Frattalones Project Overview (see attached), they write Building Heights are 'typically' less than 30ft. Ensuring less than 35ft helps to avoid conflict with nearby homes and retain the beauty of our town. Section 2 (7) (n) CURRENT: Perimeter buffer must include a 25% minimum evergreen species. CHANGE: Perimeter buffer must include a 50% minimum evergreen species along 85th, between Data Center and Featherstone neighborhood. Reason: To avoid conflict with nearby homes per Monticello 2040+ Vision and Plan Section 2 (7) (p) CURRENT: chain link fencing for security purposes, linear barbwire is permitted on top of such fence line. CHANGE: linear barbwire is prohibited Reason: will look like a prison in area next to Residential. Should safety be a concern, Data Center should be required to provide 24/7 Security. If it is felt that a Data Center would require additional safety features, why are we inviting them into our community? Thank you for your time. Monica Primeau Featherstone Neighborhood From: To:Development Services Subject:Data Center Date:Thursday, December 4, 2025 12:12:33 PM NO DATA CENTERS. DONT WANT THEM. DONT NEED THEM. Sent from my iPhone From: To:Angela Schumann Cc:Kip Christianson; Lloyd Hilgart; Tracy Hinz; Charlotte Gabler; Lee Martie; Development Services Subject:Public comment on ordinance and zoning revisions for data centers Date:Tuesday, December 9, 2025 9:28:23 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 From:Charlotte Gabler To: Cc:Rachel Leonard; Angela Schumann Subject:Re: No Data Center Date: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:Charlotte Gabler To: Cc:Rachel Leonard; Angela Schumann Subject:Re: Data Center Draft Ordinance Remarks from 12/8/25 Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 1:46:14 PM Hi Joe- Thank you for the email. I have included City Administrator Rachel Leonard and Community Development Director Angela Schumann. I was taking notes Monday night from all the speakers so I appreciate this. I also appreciate that you read through the ordinance to call out these specific items. 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: Wednesday, December 10, 2025 1:40 PM To: Lee Martie <Lee.Martie@MonticelloMN.gov>; Tracy Hinz <Tracy.Hinz@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lloyd Hilgart <Lloyd.Hilgart@MonticelloMN.gov>; Kip Christianson <Kip.Christianson@MonticelloMN.gov>; Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Data Center Draft Ordinance Remarks from 12/8/25 Hello Mayor and City Council Members, I noticed many of you trying to to take notes while I was speaking on how the Current Draft Ordinance isn't nearly strong enough or truly protects the citizens of monticello. So I wanted to share with you what I did say so you can use it as a point of reference. Thanks, Joe Kraft Mayor, Council Members, My name is Joe Kraft, and I’m here because the draft Data Center Planned Unit Development ordinance, especially the setback table in Section 153.091(D) does not protect the residents of Monticello, particularly the neighborhood located 300 feet or less from the proposed site. Data centers are not normal industrial uses. They operate 24/7, produce constant mechanical noise, require extraordinary electrical infrastructure, and can strain water and sewer systems that were never designed for this scale. Because of these impacts, the ordinance needs to be far stronger and the safest course is not to allow data centers in Monticello at all. 1. The setback table in Section 153.091(D) is completely inadequate for homes 300 feet or less away. The ordinance defines two setback levels for principal buildings near residential property: 200 feet if all mechanical equipment is inside the building or fully shielded. 300 feet if mechanical equipment including generators is oriented toward the exterior or ground-mounted. But every real data center has large exterior mechanical systems: chillers, cooling towers, HVAC units, transformer yards, and diesel generators. That means the 300-foot setback is the only realistic category. And the closest homes are 300 feet or less from the proposed property line. This means the ordinance allows a data center to be placed right up to the minimum distance essentially touching the setback line with no actual buffer for residents. Other cities require 500 to 2,000 feet. Monticello’s minimum is not protection. It is a loophole. 2. Noise protections in Section 153.091(G) use basic MPCA thresholds not standards designed for industrial noise. The ordinance requires only the minimum MPCA limits: 65/60 dBA by day 55/50 dBA at night These allow constant low-frequency mechanical hum and repeated spikes from equipment cycles and generator testing. There are no requirements for noise walls, berms, nighttime restrictions, or continuous monitoring. At 300 feet or less, families will hear this facility. 3. Water and sewer impacts (Sections 153.026 & 153.047) are unregulated. The ordinance only asks developers to submit water and wastewater estimates but does not set: Any maximum water consumption Any wastewater discharge limit Any requirement for off-grid or on-site systems Any threshold that triggers denial Our system was not designed for data-center-scaled loads. Without limits, residents bear the risk. 4. Electrical impacts (Section 153.091(H)) are barely addressed. The ordinance acknowledges “extraordinary electrical demand” but provides no standards for: Substation setbacks Transformer yards High-voltage lines EMF proximity to homes For a neighborhood 300 feet or less away, this is dangerous. Recommendation Given the ordinance’s weaknesses and the extreme proximity of homes to the proposed site, I offer two recommendations: 1. The City should not allow data centers in Monticello at all. The risks outweigh the benefits, especially for neighborhoods this close. 2. If the City proceeds, the ordinance must be significantly strengthened larger setbacks, strict noise mitigation, water and wastewater caps, electrical infrastructure standards, and stronger residential protections. Closing Once a data center is built 300 feet or less from homes, the damage cannot be undone. I urge this Council to protect Monticello families by rejecting this use or by strengthening this ordinance dramatically before moving forward. Thank you. From: To:Angela Schumann Subject:AUAR Comment Date: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:Development Services Subject:Data Center Date: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:Charlotte Gabler To: Cc:Rachel Leonard; Angela Schumann Subject:Re: Data center Date: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:Angela Schumann Subject:Data Center Date: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:Angela Schumann Subject:Data Center Ordinance Date: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:Charlotte Gabler To: Cc:Rachel Leonard Subject:Re: Monticello Data Centers Date:Wednesday, January 21, 2026 9:15:15 AM Good Morning Jon- Thank you for the email. I have included City Administrator Rachel Leonard as well. Thank you for your feedback on the data center discussions. While I am not a supporter of a data center, I do have the responsibility to continue to participate to voice concerns and give input for restrictions and to do my best for our community. Please continue to reach out and share concerns and ask questions. City staff are great, and I work with them daily. 763-295-2711. 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: Jon Crowe Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 5:58 PM To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Monticello Data Centers I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed data center development and to express growing concern over the direction this process has taken. I have attended multiple City Council and Planning Commission meetings regarding this proposal, and at every meeting the message from residents has been clear and consistent: the citizens of Monticello do not want this project. Public opposition has been overwhelming, persistent, and unmistakable. Yet despite this, the proposal continues to advance, leaving many residents questioning whether public input is genuinely influencing this decision. I also feel compelled to share relevant professional experience. I previously worked for a large global corporation involved in large-scale development projects. From that perspective, I can say plainly: these companies are not motivated by community well-being. Their primary objective is to maximize financial return by utilizing land, water, and infrastructure as efficiently and cheaply as possible. Community character, long-term local impact, and neighborhood concerns are secondary at best—often treated as obstacles to be managed rather than responsibilities to be honored. This is why I am deeply troubled by the fact that city leaders do not yet know how much actual tax revenue Monticello would realize if this project were approved. The uncertainty surrounding long-term fiscal benefit appears to be one of the primary reasons this proposal is still being considered. That is an extraordinarily risky position for the city to take, particularly when weighed against the scale of the development being proposed. A 3 million square foot facility on approximately 500 acres—located next to an existing residential neighborhood—is not a minor or reversible decision. Once approved and constructed, this project will permanently alter land use, infrastructure demand, water consumption, and the character of the surrounding area. Any miscalculation in projected revenue or long-term costs will be borne by residents, not the corporation. Data centers provide very few permanent jobs, require enormous amounts of electricity and water, and contribute little to the social or economic fabric of a city. In return, Monticello risks committing itself to decades of infrastructure strain, reduced land-use flexibility, and increased pressure on shared resources—all without a clear, guaranteed financial benefit. Approving this project would also set a precedent that Monticello is willing to trade community interests for speculative revenue. Once that door is opened, it will be difficult to close. Residents have shown up, spoken clearly, and asked for this project to be rejected. I urge the City Council to slow this process, acknowledge the significant unknowns, and listen to the people you were elected to represent. The long-term interests of Monticello should not be sacrificed for a project whose benefits remain uncertain and whose impacts are permanent. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jon Crowe From: To:Rachel Leonard Cc: Subject:Monticello Data Centers Date:Tuesday, January 20, 2026 5:03:11 PM I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed data center development and to express growing concern over the direction this process has taken. I have attended multiple City Council and Planning Commission meetings regarding this proposal, and at every meeting the message from residents has been clear and consistent: the citizens of Monticello do not want this project. Public opposition has been overwhelming, persistent, and unmistakable. Yet despite this, the proposal continues to advance, leaving many residents questioning whether public input is genuinely influencing this decision. I also feel compelled to share relevant professional experience. I previously worked for a large global corporation involved in large-scale development projects. From that perspective, I can say plainly: these companies are not motivated by community well-being. Their primary objective is to maximize financial return by utilizing land, water, and infrastructure as efficiently and cheaply as possible. Community character, long-term local impact, and neighborhood concerns are secondary at best—often treated as obstacles to be managed rather than responsibilities to be honored. This is why I am deeply troubled by the fact that city leaders do not yet know how much actual tax revenue Monticello would realize if this project were approved. The uncertainty surrounding long-term fiscal benefit appears to be one of the primary reasons this proposal is still being considered. That is an extraordinarily risky position for the city to take, particularly when weighed against the scale of the development being proposed. A 3 million square foot facility on approximately 500 acres—located next to an existing residential neighborhood—is not a minor or reversible decision. Once approved and constructed, this project will permanently alter land use, infrastructure demand, water consumption, and the character of the surrounding area. Any miscalculation in projected revenue or long-term costs will be borne by residents, not the corporation. Data centers provide very few permanent jobs, require enormous amounts of electricity and water, and contribute little to the social or economic fabric of a city. In return, Monticello risks committing itself to decades of infrastructure strain, reduced land-use flexibility, and increased pressure on shared resources—all without a clear, guaranteed financial benefit. Approving this project would also set a precedent that Monticello is willing to trade community interests for speculative revenue. Once that door is opened, it will be difficult to close. Residents have shown up, spoken clearly, and asked for this project to be rejected. I urge the City Council to slow this process, acknowledge the significant unknowns, and listen to the From: To:Angela Schumann Subject:Data Center Date:Wednesday, January 7, 2026 1:09:11 PM Afternoon Angela, Would city staff be able to provide what the estimated financial benefit the city would get out of the data center project? I keep hearing of items that would get paid for by the developer and at this point I’m not sure what is real and what is not. At one point I heard like $10M yearly in tax. I’m starting to think that this is going to be approved, and it might be nice to hear truly how this will benefit the city. Some things I can think of: Yearly Taxes How those new tax dollars would be used School funding Street improvements 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: To:Angela Schumann Subject:Data Center Date:Wednesday, January 28, 2026 10:10:59 AM Hello, I am writing in regards to the proposed data centers in Monticello. I have noticed the signs going up around town and decided to look into it. I have to express my strong disagreement with allowing them to be built in our city. It appears that where they are being built around the country is in the outskirts or rural areas. It also appears that they are counting on people being blind and ignorant to the effects of the centers on the local residents water bills, electricity bills, the health implications, the noise/light pollution etc. While neglecting to acknowledge the fact that they will be footing the bill to pad some bigwigs pockets. It is actually disgusting. But, I know emotion is not an effective persuasion-reason is. Especially in these times we are walking in. So, I encourage you and those around you, to look deeply into what you are allowing. To do your own research. Actually, I would encourage you to get out on the sidewalks or go door to door and inform the local residents. Talk to them. Explain to them what you are doing. Try to convince them, instead of leading everyone blindly off a cliff. See if you have any real support. I can’t imagine that you would. But, who knows. At the very least-people would be informed. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Regards, Sarina From:Charlotte Gabler To: Cc:Rachel Leonard Subject:Re: DATA CENTER Date:Saturday, January 17, 2026 1:30:24 PM HI Harlan, Thank you for the email. I am including City Administrator Rachel Leonard as well. I appreciate the feedback on data centers. I did read below that you have goals listed for the city and I agree with those. You can find similar in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. There is some difference of opinion on how the city should achieve those goals but nonetheless, they are shared goals. Please continue to reach out to city hall with questions and concerns. Staff is great and I work with them daily. 763-295-2711. 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: Harlan Hamson Sent: Friday, January 16, 2026 5:12 PM To: Lloyd Hilgart <Lloyd.Hilgart@MonticelloMN.gov>; Kip Christianson <Kip.Christianson@MonticelloMN.gov>; Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>; Tracy Hinz <Tracy.Hinz@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: DATA CENTER As a Monticello resident to formally express my strong opposition to the proposed data center development in our community. While I understand the City is exploring economic growth opportunities, I do not believe a large-scale data center aligns with Monticello’s long-term interests, values, or quality of life. My concerns are outlined below and reflect widely documented impacts of data centers on communities similar to ours. First, data centers place an extraordinary burden on utilities and natural resources. These facilities consume enormous amounts of electricity and water, often at levels far beyond what traditional industrial or commercial uses require. Increased demand for water—particularly for cooling—raises serious concerns about sustainability, strain on local aquifers, and long- term impacts on regional water supply, especially during drought conditions or periods of growth. Second, data centers provide minimal economic benefit relative to their footprint. Despite their size and infrastructure demands, they create very few permanent jobs once construction is complete. The cost to the City—through infrastructure expansion, utility upgrades, tax incentives, and long-term maintenance—often outweighs the limited employment and community benefit they provide. This does not represent a responsible or balanced return on investment for residents. Third, these facilities negatively impact land use, aesthetics, and community character. Data centers are typically massive, windowless industrial buildings that do not integrate well into a community like Monticello. They reduce flexibility for future development and permanently convert valuable land into single-use facilities that contribute little to a vibrant or diverse local economy. Fourth, there are significant infrastructure and public safety concerns. Data centers require extensive power infrastructure, substations, backup generators, and constant heavy equipment access. Diesel generators can create noise, air pollution, and operational risks. Increased truck traffic during construction and maintenance adds wear to roads and raises safety concerns for nearby neighborhoods. Fifth, data centers can shift financial risk to residents. When large users receive favorable utility rates or tax abatements, the long-term cost of maintaining infrastructure is often passed on to local ratepayers and taxpayers. Residents should not subsidize a private, highly profitable industry that provides limited local benefit. Sixth, approving a data center sets a precedent that could encourage additional similar developments. This risks transforming Monticello into a utility-heavy industrial hub rather than a balanced community focused on livability, environmental stewardship, and sustainable growth. Finally, I am concerned about the decision-making process itself. Projects of this scale deserve robust public engagement, transparent cost–benefit analysis, and environmental review. Residents should have meaningful opportunities to provide input before irreversible land-use decisions are made. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the City of Monticello to reject the proposed data center project and instead prioritize development that: Creates long-term, well-paying jobs Protects water and natural resources Strengthens our tax base without shifting risk to residents Preserves community character and quality of life. From: To:Rachel Leonard Subject:Monticello Data Centers Date:Tuesday, January 20, 2026 5:24:40 PM Dear Ms.Leonard - I’m writing as a Monticello resident and local small business owner to share my concerns regarding the proposed data center development in our community, specifically the data center proposed between Highway 25 and Edmondson Ave. My wife and I both operate small businesses here, and we’ve chosen to invest our time, money, and future in Monticello because of its character, quality of life, and long-term livability. For those reasons, we are deeply concerned that the proposed data centers do not align with the best interests of our city or its residents. From what has been shared publicly, the project raises several red flags that are concerning to us: • Noise and environmental impact – Data centers are known to generate continuous mechanical noise and require extensive cooling infrastructure. This raises concerns about long-term noise pollution and disruption to nearby neighborhoods like ours (Hunters Crossing) and the natural areas we so greatly enjoy in our city • Strain on utilities – These facilities require enormous amounts of electricity and water, which could increase utility costs for residents and businesses while stressing local infrastructure. • Environmental and land-use concerns – The impact on surrounding green space, wildlife, and overall environmental health is troubling, especially given Monticello’s appeal as a community that values nature and outdoor space. Projects like Pointes at Cedar that are being heavily invested in will be greatly impacted by the addition of these nearby data centers. • Property values – A large industrial facility of this nature does not enhance the residential character of an area and may negatively impact nearby property value such as our own. We have been residents of the Hunters Crossing neighborhood for 12 years and intentionally chose this location because of its proximity to the city while still maintaining a more residential, low-impact setting. We did not choose to make our home here with the expectation that a large industrial development would one day be built in our backyard. Additionally, I find it frustrating that developments like this often receive tax incentives or abatements while offering very few long-term benefit to the local economy. Unlike large corporate developments, local small businesses like ours are deeply rooted in this community. We live here, raise our families here, and reinvest back into Monticello year after year. We support other local businesses and care deeply about the long-term health and success of our city. Data centers, on the other hand, offer very few permanent jobs and limited ongoing economic benefit once construction is complete. They have no lasting connection to the community beyond utilizing its resources, and their profits do not circulate back into the local economy in a meaningful way. From: To:Lloyd Hilgart; Rachel Leonard; Angela Schumann Subject:Meeting Date:Monday, January 26, 2026 9:32:45 PM Thank you for taking my call on Friday to discuss the proposed data center. I wanted to follow up with you regarding our conversation. You had mentioned the city's frustration with Walmart and the amount of water that their parking lot sends to the storm sewer. I believe that is what you were saying. That comment is a bit concerning. I admit I do not know how these things work but I would think that problem should have been discussed up front but most likely it was an afterthought. I feel everyone's fear is that there is too many unknowns with this project. Why not take a step back and put a moratorium on data centers until we know more about them. Xcel asked customers to conserve energy over the weekend because of the extreme cold to ensure the regional energy grid can continue to deliver reliable service. What will happen when something that can take as much electricity as all the homes in the city of Minneapolis comes online. I have been in the mortgage business since 2002. In 2008 after the housing market crash a bill was passed by congress called the Dodd-Frank bill. This bill was passed in 2010, and it sought to make the U.S financial system safer for consumers and taxpayers. It put in place safeguards so the crash of 2008 would not happen again and added additional protection for consumers. I work for a mortgage broker and at the time we worked with around 14 or 15 different wholesale mortgage lenders. The lawyers for each of the lenders we worked with interpreted the law differently and tweaked it to fit their own business model. This law was created at the highest level of government and yet still it was picked apart and dissected to meet their own needs. My point is, as good as you feel the ordinance is, the end user will bring a bus load of attorneys in and walk right thru that ordinance and make it their own. It will not be worth the paper it is written on. I feel the best option is to pause the process for more evaluation and to see what all of the data centers coming online will look like and how they will affect the communities where they exist. By reviewing the emails from the data request, I can see the developers have put a lot of money into this project. Not to mention the weekly meetings with city staff and email correspondence. Because of that you should not feel obligated or pressured to approve the ordinance or their future project. These companies know the risk of the possible project approval and can absorb the loss if not approved. We have far more to lose than to gain. You mentioned the end user will have berms for noise and light pollution. That may be all good once the project is up and running, but there are no berms for the construction period. That will be long, dusty and noisy. Not to mention the amount of traffic. Monticello is already tough to get thru now. What will it be like with construction workers trucks, semis carrying material and also heavy equipment, cement truck and Xcel's fleet to build a substation large enough to run this campus? I feel a 1500-foot setback from a property line would be necessary for the final project but also for the construction period. This would be 10 years of constant construction. Your home should be the place to relax and get away from the everyday life. Now we will come home to it. From:Charlotte Gabler To: Cc:Rachel Leonard Subject:Re: Concern Regarding Proposed Data Centers Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 11:21:55 AM Good Morning Steph- Thank you for the email. I have included City Administrator Rachel Leonard as I do see you included Community Development Director Angela Schumman already. I appreciate your feedback. We are very lucky to live in a community with all these natural resources from trees to the river. 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: Steph Mueller Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 7:53 PM To: Lloyd Hilgart <Lloyd.Hilgart@MonticelloMN.gov>; Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@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: Concern Regarding Proposed Data Centers To the Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission, and Staff, I am a nearby homeowner and parent. We moved here for a quiet, safe neighborhood for our children. The proposed data center raises serious concerns about noise, traffic, light pollution, air quality, and long-term health impacts, especially for children. Our community deserves a safe and peaceful place to live. The proposed data center would change that for everyone. Thanks, Stephanie Reichert From: To:Lloyd Hilgart; Charlotte Gabler; Tracy Hinz; Lee Martie; Kip.christian@MonticelloMN.gov; Angela Schumann; Rachel Leonard Subject:Say No to Datacenters Date:Friday, January 23, 2026 12:21:14 PM Dear elected officials, Please consider this to be my sincere rejection of any plan for datacenters in or around the city limits of Monticello or anywhere near our watershed areas. With hope, Chris Oveson Monticello, MN 55362 From: To:Rachel Leonard Cc:Angela Schumann Subject:Re: Monticello Industrial Development - AUAR Scoping Document & AUAR Order Date:Wednesday, December 31, 2025 12:33:00 PM Attachments:1000007533.png image001.png image001.png Hello, Saw this post for a meet and greet with Monticello Tech on Jan 7th. Where are we at with this? As before it sounded like there was no formal proposal presented, we were just doing an AUAR to set up guard rails for something like this happening in our community. General community input seems to be not so much in favor of this type of entity, yet we've got a meet and greet. I feel very un-heard by our city council and planning commission. I know there have been numerous meetings and workshops. This all feels like it's been a large formality of taking feedback to a task that's been pretty much the elephant in the room all along. The vision for our city needing to include, not one, but two data centers is very unfortunate. That 500+ acre site could have been future of several businesses employing hundreds or more employees. Now you will have maybe 100. That's going help our community growth, how? Who is going to want to build a home across the road from that? That area is all zoned for future residential development right across the road, you already know that... But I would have next to no interest in wanting to put myself in proximity. We live in the groveland addition, and fear of having even more power lines running thru our neighborhood to power the data center is a concern as well. Just really frustrated by the fact that it feels those concerned have been steamrolled on this in the name of progress and a desire to attract more tax base (without much explanation of any benefit to those of us who routinely see property tax increases annually). I haven't seen much in regards to concerns on utility costs increases as well. Again, I know you both are messengers. I apologize for the overly frustrated tone of this email, but it's just really upsetting that this type of business entity should have any traction in our community. There's tons of land out there no where near residential areas that this could be built in. All along highway 10 there's lots of open green space. Why Monticello? The negatives in my book, outweigh the positives again and again. Bob Stein On Fri, Oct 31, 2025, 3:30 PM Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@monticellomn.gov> wrote: Hi Bob, I acknowledge in advance my response is long; however, I think the topic is critical enough to warrant it. Hopefully, you agree. The AUAR is designed to incorporate public comments. There are aspects of it that are prescriptive because it’s a formal environmental review document that needs to meet state-set rules and regulations. However, those components are intended to be complemented by public feedback. We anticipate the full AUAR will be released for a 30-day comment period on November 18, and we’re holding an AUAR open house at the Monticello Community Center on Thursday, November 20 from 6-8 p.m. However, from your email, I feel like your concerns are more specifically related to data centers overall, so I hope you’ll accept some additional information. The potential for data center development in Monticello is a new use with a high level of complexity and previously unanticipated scale. We’ve needed to act with a series of responses at the same time. Unfortunately, that has resulted in understandable confusion, and it’s impacted our ability to communicate clearly since we’re trying to send timely information about separate but simultaneous processes. I’m hoping I can offer some helpful clarification, but please don’t hesitate to reach out with follow-up questions. Our responses have focused on three main areas: 1. Response to inquiries 2. Regulations 3. Preliminary Studies First, we are fulfilling our obligations as the local land use authority by responding to inquiries and interest in development. To date, Monticello has been approached by two developer teams interested in separate sites for developing data center/technology campuses. In both cases, the developers indicated they intend to prepare the sites and find end users to build there. Both teams have come in for concept meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council. These are preliminary opportunities for developers to provide high level information/ideas and receive initial feedback before they proceed with formal project applications. Since we know they’re interested in data centers and have identified potential locations, we’ve communicated those details in our conversations, which likely makes it feel like there’s a project with blueprints. However, they’ve identified a development type rather than a specific project. This is important because there’s a lot of variation among end users. They come in different scales/sizes and have proprietary systems with varying amounts of power use, water use, building design, etc. Those factors would be evaluated with a future land use application, which is the official process by which the City Council can approve or deny a specific project. We have not received this type of application for any of the proposed data center concepts because we’re still creating the regulatory structure any applications would use. This is the second response the city has undertaken: ensuring our regulatory tools are prepared to evaluate projects of this magnitude for approval or denial. When the developers expressed interest, city officials determined our planning documents and code needed to be updated to reflect the unique characteristics of modern data centers. Due to the timing, it’s happening at the same time as developers propose concepts, but the regulatory framework is specific to Monticello and entirely our own. This is why staff have continued to emphasize that ordinance development is not related to a specific project. Our priority is for the ordinance to adequately regulate any data center project on any property, including but not limited to the ones already interested in a future application. This spring Monticello’s 2040 Vision + Plan Comprehensive Plan was updated to include specific language about data centers, including requirements pertaining to land supply impacts, utility and other municipal infrastructure impacts, fiscal impacts, and ways for the city to mitigate negative effects on its other land use and economic development goals. By highlighting those aspects, they are taking into consideration how to protect land, encourage jobs, limit taxpayer impact, and more. They will take each project on a case-by- case basis to see how it fits into and could benefit or hinder the larger community. The Comprehensive Plan needs to be supported by the specific requirements of a zoning ordinance. It’s the ordinance that outlines required application information, approval criteria, prohibited elements, performance standards, and the approval process. The strictness of the ordinance will have a direct effect on the type of applications we receive and the type of project the Council approves or denies. Through the drafting of the ordinance, the policymakers are absolutely having conversations about the acreage, the development density, the employment options, and how those factors influence our overall goals for a healthy city. The development of the ordinance will incorporate the significant public comment we received during the public hearing process in August and September. The Planning Commission tabled action on the ordinance, and since then the Commission and the Council have met several times in public joint workshops to look at the original ordinance text, the public concerns, and direct revisions to the document. The revised version is expected to go back to Planning Commission for a new public hearing with additional public comment in December before it goes to City Council for a final vote. Finally, there are preliminary studies developers need to complete to determine if a project is feasible and if they’re willing to commit to the necessary investments. These studies are developer funded; the city does not pay for them. Listed below are examples, though it’s not a comprehensive list. The AUAR is a required step for a data center concept of this scale. The city will not process an application until there is an adopted AUAR that outlines environmental impacts and required mitigation strategies. There are state agencies that have required studies, including the DNR related to water resources. There are a series of studies with the power company to evaluate power impacts. The city requires studies of our water and sewer systems. I realize this is a lot of information, but it’s incredibly important to me that community members feel like they have adequate information. Please contact me anytime. 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: Bob Stein Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 3:29 PM To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov> Cc: Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Re: Monticello Industrial Development - AUAR Scoping Document & AUAR Order Thanks for the update. How much weight does public comment/concern carry in moving things forward? I am still a little frustrated with how the city has gone about this process. I know its all new territory, but the sentiment shared at public hearings of not being about a specific data center site, just the general guard rails of data centers in Monticello. While I was walking around Chalk Fest, I spoke with someone at the Monticello City tent/booth. Commented on my concerns with the data center, and he said "I don't think people will realize how nice it will actually look once its built with the screening and landscaping setting it back from the road." At that point, the city had publicly commented they had not received any formal proposals for a data center, yet the city employee was saying that it was going to look nice once built. Maybe he misspoke but that sounds to me like there's been some blueprint proposal that many have seen at the city. Its hard to ignore the elephant in the room, but we're supposed to believe that no formal proposal has been received. This feels like its signed/sealed/done, and frankly a formality to include public comment while the wheels are turning to the inevitable construction. We're handcuffing ourselves to 550 acres of land for roughly 50-100 jobs (so a job an acre or 2 jobs per acre), while businesses like Hoglund, UMC, and other companies employ many employees in a far smaller footprint. Wouldn't it be nice to allow space like that to expand for future industrial use of several companies? Where else are you going to grow once that 550 acre campus essentially blocks southward expansion? Your city center is shifting, and wouldn't it be far more logical to have additional land use available for commercial/industrial/retail use along highway 25? Why check a box to just fill that space, just because we can do it. Environmentally, we're also risking a lot of unknowns for noise, water vapor from cooling, water use, power use, etc. The city has yet to really say how any of this will benefit its citizens. We hear about "consistent tax base", but the city has sold numerous properties (large apartment complex downtown) as of late and yet property taxes are still set to increase. If this all goes sideways down the road, and water levels are depleted, utility rates increase due to demand, is the city even going to have any recourse with an entity like this? Monticello Tech LLC likely has some pretty deep pocket backers to be attempting a project of this scale. To add to frustrations, we also received a city mailing with a date for one of the recent meetings in October, but the meeting date had already occurred by the time we received the mailing. So aside from social media updates, it feels like this has been presented in a way to inform after the fact. Especially someone who might not be online to receive this kind of information, who might share concern but is unable due to late notice. Thanks, Bob Stein Monticello Swim Club Head Coach On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 11:54 AM Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@monticellomn.gov> wrote: Thank you for submitting a comment related to the Monticello Industrial Development Scoping Document for the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process. The Scoping Document includes a possible data center/technology campus development scenario. The comment period for the Scoping Document was open from August 5th – September 4th, 2025. On behalf of the City of Monticello, please find below a link to the Final Order for AUAR and Final Scoping AUAR for the Monticello Industrial Development study area. The City of Monticello adopted the Final Order for the AUAR at the October 13, 2025, City Council meeting. The Final Scoping AUAR includes two development scenarios for evaluation in the full AUAR and a response to comments received during the scoping document comment period. Https://www.monticellomn.gov/712/Environmental-Reviews By adopting the Final Order for AUAR, the City Council has authorized the completion of a full AUAR document for the Monticello Industrial site. An AUAR is not a project approval process. The AUAR will provide an opportunity to evaluate how proposed development plans may impact the community's environment and to plan for how to manage and mitigate those impacts. The full AUAR document will also have a public comment period. For more information on the AUAR process and the next steps, please visit: Environmental Reviews | Monticello, MN. If you have any questions on the AUAR process, please do not hesitate to contact me. The City of Monticello is also working on a draft ordinance for the regulation of data center uses. The ordinance draft is intended to provide the regulations for development of any data center facility; it is not a specific project review. More information on the process for ordinance consideration and additional general information can be found at: Data Centers | Monticello, MN. Angela Schumann From:Charlotte Gable Cc:Rachel Leonard Subject:Re: Data Center Date:Saturday, January 17, 2026 1:10:22 PM Hi Monica, Thank you for your email. I have included City Administrator Rachel Leonard as well. Thank you for sharing your family story and the feedback relating to data centers. I also appreciate the input relating to zoning. If you have additional questions or concerns, please reach out to City Hall at 763-295- 2711. We have some great staff to help. 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: Monica Vosmek Sent: Friday, January 16, 2026 11:44 AM To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Data Center Good morning. I wanted to discuss the Data Center and it's proposed site. For context, I reside in Featherstone. We moved to Monticello three years ago from Texas. Prior to moving, we visited many other areas all across the twin cities. It was, in fact a full 6 months of us visiting areas and researching what area would be best for our family. The most important factor was choosing a town that we felt would be supportive of our profoundly Autistic son, who is now 6. We originally concluded St Michael would be the best fit but after visiting Monticello, it became quite apparent that we found our forever town. We viewed several areas of Monticello and determined that Featherstone and its surrounding area was absolutely perfect. We felt Monticello was a FAMILY FIRST town, which was a refreshing appeal. During nice weather, we spend most of our days outside. That's important to note as our child has extreme auditory sensitivities. As it is now, we listen to birds and other children playing. Over the summer, we had to limit our time when there was construction in our neighborhood due to sound levels (neighbor a few houses down had a deck build). We knew this was a temporary issue and did our best to work through that. Fast forward to now and the thought of a operating 24/7 Data Center. The developer compared the sound we would hear to a vacuum. Well, hearing that 'vacuum' sound 24/7 will be maddening! We purchased our home, have made so many improvements to meet our sons needs and would not recover those in the event we are forced to sell. There is also no long-term data in regards to health effects from noise and pollution. Its also important to note that 3 of our family members also moved to Monticello, purchased homes and contribute to Monticellos businesses as a result. While we don't want to move, the impact to our son may force it. We are not opposed to growth but the growth must be beneficial for more that just tax purposes for the city. Restaurants, stores, anything that would not only bring jobs but provide a service/goods to the Residents of Monticello. We are opposed to having such a massive DC next door to our neighborhood. It should have been better planned to not butt up against Residential. We would NEVER have bought our home in Featherstone had we knew a DC was in planning. Should Monticello proceed, it should be in a area NOT surrounded by existing Residential. It should be where in any future Residential areas are built, the people purchasing a home can make the informed decision to live next to a DC or not. You are all making the decision for us that as Residents right next door are ALL absolutely OPPOSED to. At this point, I am truly sick over this. I have not attended meetings as I cannot leave my Autistic child and as he vocally stims, I am not able to bring him to meetings with me. My husband is also out working hard to provide financially for us and is not home to watch our son for me to attend. Thank you so much for your time. Monica Primeau From:Charlotte Gabler To: Cc:Rachel Leonard Subject:Re: Please list all the benefits a data center will bring to Monticello Date:Saturday, January 17, 2026 1:25:36 PM HI Ty, Thank you for the email. I am including City Administrator Rachel Leonard as well. All great questions below, and I too share similar concerns. I will admit, I am not able to answer what benefits a hyperscaled data center would bring. A lot of unknowns to be addressed. IF a building of a site does occur, I do hope the developer and contractor use in-state workforce. There are some unions such as the Local 49'ers and the Laborers Local 563 that would be sure to protest in some way. As for energy, Xcel does have to do a study with the potential site user in whether or not they can supply power to the site and what requirements would be needed. Can the city influence where on site a substation could go-yes. We are still trying to understand if overhead lines could be buried or are they so large they have to be overhead. This impacts the area as well. Rates are determined between Xcel and the state public utilities commission (PUC). Xcel could certainly ask for a rate study/rate change, but they would need approval from the PUC. This would affect not just us in Monticello but rate payers across the state. As the data center planned unit development ordinance now moves forward, a lot of attention to water use and noise will need to be strengthened in the draft. If you have suggestions that would be appreciated as well. While I am not a supporter of a data center, I do have the responsibility to continue to participate to voice concerns and give input for restrictions and to do my best for our community. Please reach out with questions or concerns. City hall staff are great and I work with them daily. 763-295-2711. 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: K. W Sent: Friday, January 16, 2026 12:05 PM To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Please list all the benefits a data center will bring to Monticello Hello City Council Member Charlotte Fabler, Please list all the benefits a data center will bring to monticello. So far I have only seen losses. I am ready to read your list. • Please do not say a boost in jobs. a.) The construction of the building will be most likely not be local to our town. b.) The amount of permanent workers, from research, is very minimal. • Please dont bring up property taxes a.) The amount of property taxes you could potentially recieve by building single living homes would be more beneficial and better suited with the existing neighborhoods surrounding the land b.) Not to mention residential homes would not be running 24/7 diesel generators that will be polluting our air and destroying our peace with constant noise pollution. PLEASE TELL US HOW PUTTING AN ENORMOUS STRAIN ON OUR ENERGY GRID WILL HELP MONTICELLO. a.) Please ensure us that our energy bills will not increase with this monstrosity you are willing to vote in. b.) Please put our minds at ease that this company will warn us immediately that our drinking water isn't safe. (The Nuke plant waited months to warn us) it pretty much isnt a matter of "if" but when. c.) Let us know if the data center will have to follow the same water restriction rules, that every Monticello resident has to adhere to in the Summer months. WE DESERVE TO HAVE ALL OUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED! AND MORE SAY IN WHAT WE ALLOW INTO OUR COMMUNITY! Sincerely, Ty Weiss PS I know you voted to not continue but I want to make sure I don't leave you out. Plus maybe you have answers to these very questions. Data Center Timeline Review: City Land Use Process Events & Actions 1/29/2026 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 (PDF) 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 • Agenda January 15, 2026: Special City Council & Planning Commission Joint Workshop Topic: Data Center Land Use and Zoning Ordinance • Agenda Consideration Recommendation for 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 How did the City develop the DCPUD ordinance? Monticello Focus •Develop land use regulations based on listening, discussion, and research •Address concerns related to noise, water and energy consumption, costs to residents, light, and sustainability •Provide opportunities to answer questions and providing forums for information online and in person •Understand the potential benefits for infrastructure and tax base which support community programs and projects •Requires each project to be reviewed individually for rezoning to DCPUD •Provides significant review discretion by the City •Allows data center or data center campus, but only within a DCPUD •Provides adapted process and submittals specific to use and its impacts •Addresses the complexity and variety of the use •Focus on the mitigation of potential impacts to surrounding land use through required minimum Performance Standards •Less focus on internal site planning in application submittal requirements and review What is a Data Center Planned Unit Development? The draft ordinance is structured around the following main components: •Definitions •Approval Criteria •Allowable Uses: Principal, Accessory, Prohibited, Temporary •DCPUD Performance Standards: Setbacks, Height, Lighting, Noise, Landscaping, etc. •Application Process and Submittal Requirements •Administration: Site Improvement Plan Agreement, Performance Timing, Amendment, Enforcement What does the draft ordinance include? Recommendation 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, establishing a Data Center Planned Unit Development, including amendment to Sections 153.012 Definitions, 153.045 Industrial Base Zoning Districts, 153.046 Use Table, 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. From: To:Development Services; Lloyd Hilgart; Rachel Leonard; Tracy Hinz; Kip Christianson; Charlotte Gabler; Lee Martie; Angela Schumann Cc: Subject:DCPUD ORDINANCE FEEDBACK Date:Friday, January 30, 2026 2:14:33 PM DCPUD ORDINANCE FEEDBACK 2.(F)(1) “all costs of developments and infrastructure attributable to the DC. · Outline/Specify those costs, to include o Roads o Water o Power stations o EVERYTHING, so there is no doubt 2.(F)(6) – environmental review “must be completed prior to application ADD: “by a non-related, objective and professional outside third party.” 2.(F)(7)c – Table X-X, Principal building set back listed as either 200’ or 300’ Setback from residential (85th St NE) should at least 1500’ 2.(F)(7) (d)i – Substation equipment within DCPUD is exempt from this height requirement WHY? Feedback from Iowa DC visit: “Substations have greatest visual impact” page 25 2.(F)(7) (e and f) – so glad we have will brick on the front of data center buildings (insert eyeroll) 2.(F)(7) (g) – Noise shall be in compliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota pollution control standards and rules. What happens if those rules change, are lessened, or removed? Look at the changes being made TODAY in the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.(F)(7) (g)i – Monitoring equipment every 1000’ More monitoring equipment, closer together- very 250’ 2.(F)(7) (g)ii – monthly inspections must meet the State of Minnesota rules Again, what happens if those rules change, are lessened, or removed? 2.(F)(7) (h)I – backup generator testing Will all generators be tested at same time? Require that each generator be tested individually to reduce noise. 2.(F)(7) (j)ii – landscaping to meet opacity requirements within 3 years of planting These companies have plenty of money; required them to purchase/plant bigger, more mature landscaping as they’re planted for maximum benefit to the neighborhoods. 2.(F)(7) (r)vi – Height of substations Feedback from Iowa DC visit: “Substations have greatest visual impact” page 25 2.(F) (11)(i) – A concept PUD proposal illustration Require a 3-D to scale model of entire DC campus 2.(F)(12)(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. Schedule three (3) Town Hall Meetings to allow all concerned citizens the opportunity to receive full, transparent information on the proposed plan and to voice their concerns. Stagger days/times to allow the greatest amount of participation – a weeknight, weekend, and weekday. Broadcast these sessions, both live and make a recording. DCPUD ORDINANCE | PROPOSED FEBRUARY ORDINANCE City staff have outlined potential revisions to the current draft DCPUD ordinance (December) based on continued review and recent research. These revisions would be included in the February Planning Commission consideration of the ordinance and may include the following items. Planning Commission and City Council questions on the existing ordinance and additional feedback on revisions to the ordinance are encouraged during the January workshop. Additional regulation for construction activity on-site, including: o Hours of operation o Staging area specification on site plan o Lighting requirements and hours o Specification and approval process for haul routes I wrote to the nine addresses listed by the data centers in Iowa. I asked about the residents’ experiences and what comments they’d want to share with me. I’ve received responses from two residents. One of the major concerns was the traffic during construction, particularly how difficult driving onto the road where construction vehicles drove due to all the traffic. Please consider limiting where and when equipment can be driven. (On a personal note, we live on Farmstead Avenue in the Haven Ridge neighborhood. We’ve watched Lennar build its subdivision on 87th Street. Despite a big Lennar sign telling construction traffic NOT to proceed down Farmstead where the new street connects to Farmstead, proceed they do. So – write rules and find a way to enforce them, please). My Commentary and Thoughts: I thought we had another period of time to submit comments on the DCPUD; I guess I misunderstood this timeline. Nonetheless, I hope you’ll take some of my comments into consideration. I’ve yet to hear ANYONE from the community who is in favor of this data center. If Monticello is so seriously strapped for money, then please offer the residents a VOTE and a CHOICE: data center or an increase in property taxes. The lesson I’ve learned: Be more tuned in to the local elections. They MATTER. Ask questions. Sometimes we don’t know what we don’t know, so the questions may sound a bit off the wall. I wish I had asked this question in 2024: “Is there something on the horizon you aren’t telling us???” Laura Bishop From:Charlotte Gabler To: Cc:Rachel Leonard Subject:Re: DCPUD ORDINANCE FEEDBACK Date:Sunday, February 1, 2026 1:32:34 PM HI Laura- Thank you for your email. I have included City Administrator Rachel Leonard as well. I appreciate you taking time out of your schedule to share feedback with us regarding data centers. Giving specifics from the ordinance draft is appreciated. While I am not a supporter of the data center use, I do have the responsibility to review, learn, and listen. Please reach out to city staff if you have questions/concerns with the recent decisions/documents. I work with them daily. 763-295-2711. 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: J Bishop Sent: Friday, January 30, 2026 2:37 PM To: Development Services <Community.Development@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lloyd Hilgart <Lloyd.Hilgart@MonticelloMN.gov>; Rachel Leonard <Rachel.Leonard@MonticelloMN.gov>; Tracy Hinz <Tracy.Hinz@MonticelloMN.gov>; Kip Christianson <Kip.Christianson@MonticelloMN.gov>; Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lee Martie <Lee.Martie@MonticelloMN.gov>; Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov> Cc: Subject: DCPUD ORDINANCE FEEDBACK DCPUD ORDINANCE FEEDBACK 2.(F)(1) “all costs of developments and infrastructure attributable to the DC. · Outline/Specify those costs, to include o Roads o Water o Power stations o EVERYTHING, so there is no doubt 2.(F)(6) – environmental review “must be completed prior to application ADD: “by a non-related, objective and professional outside third party.” 2.(F)(7)c – Table X-X, Principal building set back listed as either 200’ or 300’ Setback from residential (85th St NE) should at least 1500’ 2.(F)(7) (d)i – Substation equipment within DCPUD is exempt from this height requirement WHY? Feedback from Iowa DC visit: “Substations have greatest visual impact” page 25 2.(F)(7) (e and f) – so glad we have will brick on the front of data center buildings (insert eyeroll) 2.(F)(7) (g) – Noise shall be in compliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota pollution control standards and rules. What happens if those rules change, are lessened, or removed? Look at the changes being made TODAY in the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.(F)(7) (g)i – Monitoring equipment every 1000’ More monitoring equipment, closer together- very 250’ 2.(F)(7) (g)ii – monthly inspections must meet the State of Minnesota rules Again, what happens if those rules change, are lessened, or removed? 2.(F)(7) (h)I – backup generator testing Will all generators be tested at same time? Require that each generator be tested individually to reduce noise. 2.(F)(7) (j)ii – landscaping to meet opacity requirements within 3 years of planting These companies have plenty of money; required them to purchase/plant bigger, more mature landscaping as they’re planted for maximum benefit to the neighborhoods. 2.(F)(7) (r)vi – Height of substations Feedback from Iowa DC visit: “Substations have greatest visual impact” page 25 2.(F) (11)(i) – A concept PUD proposal illustration Require a 3-D to scale model of entire DC campus 2.(F)(12)(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. Schedule three (3) Town Hall Meetings to allow all concerned citizens the opportunity to receive full, transparent information on the proposed plan and to voice their concerns. Stagger days/times to allow the greatest amount of participation – a weeknight, weekend, and weekday. Broadcast these sessions, both live and make a recording. DCPUD ORDINANCE | PROPOSED FEBRUARY ORDINANCE City staff have outlined potential revisions to the current draft DCPUD ordinance (December) based on continued review and recent research. These revisions would be included in the February Planning Commission consideration of the ordinance and may include the following items. Planning Commission and City Council questions on the existing ordinance and additional feedback on revisions to the ordinance are encouraged during the January workshop. Additional regulation for construction activity on-site, including: o Hours of operation o Staging area specification on site plan o Lighting requirements and hours o Specification and approval process for haul routes I wrote to the nine addresses listed by the data centers in Iowa. I asked about the residents’ experiences and what comments they’d want to share with me. I’ve received responses from two residents. One of the major concerns was the traffic during construction, particularly how difficult driving onto the road where construction vehicles drove due to all the traffic. Please consider limiting where and when equipment can be driven. (On a personal note, we live on Farmstead Avenue in the Haven Ridge neighborhood. We’ve watched Lennar build its subdivision on 87th Street. Despite a big Lennar sign telling construction traffic NOT to proceed down Farmstead where the new street connects to Farmstead, proceed they do. So – write rules and find a way to enforce them, please). My Commentary and Thoughts: I thought we had another period of time to submit comments on the DCPUD; I guess I misunderstood this timeline. Nonetheless, I hope you’ll take some of my comments into consideration. I’ve yet to hear ANYONE from the community who is in favor of this data center. If Monticello is so seriously strapped for money, then please offer the residents a VOTE and a CHOICE: data center or an increase in property taxes. The lesson I’ve learned: Be more tuned in to the local elections. They MATTER. Ask questions. Sometimes we don’t know what we don’t know, so the questions may sound a bit off the wall. I wish I had asked this question in 2024: “Is there something on the horizon you aren’t telling us???” Laura Bishop From:Charlotte Gabler To: Cc:Rachel Leonard Subject:Re: Data Center Date:Sunday, February 1, 2026 1:46:12 PM Hi Sherry- Thank you for the email. I have included City Administrator Rachel Leonard as well. I appreciate the feedback on data center use. While I am not a supporter of this use, I do have the responsibility to review, learn, and listen. Please reach out to city hall if you have questions or concerns. I work with them daily. 763-295-2711. 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: Sherry Evans Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 11:51 AM To: Kip Christianson <Kip.Christianson@MonticelloMN.gov>; Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov>; Tracy Hinz <Tracy.Hinz@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lloyd Hilgart <Lloyd.Hilgart@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lee Martie <Lee.Martie@MonticelloMN.gov>; Subject: Data Center I would like to express my concerns and request for NO DATA CENTERS the amount of disruption to the community would be horrific. facts prove there are disruptions in electricity and water ( FACTS ) . This causes property values to drastically fall. In some cases it has caused homes to be unsellable. The noise they put out is another problem we don't want. Not to mention the massive light at night. We enjoy the night sky and the northern lights on occasion. They do not provide enough of anything to make these horrible costs to the community. Thank you for your attention to this matter and my concerns Sherry Evans From:Charlotte Gabler To:Rachel Leonard Subject:Fw: Data Center Date:Sunday, February 1, 2026 1:27:56 PM I missed CC'in you. 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: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov> Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2026 1:26 PM To: Subject: Re: Data Center Hi Craig- Thank you for your email. I have included City Administrator Rachel Leonard as well. I appreciate you taking time out of your schedule to share feedback with us regarding data centers. It is definitely not a waste of time reaching out. While I am not a supporter of the data center use, I do have the responsibility to review, learn, and listen. Please reach out to city staff if you have questions/concerns with the recent decisions/documents. I work with them daily. 763-295-2711. 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: Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 7:54 PM To: Lloyd Hilgart <Lloyd.Hilgart@MonticelloMN.gov>; kip.christianson@monticello.gov <kip.christianson@monticello.gov>; Tracy Hinz <Tracy.Hinz@MonticelloMN.gov>; Lee Martie <Lee.Martie@MonticelloMN.gov>; Development Services <Community.Development@MonticelloMN.gov>; Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Data Center Hello, I just wanted to reach out to you in regards to the data center. I have been meaning to call, but with how busy my schedule is, this seems to be my best route of communication. I am going to start out by saying that I am opposed to Monticello having a data center. I live over in the farmstead area, so obviously the proposed area is close to home for me. I have lots of concerns as to what this data center will not only do to the community, but especially to residential areas closest to it. What kind of health and environmental impacts will it have? What will it do to my home value? What will it do to utility consumption and costs to residents? I have been to a handful of meetings (when my schedule allows) but I have yet to hear how a data center is going to benefit Monticello. I see and hear so much opposition from residents, but yet it feels like it gets totally swept under the rug for most of our city officials. Do you guys not care about what your residents have to say about it? I’m guessing that none of the city officials will be living next to this data center so why should you care, right? I am frustrated with the way it feels like the residents are not getting a say in this at all, and you guys are saying that you haven’t heard much opposition from residents. Look around. There are no data center signs everywhere. There is plenty of opposition on social media (and I disagree with Kip when he said that social media opposition means nothing, because there is absolutely communication among residents on there). There have been more and more people showing up to these meetings that have data center talk in them (and yes, I wish more people would show up, but it can’t always work for people’s schedules). I believe there is plenty of opposition and I think you are blind if you disagree. Hopefully my word in this can mean something, even though it feels like I am just wasting my time in sending this. Thanks for taking the time to read this if you did, Craig Heinen From:Charlotte Gabler To: Cc:Rachel Leonard Subject:Re: DCPUD Date:Sunday, February 1, 2026 1:31:11 PM HI Jen- Thank you for your email. I have included City Administrator Rachel Leonard as well. I appreciate you taking time out of your schedule to share feedback with us regarding data centers. Giving specifics from the ordinance draft is appreciated. While I am not a supporter of the data center use, I do have the responsibility to review, learn, and listen. Please reach out to city staff if you have questions/concerns with the recent decisions/documents. I work with them daily. 763-295-2711. 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: Jen T Sent: Friday, January 30, 2026 12:42 PM To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: DCPUD Data Center Ordinance Feedback: I want to start out by saying that I am having a really difficult time comparing the Data Centers in Des Moines, Iowa to the potential Data Center in Monticello. To begin with the size of West Des Moines, Iowa is 39.48 mi2, Waukee is 21.49 mi2, Altoona is 11.69mi2 and Monticello is only 9.3mi2. The data center in West Des Moines is built on 600 acres and the acres for the potential Monticello one is 550 acres. That means that Monticello is potentially going to have a data center the same size as a city that is 4X bigger. The information in the West Des Moines data sheets do not show a house that is closer than 720 feet to residential while the potential one in Monticello could be as close as 300 feet to residential with other portions closer to 50 feet. Another concern I have, is that, I have yet to hear about any communication with the communities that these data centers reside in which means we are not getting the full picture. I’ve been in contact now with two different community pages asking questions about the impact of the data centers there. One person stated “That’s way too close. If you have any ability to deter this, I would. They are so bright. The construction alone will make it a PITA to travel through that area for years, and your utility bills are likely to rise as they drive up demand for power. Depending on if you’re in a rural or urban area it can drive down your property values.” This was in response to me referencing the 600 ft setback that Mr. Frattalone stated at the developer meeting and they would be allowed to have the main structure within 300 ft according to the DCPUD. This is clearly a very different perspective from the one offered by this ordinance documentation. Many of us routinely use Highway 25, Edmonson, & 85th Street to get to & from our destinations. The construction alone would greatly exacerbate our commutes when there’s already a congestion issue on Highway 25. From what I understand the people that went to tour the data centers were only able to view them from outside. Were all sides toured? How close were you able to get to the data centers? Were they currently operating? I noted that under the noise heading it says that there have been no complaints & that there was no generator or mechanical equipment noise. Yet, one of the city requirements listed under West Des Moines is to increase & improve buffering for new sites. Why if there are no issues would they require improvement? The cities representatives have a reason to want these data centers because of the money they bring into the city’s budget but for the community it is a net loss in the impact it has on our health, our utilities, and the drop in value of our homes. This community has a lot invested in Monticello and our homes are our biggest assets. The potential loss we will experience due to this decision is too great for many to endure. I also firmly believe that the city is not considering the potential risk & financial loss to the city in making a deal with a big corporation. All that matters to big corporations is their bottom line and they will not operate at a loss which means the financial cost of making a deal with a Data Center Company & then operating costs are severely being underestimated. I highly encourage Monticello’s planning committee to investigate the cost of legal fees for this type of situation. It costs money to chase money. In addition, we’ve been told that after investing money into a Data Center in Monticello the corporation will have incentive to invest more for updates but what happens when it’s the actual building that can no longer meet the needs of the internal parts? It will make more sense to start over and build a new building than to invest in retrofitting the existing building. These data centers typically have a 15-25 year lifespan and that is evidenced by the last 40 years of Data Center history. If they’re so upgradable why do we need so many? In the DCPUD requested modifications: Section 2 Subsection 7 Part C on page 6 of the document it sets the Setbacks for the 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 as 100ft, 200ft, 200ft, 100ft, 100ft and the Principal building structure (s) when mechanical equipment (including generators) is oriented to any exterior portion of the structure (s) and/or non-ground mounted as 200ft, 300ft, 300ft, 200ft, 200ft. I would ask the council to consider moving all setbacks associated with the main structure (s) to start at 1,500 feet to prevent needs to mitigate issues with noise, light, etc. Especially, since the developer themselves have stated they only intend to use 10-12% of the 550 acres for the main structure there should be no need to have it so close to residential property. Section 2 Subsection 7 Part G regarding noise. In the DCPUD documents it is stated that there was no observed noise by the data centers & no complaints of noise. I remember one council member discussing making stricter guidelines to prevent noise pollution and another council member objecting stating that was a bad idea because then we would be required to enforce it during the joint session. I believe that if the council wants the public to accept a data center when we clearly don’t want it here and it being here for the sole benefit of the city taxes that in good faith the city should agree to stricter standards than the state of Minnesota pollution control standards & rules. I would also ask that we require an independent company hired by the city to monitor and enforce the noise pollution standards. An appropriate dB for the constant humming should be set at 55 dBA or less regardless of hour of the day. And since the data center will be set further back, positioned to cocoon the noise, & the city representatives & council members who observed the DCs in Des Moines state they heard nothing then it shouldn’t be an issue to accommodate this standard & it shouldn’t cost the city much of anything to enforce it. Section 2 Subsection 7 Part H regarding testing of generators. I didn’t see a limit as to how often they can test their generators. Is it an everyday test? Also, I believe it would be in our best interest if we defined what we mean by being used for back up power generation purposes. Are they going to be used for example in a power outage? I think we should set the limit to be in an emergency case only to be used to turn the lights back on scenario. Section 2 Subsection 7 Part I regarding Lighting. I would ask that no external light source to be located closer than 1,000 feet from residential and that it shouldn’t be aimed toward residential properties. Section 2 Subsection 7 Part N subpart ii. Regarding the buffer including 25% minimum Evergreen species. I would like the council to increase it to 90% Evergreen species because they don’t lose their leaves and will be more effective at buffering. Under the form DCPUD Ordinance-Proposed February Ordinance -I agree we need limits for hours of operation for the construction period between 8am-5pm would be appropriate -I would ask the city to require reimbursement for any loss in home value or that the Data center has to offer to purchase any house within a mile of the development. If property values are supposed to go up or at the very least lose no value this should be easy enough to require. -We should require a construction bond to be written into the agreement -We need to require an EIS -Additional things to consider would be regarding the water use needing to be limited. If a closed loop system is to be used we need to know what chemicals are used and what the risks associated are. We also need to require independent water testing by a third party recommended by the city not the Data Center corporation. -I would like to request that city place a moratorium on data centers for at least 6 months so that the city residents at large can be made aware. Sent from my iPhone From:Charlotte Gabler To: Cc:Rachel Leonard Subject:Re: Data Center Date:Sunday, February 1, 2026 1:27:31 PM HI Jane- Thank you for your email. I have included City Administrator Rachel Leonard as well. I appreciate you taking time out of your schedule to share feedback with us regarding data centers. While I am not a supporter of the data center use, I do have the responsibility to review, learn, and listen. Please reach out to city staff if you have questions/concerns with the recent decisions/documents. I work with them daily. 763-295-2711. 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: steve/jane Saccoman Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 8:19 PM To: Charlotte Gabler <Charlotte.Gabler@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Data Center Dear Charlotte I would like you to deny the data center. I am so concerned about out drinking water once the toxins are here we can never replace what we lost. What about the welfare of our area? And our upcoming generations? Jane Saccoman From: To:Rachel Leonard Subject:Data center in Monticello Date:Monday, February 2, 2026 1:58:14 PM Please do not vote to allow a data center anywhere in the Monticello area. There are no actual positive outcomes brought by this addition. I'm a Monticello resident and business owner. Any council members that vote for the data center will lose my vote immediately going forward. Thank you for your time, Derek Abramowski From: To:Rachel Leonard Subject:Data center Date:Monday, February 2, 2026 10:47:40 PM We do not want data centers in Monticello!!!!! Get it through your thick skulls!!! Thanks, Jenna Dempsey From: To:Rachel Leonard Subject:Monticello Data Center Date:Monday, February 2, 2026 1:49:29 PM My name is Nic and I live at Monticello MN. I feel like the city of Monticello knows very well that if held for a vote the opposition for a data center would be overwhelming. It doesn’t feel like the voices of Monticello matters and you will do whatever you feel regardless. Where are you finding/hearing the support for a data center in Monticello? Because I don’t hear anyone supporting it. This is only my 2nd ever time writing a politician/city administrator in my life. I want the voices of the people to matter. Monticello doesn’t want a data center. Thank you for your time. Sent from my iPhone From: To:Rachel Leonard Subject:Monticello Data Centers Date:Monday, February 2, 2026 5:15:38 PM Hello, I have lived in Monticello since 2013. My parents and I share a residence and every member of our 9 person household does NOT want a data center in Monticello or anywhere near it. This data center will only have negative effects for all of Monticello if built. PLEASE HEAR OUR VOICES!!! If the data center is built my family will be looking to move away. And my extended family in Monticello will strongly consider moving away also. Thanks for your time. My name is Savannah Hemann and I live on Monticello MN. From:Building Department To: Cc:Angela Schumann; Tyler Bevier Subject:RE: Construction hours. Date:Monday, February 2, 2026 12:55:15 PM Attachments:image001.png Hi Bil, Oftentimes, the development work hours are different—7 am to 7 pm is common for housing developments (infrastructure work, etc.) and then when the homes are built, the 7 am to 10 pm hours are observed. I am not sure what the hours would be for the construction of a data center. I have copied Angela Schumann, Community Development Director, and Tyler Bevier, Community and Economic Development Coordinator, on the email for additional information related to noise in relation to the construction of data centers. Thanks, Amy Amy L. Biren Building Permit Technician Department of Building Safety 763-295-3060 763-271-3223 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: bil keenan Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 12:44 PM To: Building Department <BuildingDepartment@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: RE: Construction hours. Thank you. That is ridiculous isnt it? We get to hear data center construction for the next 7-10 year and every day of it. Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 8:29 AM, Building Department <BuildingDepartment@MonticelloMN.gov> wrote: It is for all days. I know that some ordinances will outline specific days, but Monticello’s allows work during those hours every day. Thanks, Amy Amy L. Biren Building Permit Technician Department of Building Safety 763-295-3060 763-271-3223 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: bil keenan Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 8:22 AM To: Building Department <BuildingDepartment@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: RE: Construction hours. Thank youbfor getting back to me. Is this Monday-Friday only or all days Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 7:39 AM, Building Department <BuildingDepartment@MonticelloMN.gov> wrote: Good Morning, Bil, Thanks for checking in about the construction hours in Monticello. Per the Noise Ordinance, 130.09: Construction activities. No person shall engage in or permit construction activities involving the use of any kind of electric, diesel, or gas-powered machine or other power equipment, except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Amy Amy L. Biren Building Permit Technician Department of Building Safety 763-295-3060 763-271-3223 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: bil keenan Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2026 4:39 PM To: Building Department <BuildingDepartment@MonticelloMN.gov> Subject: Construction hours. Hello I am checking to see what are the construction hours for Monticello? If someone or a business is doing any type of construction when is that allowed during the day? 7am-5pm? 6am-6pm? Does Monticello have a set time From: To:Rachel Leonard Subject:Monticello Data center Date:Monday, February 2, 2026 6:15:36 PM I am writing to express my concern with having a data center built so close to my home as I live in the featherstone development - address Between the light, sound, water/energy consumption, I truly think it would be incredibly unwise for our city to go along with this. I was hoping this house would be our forever home where our little toddler and preschooler can grow up, but we would 100% find a different city to move to if this were to pass. I want my boys to grow up under the stars, not even more light polluted sky. I want them to hear crickets at night and annoying cicadas during the day, not a 24/7 droning sound. The reasons go on and on. Please listen to the city residents. Please reconsider allowing this data center to pollute our waters. Thank you for your consideration. Sharese Sabatino From: To:Rachel Leonard; stopthemonticellodatacenters@gmail.com Subject:Data center Date:Monday, February 2, 2026 4:37:02 PM Hello We are the Salzl Family. We live at (Featherstone addition) We are not in favor of this data center.. and we will be moving if it goes through. Property Taxes are already through the roof and the value of our home will plummet.. wildlife behind our home will diminish… all for city greed… no thanks Mark and Pam Salzl Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/26 1 4A. Community Development Director’s Report Council Action on/related to Commission Recommendations •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) The request for CUP was approved by the City Council on the January 26, 2026 consent agenda. •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 The amendments were approved by the City Council on the January 12, 2026 consent agenda. •Consideration for adoption of the 2026 Monticello Official Zoning Map, including appendices Applicant: City of Monticello The amendments were approved by the City Council on the January 12, 2026 consent agenda. Development Services Related Fee Schedule The City of Monticello holds an annual public hearing to adopt updates to the City’s fee schedule. For the Planning Commissions’ reference, a summary of fees and other securities related to development, including Planning, Building and Economic Development are attached. This information is provided to development prospects to assist in their site planning. The full fee schedule can be found at: Fee-Schedule-PDF Development Services Staff Update The adopted 2026 City budget supported the hiring of a Senior Planner position for the Development Services Department. The position has been posted with a tentative hire date of April 2026. Steve Grittman remains on retainer as the City Planner in 2026, with planning caseload and projects managed between consulting and staff planners. Annual Department of Building Safety & Code Enforcement Update Chief Building Official Bob Ferguson provided the department’s annual update during the January 26, 2026 City Council meeting. The annual update provides an overview of the department’s core areas of responsibility, which includes building plan review and Planning Commission Agenda – 02/03/26 2 inspection, rental licensing, fire inspection and code enforcement. Included in the review is statistical information on department activity in each area. Mr. Ferguson also introduced his full staff team and provided detail on the communication and collaborative efforts with other departments. View the report at: Building-Code Enforcement Department Update or watch the presentation at: Agenda Center • Monticello, MN • CivicEngage Monticello Industrial AUAR Update The City Council adopted the Final Monticello Industrial AUAR and Mitigation Plan on January 26, 2026. The Final Monticello Industrial AUAR and Mitigation Plan report can be found at: Agenda - 01/26/2026 Downtown Small Area Plan and Downtown Rounds The EDA has approved a contract with Bolton & Menk for the completion of an updated to the 2017 Downtown Small Area Plan. The goal of the plan update is to further identify future development challenges, goals and strategies for the downtown core, primarily on the east side of MN TH25, as well as to update the overall plan based on recent downtown activity. The planning effort is expected to take approximately 8 months and will include participation by the Planning Commission, along with other boards. The planning effort will also engage the public and stakeholders, including downtown businesses, property owners and partner jurisdictions/agencies. To continue to build on engagement and Downtown support, Downtown Rounds continue in 2026, with the next event scheduled for March 19th at Style Junkie Boutique. Development Project Update List The project update list current through January of 2026 is attached. Website Project Page A reminder to stay current with news and information by visiting: Projects | Monticello, MN 2026 Development Fee Schedule 1 2026 Monticello Development Fee Schedule Community Development - Building County Assessor Fees: Building Valuation $499,999 or less……………………………………………………………….…… $60 Building Valuation $500,000 or more…………………………………………………………………. $160 Basement Finish……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………….…… 106% of 1997 State recommended schedule Building Inspection (non-permit related) ……………………………………………………………………………………………….…………… $60/hr. ($15 minimum for 15 min. or less) Building Permit Fees ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…. 106% of 1997 State recommended schedule Building Permit Surcharge………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. use State-mandated fee Building Re-Inspection Fee (after 2nd failed inspection) …………………………………………………………………….……………… $60 Contractor License Fee………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $5 Building Permit/Records – Duplicate………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………… $60/hour $15 minimum charge for 15 minutes or less Blight Processing Fee…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $60 (per parcel) Demolition Permit…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…. 106% of 1997 State recommended schedule Permit is issued under a building permit (follow same procedures as issuing a building permit). Prior to demolition permit issuance verify with Public Works. Contractor must arrange disconnection: 1) Sanitary sewer; 2) City water & retrieve water meter; 3) approve routing for trucks and heavy equipment, (if applicable). An excavation permit may also be required by Public Works. Fire Alarm/Fire Sprinkler System………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……. 106% of 1997 State recommended schedule or $100 + State surcharge Food Truck Inspections………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $50/annually Master Plan Review…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………. 25% of building permit fee Mechanical Permits Residential………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………. $50 base + $9/fixture + State surcharge Commercial………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1.5% of valuation or $100 minimum + State Surcharge Mobile Home Permit…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $200 Moving Buildings…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $150 + expense + demolition permit Plan Review………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 65% of building permit fee Non-single family as-built survey escrow………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Contractor must provide an escrow amount of 125% of the written cost of the as-built-survey, before issuance of building permit. Plumbing Permits Residential…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $50 base + $9/fixture (“fixture” includes such things as traps, toilets, floor drains, sinks, showers) Commercial………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1.5% of valuation or $100 minimum + State surcharge Rental Application/Records-Duplicate fee…………………………………………………………………………………………………….… $60/hour $15 minimum charge for 15 minutes or less Rental Housing License Fee………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $45/building + $15 /ea. dwelling unit within building Rental License Application Late Fee…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Double standard license fee Rental Housing License Transfer Fee ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $35 Rental Re-Inspection Fee (after 2nd failed inspection) …………….……………………………………………………………………… $60 2026 Development Fee Schedule 2 Community Development – Building Cont. Residential Building Escrow Landscaping – Boulevard Trees……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $800 (interior lot – 2 trees), $1,600 (corner lot – 4 trees) Landscaping – Lot Turf Establishment………………………………………………………………………………………………. $7,500 (includes curb stop, small utilities, etc. – minor public utility items) Public Sidewalk & Curb………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $600 (per damaged panel) Driveway Pavement……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $3,000 FG As-Built Survey………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $1,300 Secondary Escrow Release Inspection Fee…………………………………………………………………………………………. $75 (applied if first escrow release inspection fails) Re-roof (residential)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $150 + State surcharge Re-side (residential)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $150 + State surcharge Solar Systems; Commercial/Industrial………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 106% of 1997 State recommended schedule + State surcharge Solar Systems: Residential…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $300 + State surcharge Swimming Pools – Above Ground………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $150 + State surcharge Swimming Pools – In-ground………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $300 + State surcharge Window and Door Replacement (residential)……………………………………………………………………………………………………. $150 + State surcharge Sign Permit – Permanent……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $50 for first $1,000 of value (minimum fee $50) $10 each additional $1,000 of value Sign Permit – Temporary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $50 regular fee/$100 if City initiated State Building Permit Surcharge Valuation of Structure Additional or Alteration Surcharge Computation $1,000,000 or less………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. .0005 x valuation $1,000,000 to $2,000,000…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $500 + .0004 x (Value - $1,000,000) $2,000,000 to $3,000,000…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $900 + .0003 x (Value - $2,000,000) $3,000,000 to $4,000,000…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $1,200 + .0002 x (Value - $3,000,000) $4,000,000 to $5,000,000…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $1,400 + .0001 x (Value - $4,000,000) Greater than $5,000,000……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $1,500 + .0005 x (Value - $5,000,000) Surveys………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $15 Utility Locate Fee Residential…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $50 Commercial/Industrial………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $65 2026 Development Fee Schedule 3 Community Development – Planning/Zoning Administrative Home Occupation Permit…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $50 Comprehensive Plan Amendment……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $300 + escrow (per chart) * *Escrow waived for cross/joint parking CCD Conditional Use Permit…………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………. $300 + Escrow (per chart) * Encroachment/License Agreements………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….…. $50 Escrow Chart – Land Use Application Plan Review *All escrows reconciled to actual costs for staff/consulting time after decision, whichever is greater Escrow Chart – Development & Subdivision Project. City Review & Administration……………………………………………………….……. 1% of estimated public improvement cost or $2,000 min. (whichever is greater) Legal Review & Administration…………………………………………………………… 1% of estimated public improvement cost or $2,000 min. (whichever is greater) Engineering: Grading Review & Inspection…………………………………………… 3% of estimated site grading cost or $2,000 min. (whichever is greater) Engineering: Streets & Utilities Review and Inspections …………………… 4% of estimated public improvement cost or $2,000 min. (whichever is greater) *All escrows reconciled to actual costs for staff/consulting time after decision, whichever is greater EAW/AUAR Preparation & Administrative Escrow…………………………………………………$15,000 Min, with final escrow amount established per required escrow agreement and reconciled to actual costs Wetland Boundary – No Loss ………………………………………………………………………………… $50 application fee/$500 escrow deposit (reconciled to actual cost) Wetland permit (boundary/type, delineation, replacement/bank/other & MnRaM review) ……$50 application fee/$1,500 escrow deposit (reconciled to actual costs) Iron Monuments……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….… $300/lot Interim Use Permit……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $300 + escrow (per chart) * Labor (for Community Development/Projects) Planner……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $197/hour Engineer………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….… $263/hour (maximum) Construction Inspector……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……. $158/hour (maximum) Landscaping Security…………………………………………………………………………………………… Letter of credit or cash based in statement if value of landscaping, including retaining wall, materials and labor for installation x 125% (held for 1 full year or 2 growing seasons) As-Built Grading & Improvements Security…………………………………………………………. Escrow amount of 125% of the written estimate cost of as-built survey Park Dedication (residential)……………… An amount of land equal to eleven percent (11%) of the total gross land area of the plat shall be presumptively defined as “reasonable commensurate.” In the event that the subdivider objects to the eleven percent (11%) standard, the City shall, at the developer’s request and expense, conduct a specific dedication study of the park system and the demand placed on the system by the proposed plat. Cash-in-lieu - 11% of fair market value of the raw land to be platted at the time of final plat. The City may require an appraisal to determine the market value of subject land being platted. Parking Fund (CCD District) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $4,500 per stall Plat Subdivisions: Preliminary Plat……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $300 + escrow (per chart) $2,000 min. Final Plat………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $50 + escrow (per chart) Commercial/ Industrial/ Institutional Residential 0-3 acres $2,000 1 unit $1,200 (single family) 4-10 acres $6,000 2+ units $1,000 base + $100 per unit (up to $10,000) 11+ acres $8,000 2026 Development Fee Schedule 4 Community Development – Planning/Zoning Cont. Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) *All escrows reconciled to actual costs for staff/consulting time after decision, whichever is greater Pointes at Cedar Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) Land Use Application Reviews: Public ROW or Easement Vacation …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $250 + escrow (per chart)* Rezoning Request (Text amendment) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $400 Rezoning (Map Amendment) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….……….…………. $400 + escrow (per chart)* Simple Subdivision/Administrative Lot Combination/Lot Line Adjustment……………………………………………………. $200 + escrow (per chart)* Special Home Occupation Permits……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $300 + escrow (per chart)* Special Planning Commission Meeting………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $350 Temporary Use Permit (waived for parades only) …………………………………………………………………………………………… $50 Variance: Residential, 1 unit………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………… $300 + $1,200 escrow (per chart)* Residential, 2+ units……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….… $300 + escrow (per chart)* Commercial/Industrial/Institutional____________________________________________________ $300 + escrow (per chart)* *All escrows reconciled to actual costs for staff/consulting time after decision, whichever is greater. NOTE: When multiple land use applications are run concurrently, only one application fee and escrow deposit shall be required per meeting cycle, until escrow depleted. New escrow required per escrow chart once depleted. Community Development – Economic Development Business Subsidy Pre-Application…………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………… $300 application fee Tax Abatement Application……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. $300 application fee + $10,000 escrow GMEF Loan Application………………………………………………………………………………………… $550 Minimum or 1.5% of loan amount, whichever is greater SCDP Loan Application……………………………………………………………………………………… $550 Minimum or 1.5% of loan amount, whichever is greater Housing Rehabilitation Forgivable Loan Application…………………………………………………………………………………………. $100 application fee Façade Forgivable Loan Application…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $300 application fee TIF Application……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $250 application fee + $15,000 escrow Concept $50 + $3,500 escrow Development: $300 + escrow (per chart) $2,000 min. Final: $50 + escrow (per chart) Adjustment: $50 + $1,000 escrow Concept Plan Submission $50 + $3,500 escrow Development Stage Permit $300 + escrow per Land Use App chart) $2,000 min. 2026 Development Fee Schedule 5 Engineering Driveway Permit………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $55 Construction Inspection (City or Engineer) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $158/hour GPS Locate Fee (New Subdivisions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…… $70/unit Grading Permit: Existing Single-Family Residential………………………………………….……… $75/permit + $1,500/acre restoration surety bond New single-Family Residential Development…………………………….…… No drainage calculation review required: $150/permit + restoration surety bond of $3,000/acre; $3,000 minimum escrow Multi-Dwelling, Commercial & Industrial Properties……………………… Drainage calculation review required. $350/permit + restoration surety bond of $3,000/1st acre; $1,500 each additional acre Erosion and Sediment Control Inspection Escrow……………………………………………… $300 x weeks of construction – sites disturbing 1 acre or more w/NPDES construction stormwater permit Land Reclamation/Mining Permit (requires subdivision development agreement or CUP) …. Fee determined by City Council resolution + 100% of land restoration costs as determined by City Engineer Public Improvement Security……………………………………………………………………………. Letter of credit or cash based on statement of construction cost of improvement x 125% Right-of-Way Permits Drops – no drawing required unless origination occurs more than 10 feet from property to be served: Fee w/out drawings………………………………………………………………………… $55/25 addresses (maximum) Fee w/drawings………………………………………………………………………………… $55/5 addresses w/drawings (maximum) Permit Extension fee……………………………………………………………………… $20 Pavement Hole Fee…………………………………………………………………………. $55 Trunk Line Fee: Base Fee (first 100 Feet) ………………………………………………………………… $55 Trenching (over 100 feet) ………………………………………………………………. $.10/lineal foot Boring (over 100 feet) ……………………………………………………………………… $.05/lineal foot Obstruction Fee…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $55 Small Cell Wireless Fee……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $55 *Collocation Fees: Escrow – Document Review………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $1,500 Wireless Support Structure Rent………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $150/year Wireless Support Structure Maintenance…………………………………………………………………………………….…… $25/year 2026 Development Fee Schedule 6 Sanitary Sewer Sewer Access Charge Residential – Single Family………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $5,026/unit All Others per Unit Equivalent…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $5,026/unit SAC fees in effect at time of building permit application will apply if application has been submitted within 6-months of rate changes. Trunk Sanitary Sewer Residential Unit…………….………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………… $1,811/unit Non-Residential…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $4,572/acre Storm Sewer Trunk Storm Sewer Fees……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $4,851 (net acre) Alternate Ponding Area – Residential…………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………. $4,970/acre Alternate Ponding Area – Commercial…………………….………………………………………………………………………….……………. $9,963/acre Alternate Ponding Area – Industrial……………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………. $11,645/acre Stormwater Utility Residential (1 drainage unit per residential unit) _________________________________________ $5.00/drainage unit/month (effective 2/1/2024) Non-Residential (7 drainage units per impervious acre-minimum 7) __________________________ $5.00/drainage unit/month (effective 2/1/2024) Water Trunk Water Charge Residential Unit……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $1,519/unit Non-Residential……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $3,797/acre Water Access Charge…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $2,732/equivalent residential unit WAC total charge is calculated utilizing the same unit charge per multiplier as per the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Procedure Manual WAC fees in effect at time of building permit application will apply if application has been submitted within 6-months if rate changes Water Meters: 5/8” meter………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………. $520 + sales tax 1” meter……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……… $595 + sales tax 1 1/2” meter…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…. Cost + $50 + sales tax 2” meter + up………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…… Cost + $50 + sales tax 1” x ¾” meter valves…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… $78 + sales tax 1” x 1” meter valves……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. $85 + sales tax Misc. Materials…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………. Cost + sales tax 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. Final Plat, Final Stage, Rezoning extension to May 2026. 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. Plat renewal tentative for City Council in Feb. 2026 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