Loading...
City Council Minutes 04-27-2026MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 27, 2026 — 6:30 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Present: Lloyd Hilgart, Kip Christianson, Charlotte Gabler, Tracy Hinz, and Lee Martie Absent: None 1. General Business A. Call to Order & Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Hilgart called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. B. Approval of Agenda Motion by Councilmember Hinz to approve the agenda. Councilmember Martie seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. C. Approval of Meeting Minutes • Special Meeting Minutes from April 13, 2026 • Regular Meeting Minutes from April 13, 2026 • Special Meeting Minutes from April 20, 2026 Motion by Councilmember Gabler to approve the minutes. Councilmember Martie seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. D. Public Service Announcement None. E. Citizen Comments Mayor Hilgart clarified that comments regarding the data center should be reserved for the corresponding agenda item and not during citizen comments. He noted that he would allow for approximately 45 minutes for public comment and individuals should sign up in advance with staff. The following spoke under citizen comments: • Scott Cutsforth, 8634 Fairhill Lane. Mr. Cutsforth commented on difficulty hearing the meeting from the rear of the room and suggested improvements to audio or microphone use. He also requested a correction to the March 9 minutes to reflect that the 4t" Street roundabout vote was not unanimous, noting Councilmember Christianson voted against, and inquired about the reason for the dissenting vote. City Council Minutes: April 27, 2026 Page 1 1 11 Councilmember Christianson explained his dissenting vote, citing concerns raised in prior workshops regarding impacts to 7t" Street as a major commercial corridor and the City's long-term investments there. He expressed concern about MnDOT's proposal to remove the right-hand turn lane without comparable examples from other communities and noted a lack of clear explanation of how the change would function operationally. City Clerk Jennifer Schreiber noted the correction and commented that the minutes would be updated. • Colton Kratky. Mr. Kratky addressed the Council regarding zoning regulations, noting a lack of clear distinction between light industrial and heavy industrial classifications. F. Council Liaison Updates • Economic Development Authority — Councilmember Hinz summarized the April 221 2026, EDA meeting, noting approval of a wetland delineation contract, a fagade improvement loan and related funding transfer, a presentation on potential financing for a public works facility, the appointment of a steering committee member, and updates on local economic development activities. • Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission — Councilmember Gabler reported on the Parks Commission meeting, noting the appointment of a representative to the Downtown Small Area Plan Steering Committee and review of park dedication for the Meadow Brook preliminary plat amendment. The Commission also received staff and MCC updates and an overview of the upcoming Heritage Day event on June 13, which will include a variety of community activities and entertainment. G. Department Updates • Wright County Sheriff's Office Update — Lieutenant McMackins was present to present the 2025 annual report and the 2026 first quarter report. • Construction Update — Public Works Director/City Engineer Matt Leonard gave an update on current construction projects. 2. Consent Agenda: Motion by Councilmember Hinz to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Christianson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. A. Approve the payment of bills. Action taken: Approved the bill and purchase card registers for a total of $815,428.65. City Council Minutes: April 27, 2026 Page 2 1 11 B. Approve the new hires and departures for City departments. Action taken: Approved the hires for the DMV, Facilities, Monticello Community Center (MCC), Parks, and Streets, and the terminations for the MCC, Parks, and Streets. C. Approve the disposal of surplus City property. Action taken: No report this cycle. D. Approving a special event permit allowing use of City parks, core City public right-of-way, Monticello Community Center parking lot and related assistance in conjunction with the annual Riverfest celebration on July 10-12, 2026. Action taken: Approved the Riverfest event permit, including City staff assistance and use of City parks, parking lots, and right-of-way contingent on continued site plan and traffic control coordination with Parks, Arts, and Recreation, Public Works, Fire Department, and the Wright County Sheriffs Office. E. Approve a special event permit allowing the use of Ellison Park and related assistance for Art in the Park/Taste of Monticello on Saturday, July 11, 2026. Applicant: Monticello Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Action taken: Approved the special event permit allowing use of Ellison Park, picnic tables, and related assistance. Approve an application for a two-day temporary liquor license for the Monticello Lions for the Riverfest festival on July 11 and 12, 2026. Action taken: Approved the two-day temporary liquor license for the Monticello Lions. G. Approve a special event permit allowing use of West Bridge Park, closing of West River Street, and related assistance and approving a temporary liquor license for the VFW Post 8731 for Party in the Park on Thursday, July 9, 2026. Applicant: Monticello Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Action taken: Approved the special event permit allowing the use of West Bridge Park, West River Street and related assistance, contingent on site coordination with the Parks, Arts, and Recreation Department and Street Department and notification of adjacent property owners by the permit holder. Approved the temporary liquor license for the VFW. H. Approve a special event permit for American Legion Post 260, including the use of City resources and the temporary closure of a portion of 3rd Street West, as well as approval of a temporary liquor license for the American Legion for a car show event on June 13, 2026. Action taken: Approved the special event permit including the use of City resources, the closure of a portion of 3rd Street West, and waiver of event fee contingent upon notification to surrounding property owners. Approved the temporary liquor license. City Council Minutes: April 27, 2026 Page 3 1 11 Call for a public hearing on May 11, 2026, to adopt an ordinance amending the 2026 fee schedule. Action taken: The public hearing was set for May 11, 2026. J. Adopt Resolution 2026-29 authorizing a Small Cities Development Program (SCDP) Loan Agreement and a Business Subsidy Agreement with Kid's Haven of Monticello Holdings, LLC and Kid's Haven of Monticello, LLC in the amount of $250,000 in connection with a proposed 26,704 sq. ft. childcare center development. Action taken: Adopted Resolution 2026-29 authorizing a SCDP loan agreement and a business subsidy agreement with Kid's Haven of Monticello Holdings, LLC and Kid's Haven of Monticello, LLC. K. Adopt Resolution 2026-30 authorizing the First Amendment to Development Contract and Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Stony Brook Village. Action taken: Adopted Resolution 2026-30 approving the First Amendment to Development Contract and PUD for Stony Brook Village and authorized the Mayor and City Administrator to execute said agreement and further authorized the Mayor and City Administrator to negotiate and specify final changes or amendments necessary to execute the intention of the City Council more fully with respect to the proposed project. Authorize an extension on approval of the preliminary plat and development stage planned unit development (PUD) and for City decision on the Haven Ridge West final plat and final stage PUD to July 31, 2026. Action taken: Approved the extension of approval of preliminary plat and development stage PUD and City decision to July 31, 2026. M. Authorize an extension on approval of final plat, final stage planned unit development (PUD), rezoning and development contract for Broadway Plaza to November 25, 2026. Action taken: Authorized a six-month extension of the final plat, final stage PUD, rezoning and development contract approval to November 25, 2026, conditioned on: 1. All prior approved conditions and comments are applicable as shown in Exhibit Z of the November 25, 2024 City Council staff report. 2. The development contract and PUD agreement are revised and executed to reflect escrows and fees at prevailing rate at the time of plat recording. 3. All applicable fees and escrows for site development and building construction shall be paid at prevailing rate. City Council Minutes: April 27, 2026 Page 4 1 11 4. Terms and conditions of the development contract and PUD agreement remain in force, except as noted for fees and escrows. 5. Final Stage PUD and rezoning approvals are contingent on the extension of the final plat and the execution and recording of the final plat. N. Approve a contract with WSB for construction administration services for the Bertram Chain of Lakes (BCOL) Athletic Park Phase III pickleball improvements including Alternate One for the gravel parking lot and authorize the City Administrator to execute the agreement. Action taken: Approved the contract with WSB for the BCOL Athletic Park Phase III pickleball improvements including Alternate One for the gravel parking lot and authorized the City Administrator to execute the construction management agreement with WSB. O. Approve a contract with Keys Well Drilling for well pump repairs for Wells No. 1 and No. 4 in the amount of $88,270. Action taken: Approved the contract with Keys Well Drilling for well pump repairs. P. Approve an on -call contract with AE2S for instrumentation and control support services. Action taken: Approved the on -call contract with AE2S. Q. Adopt Resolution 2026-31 accepting public watermain and sanitary sewer improvements for the Stony Brook Village development. Action taken: Adopted Resolution 2026-31 accepting the utility improvements for the Stony Brook Village Development. R. Public Hearing: S. Regular Agenda: A. Consideration of authorizing revisions to a proposed amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV, Land Usage, Chapter City Administrator Rachel Leonard presented the proposed Data Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance, explaining that it was developed in response to data center inquiries and prior Council direction to allow such development only when consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and protective of community interests and infrastructure capacity. She noted that the ordinance limits data centers to areas guided for light industrial park use and preserves City Council discretion through a required rezoning and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval process for each project. Ms. Leonard stated that the ordinance establishes approval criteria, environmental review requirements, and mandatory performance standards City Council Minutes: April 27, 2026 Page 5 1 11 related to utilities, infrastructure, operations, and site design. She explained that the CUP process would enforce site -specific conditions and mitigation measures. Ms. Leonard concluded that the ordinance is intended to balance economic development opportunities with regulatory safeguards and community protection. Councilmember Gabler asked what would occur if land were rezoned to the Data Center PUD, but a Conditional Use Permit was not approved. Rachel Leonard explained that rezoning alone does not grant development rights, and no data center development could occur without CUP approval. She added that the City could rezone the property again in the future if necessary. Councilmember Gabler questioned where the concept meeting occurs within the updated Data Center PUD process. Rachel Leonard explained that the concept meeting takes place at the initiation of the application process but is optional and does not trigger statutory review timelines. She stated that staff strongly encourage the meeting because it allows applicants to receive early feedback from City staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council before submitting formal rezoning and Conditional Use Permit applications. Councilmember Gabler inquired whether CUP requirements must remain consistent for all projects or whether additional restrictions could be applied to projects located near residential areas or parks. Rachel Leonard explained that the ordinance already includes varying setback requirements based on adjacent land uses. City Attorney Soren Mattick further clarified that while the ordinance establishes baseline standards applicable to all projects, the CUP process allows the City to impose additional site -specific conditions when warranted by unique circumstances or impacts, provided those conditions are supported by a clear connection to the identified concern. Councilmember Gabler asked about CUP enforcement and whether additional clarity was needed in the ordinance's revocation provisions. Community Development Director Angela Schumann explained that violations are addressed through revocation of the CUP rather than fines, which removes the approval and prohibits continued operation of the use. Soren Mattick clarified that enforcement applies to the land use authorization, not the building itself, and revocation would not typically result in demolition or condemnation of the structure. City Council Minutes: April 27, 2026 Page 6 1 11 Councilmember Christianson noted minor grammatical and clarity issues in the ordinance, including wording changes and punctuation suggestions, and said he would provide a list of specific edits to staff. The following individuals addressed the City Council: • Jeff O'Neill, 815 River Street West. Mr. O'Neill commented on Monticello's planning history and tradition of thoughtful, long-range development. He commended the Council and staff for their careful process and stated his support for establishing a regulatory framework for data centers, expressing confidence in the City's decision -making. • Lisa Keenan, 8270 State Highway 25 NE. Ms. Keenan spoke in opposition to portions of the proposed ordinance. She raised concerns about waiver provisions and substation setbacks near residential properties and urged the Council to consider a one-year moratorium on data center development to allow time to evaluate potential impacts such as water use, noise, and community effects before proceeding. • Jen Van Den Boom, 4414 87t" Street NE. Ms. Van Den Boom expressed opposition to the proposed data center ordinance and shared public comments from local social media reflecting community concern and opposition to the proposed data center project. She referenced concerns about transparency, environmental and utility impacts, and trust in City leadership. She urged the Council to consider a moratorium for further review. • Margaret Sullivan, 4258 Russell Ave N., Minneapolis. Ms. Sullivan spoke in opposition to the proposed data center, raising concerns about the adequacy of the environmental review and potential statewide impacts. She questioned the City's decision not to pursue additional environmental review. She also asked about potential legal and financial liability and urged the Council to clarify responsibility for environmental and legal impacts before moving forward. • Bill Saville, 873 97t" Street NW. Mr. Saville spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance. He raised potential environmental, noise, and health -related concerns, including backup generator impacts, and suggested further study and monitoring. He urged consideration of a moratorium and stated he would continue providing additional information to the Council. City Council Minutes: April 27, 2026 Page 7 1 11 • Ben Anderson, 4208 Eakern Circle NE. Mr. Anderson spoke about local government accountability and asked whether the City can enforce state employment laws on developers as part of the development approval process. He cited concerns about alleged noncompliance with state employment posting requirements and questioned whether such issues could indicate broader compliance risks with local development regulations. • David Thorson, 4168 87t" Street NE. Mr. Thorson expressed opposition to the proposed data center project, citing concerns about its potential environmental, health, and quality -of -life impacts on nearby residents. He referenced prior Council discussions on compromise, stated that setbacks were insufficient, and urged consideration of a temporary moratorium or pause to allow further evaluation of the project's long- term impacts. • Laura Bishop, 8820 Farmstead. Ms. Bishop expressed disappointment with recent community discussions and requested improved public engagement regarding the proposed data center. She asked the City to consider holding a town hall -style forum to allow for more direct, two- way dialogue between residents and Council members on major issues. • Alan Bondhus, 9866 Gillard Ave NE. Mr. Bondhus spoke in opposition to the proposed data center, citing concerns about long-term technological changes that could affect data center design and infrastructure needs. He raised questions about energy use, cooling, water consumption, and noise, and urged the Council to reconsider the timing of approval given potential future advancements in computing technology. • Holly Newman, 840 Powell Street, Big Lake. Ms. Newman asked for clarification on infrastructure impacts of the proposed development, including transmission lines and whether power lines could be required to be buried. She also raised public safety concerns related to potential fire risks at data center facilities and emergency response capabilities. Mayor Hilgart noted that no specific project is under review at this time, but any future development would be required to meet applicable fire code and safety standards. • Ella Barthel. Ms. Barthel spoke in opposition to the proposed data center, citing concerns about potential impacts to agriculture, livestock, and local water resources. She urged the Council to consider effects on farming City Council Minutes: April 27, 2026 Page 8 1 11 and rural land use and expressed personal concern about how the project could affect future agricultural career opportunities in the community. • Joan Bondhus, 3 Riverside Circle. Ms. Bondhus spoke in opposition to the proposed data center, citing concerns about environmental impacts, resource use, and effects on community character. She expressed concerns about potential impacts to water, energy, noise, traffic, and nearby natural areas, and urged the Council to consider the long-term effects on residents. • Scott Cutsforth. Mr. Cutsforth expressed concern that the proposed data center could have significant community impacts. He urged caution in proceeding with the project and stated the City should avoid becoming a "guinea pig" for potential development impacts. There was no further comment by the public. Councilmember Gabler asked City Attorney Soren Mattick to explain the difference between a moratorium and tabling action. Mr. Mattick noted they are functionally similar, but that state law imposes timing requirements on City action and explained that a moratorium would temporarily halt data center development while the ordinance is completed. He further clarified that data centers are not currently allowed under existing regulations and that the proposed ordinance would establish the regulatory framework for them. He also confirmed the City has authority to enact a moratorium to provide additional time if needed. Councilmember Gabler requested further discussion on setbacks, noting she would like 1,200 feet. She proposed that if setbacks could not be reduced, the City could instead consider reducing the allowable floor area ration (FAR) by half to limit overall building scale and prevent hyperscale development. Councilmember Christianson cautioned that reducing FAR could have unintended consequences and potentially work against the City's broader goals. Mayor Hilgard added that FAR is applied to developable land excluding setbacks and functions as a maximum development intensity standard. Councilmember Gabler reiterated her interest in limiting overall scale, suggesting a maximum FAR of 0.12 if setbacks remain unchanged. Mayor Hilgart noted the City has effectively operated under a de facto moratorium while developing the ordinance and referenced similar actions in other communities. He emphasized that data center development would be fully developer -funded, must meet state utility and energy requirements, and is City Council Minutes: April 27, 2026 Page 9 1 11 subject to strict local standards for noise, lighting, buffering, and site design. He also stated the City retains full discretion to approve or deny rezoning applications and thanked staff for their work on the ordinance. Rachel Leonard clarified that FAR was established to ensure that developments allocating large amounts of land provide adequate value, while setbacks are intended to provide flexibility in how projects fit within surrounding areas. She advised that if the Council's goal is to maximize land value while addressing compatibility concerns, adjustments to setbacks may be more appropriate than modifying the FAR. Rachel Leonard also outlined additional considerations discussed by staff, including the placement of the required 10-foot berm, which would occupy substantial space. She noted that the ordinance could allow the berm within the setback area or be amended to require placement outside the setback to create additional buffering, particularly near residential or park areas. City Council and staff discussed berm design, noting a 10-foot berm could be approximately 80-100 feet wide depending on slope and elevation. Councilmember Christianson raised concerns about how berm height and setbacks interact, emphasizing that both directly affect screening effectiveness and that increased setbacks could reduce the berm's intended purpose. Rachel Leonard advised the Council to first clarify the purpose of setbacks and berms and outlined options including adjusting setbacks, maintaining berm requirements, or using tiered standards. Angela Schumann added that setbacks have limited impact on certain issues like noise and suggested focusing more on other mitigation measures such as equipment placement and screening. Councilmember Christianson expressed interest in a tiered setback approach while preserving flexibility for site -specific needs. Mayor Hilgart noted that berms closer to roadways may provide better visual screening and referenced evolving data center technologies that could reduce impacts. Councilmember Hinz expressed a desire for stronger community benefit expectations from applicants but acknowledged legal limits and the City's lack of financial incentives. Councilmember Christianson noted that formal community benefit agreements are typically tied to incentives the City is not offering. Mayor Hilgart referenced the ordinance's requirement for a project narrative on community benefits. Councilmember Hinz requested more substantive commitments and engagement from applicants. City Council Minutes: April 27, 2026 Page 10 1 11 Mayor Hilgart asked for Council feedback on whether setbacks should vary based on project size. Councilmember Christianson proposed a tiered setback structure for larger sites, suggesting reduced setbacks when fully screened and increased setbacks when mechanical equipment is not screened, with the intent of improving impact mitigation. Angela Schumann stated staff could support a scaled approach and explained how different setback distances could align with screening and impact considerations. Mayor Hilgart commented that requiring internalized and fully screened mechanical equipment would be preferable and that larger setbacks could help encourage that design outcome. Councilmember Hinz moved to adopt the ordinance, incorporating Councilmember Christianson's amendment establishing scaled residential setbacks for sites over 300 acres - setting 300 feet when the site is fully screened and 700 feet where mechanical equipment is not screened. Councilmember Hinz stated her support was based on long-term community interests, fiscal responsibility, and economic diversification. Councilmember Martie seconded the motion, expressing support for both the ordinance and the amended setback provisions. In addition, and consistent with staff's recommendation, the motion included incorporation of subsections A and B of the preliminary plat data under the conditional use permit submittal standards, as referenced in the ordinance. The motion carried 4-1. Councilmember Gabler voted in opposition due to concerns about not increasing setbacks near residential and park -related land uses, as well as concerns regarding the floor area ratio. 5. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Jennifer Schreibe UIJ Attest: 4W 14 City Administrator City Council Minutes: April 27, 2026 Page 11 1 11