On the agenda: Stacy meeting — DATA CENTER (Jul 21)

1. Planning Commission Agenda July 21, 2026
Documents:
00-AGENDA.PDF
PH 7-21-26.PDF
07-21-26 POTENTIAL QUORUM OF COUNCIL.PDF
2. Planning Commission Meeting Materials July 21, 2026
Documents:
03-UNAPPROVED JUNE 16, 2026 MINUTES.PDF
05 -PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE.PDF
05A-STAFF MEMO RE POTENTIAL AMENDMENT TO 153.036.PDF
05A-ORDINANCE 2026-__-__ AMENDING 153.036 CANNABIS
REGULATIONS.PDF
07A-STAFF MEMO FINAL PLAT WALTERS ESTATES.PDF
07B-PROPOSED LAUNDROMAT IN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.PDF
07C-AGENDA MEMO- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE.PDF
08A-AGENDA MEMO- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.PDF
08B-BATTERY STORAGE FACILITY INFORMATION.PDF
08C-DATA CENTER OVERVIEW.PDF
09A-PARK DEDICATION FEE-SUBDIVISION CODE REVISION DRAFT.PDF
2.I. 08A - STANTEC MEMO - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Documents:
08A-2026.07.17_STACY - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PC MEMO.PDF

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
July 21, 2026, 7:00 p.m.
33155 Hemingway Avenue, Stacy, MN

1.

Roll Call

2.

Additions to the Agenda

3.

Approval of Minutes- June 16, 2026

☒Yes

☐No

4.

City Council Update

☒Yes

☐No

☒Yes

☐No

☐Yes

☒No

☒Yes
☒Yes
☒Yes

☐No
☐No
☐No

☒Yes
☒Yes

☐No
☐No

☒Yes

☐No

5.
A.
6.
A.
7.
A.
B.
C.
8.
A.
B.
C.
9.
A.
10.
11.
12.

Attachment

Public Hearing
Ordinance Amending 153.036 Cannabis Regulations
Action on Public Hearing
Action on Ordinance Amending Cannabis Regulations
New Business
Staff Memo - Walters Estate Final Plat
Agenda Memo - Laundromat in General Business
Agenda Memo - Planning Commission Meeting Schedule
Old Business
Agenda Memo - Comprehensive Plan
Battery Storage Facility Information
Data Center Information
Ordinances to be Reviewed
Park Dedication Fee/Subdivision Code Revision Draft
Ordinances Under Review (Time Permitting)
Open Discussion
Adjourn

To observe the meeting remotely:
Video:
Phone:
cityofstacy.my.webex.com
1-408-418-9388
Meeting Number: 126 637 8872
Access Code: 126 637 8872
Password: 4486
Password: 4486

The City of Stacy is an equal opportunity provider and employer

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Lent Town Hall, 33155 Hemingway Avenue, Stacy MN 55079
Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, July 21, 2026, at 7:00 p.m.; or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, the Stacy Planning Commission will hold
a public hearing:
Gathering public input on an Amendment to the Stacy City Code:
1. Amending §153.036 Cannabis Regulations
All interested parties are encouraged to attend. All written and verbal testimony
will be taken at this meeting, and written testimony will be taken prior to the
meeting. Printed copies of the proposed ordinances are available for inspection
by any person at City Hall during the City’s regular office hours. Copies of the
ordinances can be obtained by contacting City Hall at 651-462-4486 or on our
website www.stacy.gov.
Angie Comstock
City Clerk

30955 FOREST BOULEVARD
STACY, MN 55079
(651) 462-4486
Quorum of the City Council
Notice is hereby given that;
There may be a quorum of the City Council in attendance at the regular Planning
Commission meeting taking place at the Lent Town Hall located at 33155 Hemingway
Avenue on Tuesday, July 21, at 7:00 p.m. No City business will be conducted or acted
upon by the City Council. Public is welcome to attend.
Angie Comstock
City Clerk

MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STACY IN THE COUNTY OF
CHISAGO IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA PURSUANT TO
DUE CALL AND NOTICE THEREOF
REGULAR MEETING – JUNE 16, 2026, 7:00 P.M.
33155 HEMINGWAY AVE, STACY, MN 55079
CITY COUNCIL MET IN SPECIAL SESSION
Call to Order
Attendance

Agenda

Approval of Minutes

City Council Update

Acting Chair J. Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present Planning Commission: Acting Chair J. Johnson, Dick
Stiers, Susie Brooks, and Steven Coozennoy
Absent Planning Commission: Jim Ness and Jim Willeck
(Alternate)
Others Present: City Clerk Angie Comstock, Deputy City Clerk
Symone Sine-Pierce and City Council Liaison Tim Sawatzky
Via Webex: None
Motion by D. Stiers to approve the agenda as presented. Second
by S. Coozennoy. Members J. Johnson, D. Stiers, S. Brooks, and
S. Coozennoy voted yes. Acting Chair Johnson declared the
motion carried.
Motion by S. Coozennoy to approve the minutes from May 19,
2026, as presented. Second by D. Stiers. Members J. Johnson,
D. Stiers, S. Brooks, and S. Coozennoy voted yes. Acting Chair
Johnson declared the motion carried.
City Council Liaison T. Sawatzky provided an update from the
City Council meeting. He shared that the amendment to the
General Business district was approved. He also said that the
meeting schedule was discussed. It was suggested that it might
be easier and make more sense to have the Planning
Commission meeting before the City Council meeting. A.
Comstock noted that if the Planning Commission meeting was a
week ahead of the Council meeting, it would not allow enough
time to meet the 10-day posting period for ordinance
amendments, so the City Attorney had suggested having the
Planning Commission meeting on the 4th Tuesday of the month,
and the City Council on the 2nd Tuesday. This would allow enough
time to post amendments between meetings but be less time than
there is currently. J. Johnson asked A. Comstock to put this on
the July agenda for further discussion. Possible meeting date
alternatives were further discussed.

Planning Commission
Page 1
June 16, 2026
The City of Stacy is an equal opportunity provider and employer

Public Hearing –
Ordinance Amending
§153.028 Foundation
Requirements (7:13 p.m.
to 7:14 p.m.)
Action on Public Hearing
for Ordinance Amending
§153.028 Foundation
Requirements

Acting Chair J. Johnson opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m.
He confirmed there was no public present to comment on this
public hearing, and closed it at 7:14 p.m.

J. Johnson reviewed information from the state he had obtained
regarding foundation requirements. He summarized the
amendment, noting that it now will require a foundation of at least
24 inches in width and at least 42 inches below grade. It also
removes the fifty percent foundation requirement.
Motion by S. Brooks to recommend approval of Ordinance
Amending §153.028 Foundation Requirements to the City
Council as presented. Second by D. Stiers. Members J. Johnson,
D. Stiers, S. Brooks, and S. Coozennoy voted yes. Acting Chair
Johnson declared the motion carried.

New Business
Agenda MemoComprehensive Plan

City Clerk A. Comstock noted that this item and the next were for
the Commission to discuss, and that there is no action requested
for this meeting.
In terms of this item, the clerk’s department is bringing it forward
because it is almost time for the bi-annual review of the
comprehensive plan. The last version of the plan was done when
Stacy and Lent annexed and is a combined plan. There have
been some things identified as being needed in the plan, like a
future land use map, and infrastructure planning. It may be
necessary to review the ordinance changes that have happened
over the last couple of years and make sure that the
comprehensive plan aligns with the changes, and helpful to have
a vision for the future of the combined city to move forward. A.
Comstock noted that the City Council will be working on the
budget for 2027, so she felt it would be a good time to look at this.
J. Johnson noted that some things could be handled by the
Planning Commission, as was done when the plans were
merged, but there are things that would need to be done by
contract staff as well. He asked that A. Comstock talk to the City
Planner and get a ballpark cost on what an update would look
like. He would also like to see what deficiencies in the plan have
been identified by staff and see what can be done to determine
community needs. There was further conversation about the
comprehensive plan and what its function is for the city.
Planning Commission
Page 2
June 16, 2026
The City of Stacy is an equal opportunity provider and employer

Old Business
Agenda Memo-Park
Dedication
Fee/Subdivision Code

A. Comstock explained that the City Council had been adjusting
the park dedication fees when doing final approval on
subdivisions, and that it was suggested that the ordinance be
amended to be consistent with the changes that were being
made. The Commissioners asked that a draft be prepared for
review at their July meeting.
There were no ordinances to be reviewed.

Ordinances to be
Reviewed
Ordinances Under
Review (Time Permitting)
Alternative Energy
Systems

The Alternative Energy Systems draft was not reviewed.

General Provisions

The General Provisions draft was not reviewed.
There was no items discussed.

Open Discussion
Adjournment 8:12 p.m.

Motion by S. Coozennoy to adjourn the meeting. Second by D.
Stiers. Members J. Johnson, D. Stiers, S. Brooks, and S.
Coozennoy voted yes. Acting Chair Johnson declared the
meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m.

_________________________________
Angie Comstock, City Clerk

Planning Commission
Page 3
June 16, 2026
The City of Stacy is an equal opportunity provider and employer

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Lent Town Hall, 33155 Hemingway Avenue, Stacy MN 55079
Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, July 21, 2026, at 7:00 p.m.; or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, the Stacy Planning Commission will hold
a public hearing:
Gathering public input on an Amendment to the Stacy City Code:
1. Amending §153.036 Cannabis Regulations
All interested parties are encouraged to attend. All written and verbal testimony
will be taken at this meeting, and written testimony will be taken prior to the
meeting. Printed copies of the proposed ordinances are available for inspection
by any person at City Hall during the City’s regular office hours. Copies of the
ordinances can be obtained by contacting City Hall at 651-462-4486 or on our
website www.stacy.gov.
Angie Comstock
City Clerk

Memo
To:

Stacy Planning Commission

From:

Evan Monson, AICP

Project/File:

193804175

Date:

July 16, 2026

REQUEST: Public Hearing regarding Section 153.036 – Cannabis Regulations
OVERVIEW
As part of the discussion at the 6/29/2026 Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the
Commission and Council requested to set a hearing to consider amending the current requirements under
the city’s zoning code pertaining to Cannabis Businesses.
The zoning code, under Section 153.036, establishes requirements regarding cannabis uses. These were
adopted by the city via Ordinance 2025-10-4. These requirements are in response to Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 342, which was adopted by the State Legislature in 2023. The legislation sets forth 14 different
business license types. Cannabis business is defined as the following 11 licensed businesses: cannabis
microbusiness; cannabis mezzobusiness; cannabis cultivator; cannabis manufacturer; cannabis retailer;
cannabis wholesaler; cannabis transporter; cannabis testing facility; cannabis event organizer; cannabis
delivery service; and medical cannabis combination business. Three licensed businesses are defined under
State Statute as a hemp business: lower-potency hemp edible manufacturer; lower-potency hemp edible
wholesaler; and lower-potency hemp edible retailer.
The legislation also grants jurisdictions (such as cities) the ability to adopt “reasonable restrictions on the
time, place, and manner of the operation of a cannabis business provided that such restrictions do not
prohibit the establishment or operation of cannabis businesses.” Jurisdictions are also able to choose
whether they want to limit the number of retail registrations (businesses that sell cannabis and/or cannabis
products) to consumers; jurisdictions at minimum cannot allow fewer than one retail registration per 12,500
residents.
State Statute also explicitly states that the following buffers can be adopted by a jurisdiction limiting where a
cannabis business can operate: “…within 1,000 feet of a school, or 500 feet of a day care, residential
treatment facility, or an attraction within a public park that is regularly used by minors, including a
playground or athletic field.” A jurisdiction cannot adopt larger buffer requirements (such as 5,000 feet from
a school), but can adopt lesser buffer requirements (such as 500 feet from a school), or none at all.
CURRENT ORDINANCE
The city currently limits where different cannabis businesses can operate; like other uses in the city the
ordinance limits certain cannabis businesses to different zoning districts. Zoning districts can allow uses byright as ‘permitted’ uses, conditionally (requires a conditional use permit or CUP), or as ‘interim’ uses
(requires an interim use permit or IUP). The city’s Industrial (I), Light Industrial (LI), and Rural Transit
Center (RTC) zones are where cannabis businesses are currently permitted. Most of the uses are

July 16, 2026
Stacy Planning Commission
Page 2 of 3

conditional uses, meaning a CUP is required. The city can adopt conditions onto a CUP. Conditions
regarding limitations on noise, odors, and other potential nuisances. In addition, the city’s zoning code
already lists specific nuisance standards in Section 153.073; adherence to these standards would be
required of any use in the city.
The city also has adopted buffer requirements for “Cannabis product sales” (i.e., retail operations under a
retail registration). Measurements for the buffers are, per the zoning code, to be made in a straight line,
without regard to city or county boundaries, intervening structures, or objects, from the nearest point of the
approved premises containing the cannabinoid use to the nearest point of the following prescribed facility or
building. The buffers are:
1. 1,000 feet of a school (including public/non-public school, college, proprietary college, or
university);
2. 500 feet of a licensed daycare;
3. 500 feet of a residential treatment facility;
4. 500 feet of an attraction within a public park that is regularly used by minors, including a playground
or athletic field;
5. 500 feet of another cannabis retail business;
6. 500 feet of a local or regional public trail that is regularly used by minors;
7. 500 feet of a hospital, clinic, assisted living facility, rehabilitation facility, or psychiatric or counseling
center, office, or business;
8. 500 feet of a residential home, group home, or ground floor apartment;
9. 1,000 feet of a place of worship, church, or religious institution; community center; fairgrounds;
event center; residential shelter, or similar place of public accommodation or gathering place as
determined by the Zoning Administrator.
AMENDMENTS
The question of amending the buffer requirements was raised. Staff have outlined a few options, along with
some additional information to consider for each option.
1. Apply the current buffer requirements to all cannabis business types.
a. Based on the buffer requirements, cannabis businesses would be effectively prohibited
from the LI zone. An existing trail runs through the east side of the Stacy Ponds Business
Park. In addition, buffers from nearby residential homes, as well as a nearby park (Rick
Doyle Memorial Field) would cover virtually all of the other parcels in the Business Park
zoned LI.
b. A portion of the 30426 and 30622 Forest Boulevard properties (both within the I zone)
would be outside of the buffer requirements. Cannabis businesses would be effectively
prohibited from the other parcels zoned (I) due to buffer requirements from adjacent
residential homes.
c. Portions of parcels zoned RTC would be outside of buffer requirements. This portion of the
city does not have municipal water or sewer, which would limit the viability of certain uses
that would require greater water and sewer needs than can be provided by wells and septic
systems.

2

July 16, 2026
Stacy Planning Commission
Page 3 of 3

d. The city would need to consider whether this option would result in “reasonable restrictions
on the time, place, and manner of the operation of a cannabis business.”
2. Apply only select buffers to non-retail cannabis businesses; keep the current buffer requirements
for retail uses.
a. Depending on which buffers are adopted, parcels in the LI and I zones could be permitted
to be cannabis businesses in the future. The same infrastructure issues remain for uses
interested in locating within the RTC zone.
3. Apply only select buffers to certain non-retail cannabis businesses; keep the current buffer
requirements for retail uses.
a. Uses that are anticipated to generate more nuisances (such as noise, light, odor, traffic)
could have more buffer requirements apply. For example, a cannabis manufacturer is a
more ‘industrial-type’ of business than a cannabis cultivation business; the same buffers
required for retail uses could apply to manufacturer uses as well, while fewer or no buffers
would apply to a cannabis cultivation business.
b. Depending on the uses and the buffers adopted, the same issues as noted in Option 1
could apply.
4. Adopt an overlay zone(s) specific to cannabis businesses, selecting specific parcels where
cannabis businesses can be located.
a. This would be the most different option to the current code requirements. Instead of having
to determine if a use is allowed in a certain zone (I, LI, RTC, etc.) and whether the property
is or is not within a buffer, an overlay zone would cover certain parcels where it is identified
that the city finds acceptable to have cannabis businesses.
b. This would require determining which areas/parcels a cannabis business could reasonably
be located at.
ACTION
The Planning Commission can do one of the following:
1. Recommend approval of an amendment to Section 153.036.
2. Recommend denial of an amendment to Section 153.036, with findings for denial.
3. Table the request for further review and/or study.
RECOMMENDATION
The commissioners should discuss and consider which option to recommend to the City Council. The
Planning Commission can also table the item for further review and study.

3

Grand Ave

LI - Light Industrial

RR-I - Rural Residential - I
Fill Ave

P - Park

Fenway Ave

OS - Open Space

372Nd St

370Th St

373Rd St

Shoreland District

370Th St

Rural Business Overlay

R3-A - Multi-Family Residential (Townhomes)

Lakes, Ponds and River Features

Eaglewood Ave

Carlos Avery Overlay District

R2Elk-CirOne and Two Family
Residential
Everg
re
en Trl

2,500

November 2024

1,250

0

2,500 Feet
367Th St

Ct

Hemingway Ave

367Th

Ct

Jeffrey Ave

.

RTC - Rural Transit Center

371St St
370Th St

R1 - Single Family Residential

6T
h

Zoning Map

RR-II - Rural Residential - II
Greenway Ave

Ea

gl
e

Ln

Eagle Ct

374Th St

372Nd St

City of Stacy

Goodview Ave

St
375Th St - Rural375Th
RR-A
Residential
- Agriculture

366Th St

Elk Ct

368Th St

July Ave

Elk Ave

I - Industrial
Ct

NRP - Natural Resource Preservation

Elmcrest Ave Ne

Elmcrest Ave Ne

Lyons St Ne

376Th St

Ivy Trl

375Th St

Eaglewood Ave

ROW

Eleanor

GB - General Business

Evergreen

377Th
RM - Manufactured
Home Park

374Th

36

378Th St
St

CB - Central Business

380Th St

James Ave

R3-B - Multi-Family 378Th
Residential
(Apartments)
St

Hearthside Ln

377Th St

Hawthorne Ave

Ag - Agriculture

Gerald Ave
Harvester Ave

Forest Blvd

Edstrom Cir

Edstrom Cir

Echo Ave

380Th Ct

379Th St

Elmcrest Ave Ne

363Rd St

Fill Ave

362Nd St

361St St

Grand Ave

Energy Trl

Evergreen Ave

360Th St

Lyons St Ne

County Hwy 14

358Th St

Rd

Co
u

351St St

nty

ln
co

Lin

Hw
y

352Nd St

15

Forest Blvd

35
§
¨
¦

350Th St

Athens Trl

347Th St

Ivan Ave

Kale Ln

Athens Trl

345Th St
344Th St

Grange Cir

341St St
340Th St
339Th St

337T

h St

Iris Ave

Elmo Ave

County Hwy 30

340Th St

Hemingway Ave

340Th St

nt

Le

l
Tr

Ave

335Th St

Kale

l

330Th Tr

Erie Ct N

k

El

Ct

329Th St

Le

nt

Tr
l

Fenway Ave N

h St

327T

324
T

hS

t

Erie Ln N

Elk

Hemmingway Ave

Ln

Floral Ave

321St St

318Th St N

320Th St

320Th St

Frontier Ave

Lyons St Ne

320Th St

19
"
)

318Th St N
Ct

317Th St
Falcon Ave

Stacy Ln

315Th St

314Th St

Eifer Trl

le

Sunri
Ln

Gable Ave

Genesis Ave

Ave

302Nd St

Dr

292Nd St

35
§
¨
¦

Karmel Ave

st

re

llc

Hi

Homestead Ave

Innsbrook Ave

300Th St

Jeffe
ry

Fox R
un R
d

Hemmingway Ave

ad

Falcon Ave

Fir Trl

ow

County Hwy 19

se Dr

305Th St Me

Stacy Trl

307Th St

Foxtail Ln

"
)

311Th St

Frontage Ave

ks Rd
Sherman Oa
County Hwy 19 Stacy Trl
Finch Ct

36

e
Av

ab

G

304Th St

311Th St

Ct

Foley Ave

238Th Ave Ne

ho
Ec

Echo Ln

312Th St

Ivyw

ood

Trl

ily

Em

316Th Ln

Deer Garden Ln

ry

Av
e

E Viking Blvd

Revised: 2024-11-13 by dmerickson

£8
¤

Jo
ce
lyn

Ne

Rd

22

t

284Th St

Tra
il

Joce
lyn C

ffe

285Th St

Fox Hill Rd

NOTES:
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN Adj MN Chisago Feet
Aerial Imagery: Microsoft product screenshot reprinted with
permission from Microsoft Corporation

Av
e

288Th St

Je

Foxhill Ave

Forest Bl

vd

287Th St

"22
)
V:\1938\Clients\Stacy\Projects\Pro\Zoning\Zoning\Zoning.aprx

Parcels zoned
Industrial (I)

Parcels zoned
Light Industrial
(LI)

Parcels zoned Rural
Transit Center (RTC)

ORDINANCE NUMBER 2026-__-__

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 153, SECTION §153.036 CANNABIS
REGULATIONS OF THE STACY CITY CODE

The City Council of the City of Stacy ordains:
SECTION 1. Chapter 153, Section 153.036 (C) (1) (a) is amended by adding the underlined
language and deleting the strikethrough language as follows:
153.036 CANNABIS REGULATIONS
(C) Requirements for cannabis businesses.
(1) Land use buffer.
(a) Cannabis product sales businesses are prohibited from locating or operating within the
following prescribed buffer distances.
Measurements are to be made in a straight line, without regard to city or county
boundaries, intervening structures, or objects, from the nearest point of the approved
premises containing the cannabinoid use to the nearest point of the following prescribed
facility or building:
1. 1,000 feet of a school (including public/non-public school, college, proprietary college,
or university);
2. 500 feet of a licensed daycare;
3. 500 feet of a residential treatment facility;
4. 500 feet of an attraction within a public park that is regularly used by minors, including
a playground or athletic field;
5. 500 feet of another cannabis retail business;
6. 500 feet of a local or regional public trail that is regularly used by minors;
7. 500 feet of a hospital, clinic, assisted living facility, rehabilitation facility, or
psychiatric or counseling center, office or business;
8. 500 feet of a residential home, group home, or ground floor apartment;
9. 1,000 feet of a place of worship, church, or religious institution; community center;
fairgrounds; event center;

Proposed Ordinance Posted:
Public Hearing Date: 7/21/2026
Adoption Date:
Published:

residential shelter, or similar place of public accommodation or gathering place as
determined by the Zoning Administrator.
(b) Pursuant to M.S. § 462.357, Subd. 1e, nothing in division (C)(1)(a) shall prohibit an active cannabis
business or a cannabis business seeking registration from continuing operation at the same site if the
above buffered uses moves within the minimum buffer zone.

SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and
publication.

ADOPTED this __th day of ________, 2026, by the City Council of Stacy, Minnesota.

__________________________________
Mark Utecht, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Angie Comstock, City Clerk

Proposed Ordinance Posted:
Public Hearing Date: 7/21/2026
Adoption Date:
Published:

Memo
To:

Stacy Planning Commission

From:

Angela Ginsburg
Evan Monson, AICP

Project/File:

193804175

Date:

June 17, 2026

REQUEST: Major Subdivision request for a final plat for Walters Estates
APPLICANT & OWNER: John Walter
PROPERTY LOCATION: 34987 Kable Avenue; Parcel ID 05.00155.00
ZONING CLASSIFICATION: Rural Residential Agriculture (RR-A)
REVIEW PERIOD: 120-day review period ends 7/21/2026.
ITEMS REVIEWED: Application and materials received on 6/8/2026 and 6/11/2026.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of a final plat to subdivide a 12.66-acre property they own located
along Lincoln Road into four lots. Proposed Lot 1 contains an existing single-family residence, barn, well,
and septic drain field. Proposed Lots 2, 3, and 4 would be available for development as new single-family
homes; these lots are shown with individual building pads, driveways, and septic drain fields.
Subdividing of land must be in accordance with Chapter 151 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the City of Stacy’s
City Code. The evaluation of a major subdivision request includes consideration of the requirements of the
current and proposed zoning designation and whether the request is consistent with the City’s current
Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s request meets the definition of a ‘major subdivision,’ as it proposes
creating more than two new lots/parcels.
A major subdivision requires a preliminary plat and a final plat. A preliminary plat is reviewed by the
Planning Commission, and approved or denied by the City Council. If a preliminary plat is approved, an
applicant can proceed with a final plat. The preliminary plat for this subdivision was previously approved by
the City Council in May 2026.

June 17, 2026
Stacy Planning Commission
Page 2 of 8

PROPERTY INFORMATION:
Parcel Description: 34987 Kable Avenue is 551,469.6 square feet (SF) or 12.66 acres in size per the
Preliminary Plat of Walters Estates. The property is located in the northeast portion of the city, just south of
Lincoln Road. A house and one detached accessory structure currently occupy the property. The site
currently has one driveway onto Lincoln Road / CSAH 14, and a driveway onto Kable Avenue. There are
variations in the site’s topography. The northwest portion of the site and a strip along the southern portion of
the site is wooded with the rest of the site mostly open space.
Current Land Use: Single Family Residential

Figure 1: Aerial of Site, per Chisago County. Subject property is outlined in red. Other parcel lines are in
grey.

2

June 17, 2026
Stacy Planning Commission
Page 3 of 8

EVALUATION OF REQUEST

Figure 2: Excerpt of preliminary plat.

3

June 17, 2026
Stacy Planning Commission
Page 4 of 8

Figure 3: Excerpt of the proposed final plat.
Comprehensive Plan
As noted in the review of the preliminary plat, the applicant’s site is within land that was formerly Lent
Township. The latest Stacy Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as ‘Rural Residential,’ and states that
lots within this area “will be primarily single-family homes on large lots varying in size” and these areas “are
not served by public utilities (sewer and water).” The proposed subdivision would result in four lots of similar

4

June 17, 2026
Stacy Planning Commission
Page 5 of 8

size to neighboring residential properties, and would have on-site water and sewer, making this subdivision
consistent with the ‘Rural Residential’ future land use designation in the city’s plan.
Zoning Code
Per Section 153.060 of the City of Stacy Zoning Code, single-family dwellings and accessory structures are
permitted uses in the RR-A zone.
The applicant revised the preliminary plat design that was presented to the Planning Commission on
4/21/2026 to address comments from the commissioners. The revised iteration of the preliminary plat was
approved by the City Council on 5/12/2026. The notable change is that the lot lines are oriented
perpendicular to roadways, forming rectangular shaped lots. Lot 1 fronts Lincoln Road, while Lot 2 is now a
corner lot fronting Lincoln Road and Kable Avenue. As noted previously, the existing driveway off Kable
Avenue could be used for proposed Lot 2; if the driveway were to remain being used by the existing
residence on proposed Lot 1, staff would recommend the applicant create and record an access easement
over said driveway.
Each of the proposed four lots meets the minimum requirements of the city’s zoning code, and the final plat
is consistent with the preliminary plat approved by the City Council. Future development on the newly
proposed lots will have to adhere to the zoning requirements applicable at the time of development.
Subdivision Code
The city’s Subdivision Code outlines the requirements for subdividing land and creating new lots and
parcels within the city. The preliminary plat was reviewed and determined to meet the requirements of the
subdivision code regarding lot lines, easements, etc. Future development on the newly proposed lots will
have to comply with grading and stormwater requirements.
Park Dedication
Section 151.65(C) requires subdividers to dedicate to the city land for park, playground, trail, and public
open space purposes. If the subdivider does not dedicate land, the Ordinance requires a cash contribution
in lieu of land. The city recently amended these requirements, establishing a formula for ‘agricultural’
dedications, and a formula for dedications in ‘residential’ subdivisions. ‘Residential’ subdivisions include a
caveat for situations where an existing residence remains on one of the proposed parcels being created in
a subdivision. The Council discussed and included as a condition of approval for the preliminary plat that
the calculation of the park dedication fee does not include the land remaining on the parcel with the
remaining residence – this would result in proposed Lot 1 being excluded from the calculation. The formulas
would then look like this:
•

Land: 0.125 X 3 lots = 0.375 acres of dedicated land; OR
o

•

This excludes Lot 1, which would contain the existing residence that is proposed to remain.

Cash: 0.375 acres X $12,006.32 = $4,502.37
o

The estimated market value (EMV) of the land of the site is currently $152,000, and the site
is 12.66 acres (per the preliminary plat), resulting in an EMV/acre of $12,006.32/acre.

5

June 17, 2026
Stacy Planning Commission
Page 6 of 8

As discussed during review of the preliminary plat, there are no plans for a public park in this area so a
cash contribution in lieu of land dedication shall be provided, subject to city approval. The dedication shall
be completed prior to final plat approval, ensuring compliance with subdivision regulations. This would be
consistent with the approval of the preliminary plat by the City Council.
Criteria for Review
In considering a final plat, the Planning Commission shall consider the following factors per Section
151.33(D) of the Subdivision Ordinance; these are listed below in italics, with staff comments following:
1. Consistency with the design standards and other requirements of this chapter.
The proposed preliminary plat meets the requirements of the city’s Subdivision Code, and the new lots
meet the dimensional requirements of the city’s Zoning Code.
2. Consistency with the city’s growth management system or other development plans.
The site is within the former Lent Township. The latest Lent Township comprehensive plan guided the
site as ‘Rural Residential Agriculture,’ which allows for limited development. The city’s 2024 update to
the city’s Comprehensive Plan assigns the same future land use designation to this site. Low-density
large-lot residential development such as what is proposed with this subdivision would be consistent
with the surrounding area, and the comprehensive plan.
3. Consistency with the zoning regulations.
Per Section 153.062 of the City of Stacy Zoning Code, single-family dwellings and accessory structures
are permitted uses in RR-II zoned properties. The four lots proposed as part of this subdivision meet
the dimensional requirements of the city’s Zoning Code.
4. The physical characteristics of the site, including, but not limited to topography, erosion, and
flooding potential, and soil limitations, are suitable for the type of development or use contemplated.
There are no wetlands and flood plains on this site. The areas outside of drainage and utility easements
are suitable for development, with each of the proposed lots able to accommodate ample buildable land
and viable spaces for wells and on-site septic systems.
5. The proposed development will not create a negative fiscal or environmental impact upon the city.
Based on the applicant’s proposed plans, future development of single family homes on each of the
proposed lots would not appear to create a negative fiscal or environmental impact upon the city.
Based on the applicant’s submittal, the proposed preliminary plat meets the criteria for approval.
STAFF / AGENCY COMMENTS
•

Chisago County
o

The County Surveyor commented that the county will require controlled access along
Lincoln Road / CSAH 14.

6

June 17, 2026
Stacy Planning Commission
Page 7 of 8

•

City Staff
o

Engineering: No comments.

ACTION
The Planning Commission can do one of the following:
1. Recommend approval of the request, with findings for approval and with or without conditions.
2. Recommend denial of the request, with findings for denial.
3. Table the request for further review and/or study.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission to recommend approval of final plat of Walters Estates, as
shown in and as legally described in the plat prepared by Demarc Land Surveying & Engineering, with the
following conditions and findings of fact:
Conditions of Approval
1. The applicant shall subdivide the property in accordance with the final plat of Walters Estates
prepared by Demarc Land Surveying & Engineering reviewed with this request.
a. As required by Chisago County, the final plat shall show ‘controlled access’ along the rightof-way of Lincoln Road / CSAH 14.
2. All future principal and accessory structures shall be constructed in full compliance with the City of
Stacy Zoning Ordinance. Future development or projects on any of the proposed parcels shall
adhere to applicable requirements at the time of development.
3. The applicant shall pay the required park land dedication fee, in accordance with the City’s
Subdivision Ordinance, prior to or upon final plat approval by the City Council.
a. Based on the requirements of 151.65(C)(1)(a) and approval of the preliminary plat by the
City Council, the required cash in lieu of land dedication is $4,502.37.
4. The applicant shall acquire all applicable local, County, State, and Federal permits and approvals
for this request.
5. The applicant shall pay all fees or escrows associated with this request.
Findings of Fact for Approval
1. John Walter (Applicant) owns 34987 Kable Avenue in Stacy, Minnesota, zoned RR-A (Rural
Residential - Agriculture).
2. The Applicant previously applied for a preliminary plat for a subdivision, to be called Walters
Estates. The Applicant previously applied for a preliminary plat, which was approved by the city on
5/12/2026.
3. The proposed plat creates four (4) lots in one (1) block.
4. Each lot has frontage to a public roadway.
5. The request is consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan.

7

June 17, 2026
Stacy Planning Commission
Page 8 of 8

6. The proposed lots meet the dimensional and development standards of the RR-A zoning district,
and all other applicable requirements for subdivision design standards.
7. The proposed plat is consistent with the preliminary plat, and is meeting the requirements of
Section 151.33(D) of the city’s Subdivision Ordinance.

8

TO:

Planning Commission

FROM:

Angie Comstock, City Clerk

SUBJECT:

Planning Commission Meeting Schedule

DATE:

July 21, 2026

Background:
It was discussed at last month's meeting to consider switching the Planning Commission
meeting from the third Tuesday of the month to the fourth Tuesday. This would leave less of
a gap between the Planning Commission and City Council meetings, while allowing the 10
days required to post ordinances for adoption by the City Council after a public hearing at
Planning Commission.
The City Council reviewed this and would be okay with the Commission making the change if
they wish to do so. The City Attorney says the change can be made by motion of the Planning
Commission, and a schedule to be generated and kept at City Hall for public information.
Formal approval from the City Council is not required.
Action Requested:
Discuss if a change in the meeting schedule is appropriate, and if so, a motion to make the
change.

The City of Stacy is an equal opportunity provider and employer

TO:

Planning Commission

FROM:

Angie Comstock, City Clerk

SUBJECT:

Comprehensive Plan Request

DATE:

July 21, 2026

Background:
Prior to the annexation in 2023, the City of Stacy and Lent Township Planning Commission’s
worked together to combine their respective comprehensive plans, as well as starting the work
on merging the codes. A merged comprehensive plan and zoning map were approved by the
City Council in May of 2024. Per the City Code, the comprehensive plan is to be reviewed
periodically, at least every two years. As the City begins work on the 2027 budget next month,
the clerk’s department would like the Planning Commission to consider looking at using a
consultant to assist with a comprehensive plan update. The existing comprehensive plan has
been incredibly helpful over the adjustment period, but there is a need to start discussing what
the combined future vision is for areas of the City and how it is to be accomplished. Future
land use maps, infrastructure and transportation plans will be needed as the community
continues to grow and having that guidance in an updated plan would be invaluable. The
framework is there; the department is just looking to round it out.
Action Requested:
Staff is working with the City Planner to identify areas of the plan that are in need of the update, and
what the process would look like, in order to obtain an accurate quote on what it would cost to have
them assist with this project. In the meantime, attached is a rough list of areas that the clerk’s
department has identified based on questions the department has received.

The City of Stacy is an equal opportunity provider and employer

Comprehensive Plan Review Items from Clerk’s Department
•

•

General Items
o Review ordinance changes and ensure the legal justification in the comprehensive plan
still applies.
o Update goals/policies by engaging with citizens so they have the opportunity to
contribute to the combined vision of the city moving forward.
o Review current combined zoning
▪ Look at density in former Lent Township zones. There are areas in RR-A that
make more sense as RR-II, and areas in RR-II that make more sense as RRI. The regulations align better as well.
o Guide to future zoning and water utility’s needs, specifically for the following areas:
▪ Anderson property west of Kwik Trip (19.10461.00 & 19.10460.00)
▪ Area north of Post Office (19.00024.00, 19.00153.00, 19.00152.00,
19.00021.00, 19.00052.00)
▪ Rural Transit Center District in general
• Is the goal to truly have this a commercial area? What does the city
want to see?
• Likely need to address the 5 acres minimum lot size if so and should
consider the goal of doing separate city water/sewer utility to service
the commercial area and eventually loop it into the city proper system,
rather than relay on septic, which is not suitable for some business
types.
o Ensure the open space and recreation section aligns with the updated park plan draft.
o Energy section should be reviewed against Greenstep Cities and other environmental
initiatives to be more current.
Maps and Tables
o Maps that would be helpful:
▪ Existing Land Use
▪ Future Land Use (This is a big one!)
▪ Zoning for parcels with an existing discrepancy
▪ Transportation plan map
o Tables that would be helpful (some we have and just need updating)
▪ Population
▪ Ethnicity
▪ Demographics (age)
▪ Education
▪ Economy (industries in the city, top industries of employment)
▪ Population growth forecasts
▪ Household sizes and number of households

The City of Stacy is an equal opportunity provider and employer

Fact Sheet: Battery Energy
Storage Systems and Land Use
Battery energy storage systems (BESS) are becoming a common feature in both rural and urban
landscapes across the US. This fact sheet provides planners, local officials, and community
members with context for how BESS align with and depart from land use considerations
associated with existing energy storage-related land uses, such as gas stations, grain elevators,
and propane facilities.

Key things to know about
battery energy storage
systems and land use:
A BESS is not a

Battery energy storage systems are grounded in
a long history of community-based storage
Communities have long accommodated facilities that store or
manage energy and commodities for later use:
Gas stations store liquid fuels for distribution to consumers.
Propane facilities store liquefied gas for heating or industrial
applications.
Grain elevators serve as bulk storage and transfer points for
agricultural commodities with substantial energy content and
associated risks.
Each provides a form of energy storage that is essential to
community and regional economies.
Similar to these large-scale storage facilities, in terms of basic land
use function, BESS are designed to store electricity from the grid
or energy-generating sources and discharge it when demand
peaks or when energy generation drops.1 Ownership and
regulation of BESS facilities are also similar to such facilities,
where projects are typically privately developed and, depending
on project scale, are operated under local or state-level oversight.

March 2026

fundamentally new land
use; it shares many
attributes with existing
energy storage facilities
familiar to rural
communities.
Primary differences lie in
the type of health and
safety risks, emergency
response, and use cases.
Zoning updates can classify
BESS under “public utility”
or “energy infrastructure”
categories with
performance standards and
siting processes, just like
any other energy facility.2

Learn more at betterenergy.org or contact us for more
information: [email protected]

Planning considerations for battery energy storage systems
Regulatory and permitting considerations for BESS also parallel
existing land uses. Most communities already regulate fuel depots,
propane tanks, and agricultural chemicals and products through
conditional use permits or performance-based zoning standards.
These frameworks can be readily adapted to battery storage by
focusing on key site plan elements such as setbacks, fire safety
access, noise limits, drainage, and screening.
Because a BESS has minimal operational impacts, it often qualifies
as a low-intensity industrial or utility use.3 In some jurisdictions,
storage systems are categorized under “essential services,” “utility
installations,” or as an accessory to solar or wind generation.4
States such as Minnesota, Michigan, and Iowa are developing model
zoning approaches that treat BESS as compatible with agricultural
and industrial areas, similar to electrical substation equipment.

Land use characteristics:
Typical stand-alone BESS use
modular containers arranged
in rows on concrete pads, with
a footprint of 0.03-0.1
acres/MW.5
With only periodic
maintenance visits, these
systems generate little to no
daily traffic (deliveries in and
out are not via truck or rail)
and have a low visual profile.

Health and safety precautionary measures
Regarding public safety, all energy storage land uses require structured risk management
and coordinated emergency response planning. While both BESS and traditional fuel sites
are classified as hazardous materials installations, their risks differ. Fuel storage involves
external combustion hazards, whereas BESS involve internal heat and chemical stability.
The primary safety concern for BESS is the risk of “thermal runaway,” a condition that can
lead to localized fires within battery units.6 However, these risks are mitigated through
advanced containment systems, remote monitoring, and automatic suppression
technologies, as outlined in national fire codes. Similar to technologies at gas stations or
propane facilities, BESS facilities operate under controlled conditions designed to lower
human and environmental risks. Local emergency coordination and training remain key
safety measures, similar to those used for other energy storage or hazardous material sites.

WWW.BETTERENERGY.ORG

Conclusion: Looking ahead to community-based planning for
battery energy storage systems
The land use considerations for BESS reflect the ongoing evolution of how
communities have historically balanced energy infrastructure, public safety, and
land management. For planners, integrating BESS into local codes can draw on
existing precedents while ensuring that emergency response, screening, and
relevant performance standards reflect the specific technology. With proper siting
and regulatory clarity, BESS can be understood as a contemporary counterpart to
the familiar facilities that have long supported local economic activity and
consumer needs.

Resources for communities on battery energy storage and land use
Learn about recommended practices and considerations for planning and zoning BESS in the
article, “Battery Energy Storage Systems,” by GPI’s Brian Ross and Monika Vadali in the March 2024
issue of Zoning Practice, volume 31, available at
https://planning.org/zoningpractice/2024/march/battery-energy-storage-systems/.
Learn about zoning frameworks and sample ordinance language for integrating BESS into
local land use codes in this guide, “Planning & Zoning for Battery Energy Storage Systems: A Guide
for Michigan Local Governments,” by the University of Michigan Graham Sustainability Institute,
available at https://graham.umich.edu/project/bess-guide.
Learn about how communities nationwide are regulating and permitting energy storage
systems in this report, Energy Storage in Local Zoning Ordinances, by Jeremy B. Twitchell, Devyn W.
Powell, and Matthew D. Paiss, published by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in October 2023,
available at https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-34462.pdf.

Endnotes
1. Thomas Bowen, Ilya Chernyakhovskiy, and Paul Denholm, Grid-Scale Battery Storage: Frequently Asked Questions,
NREL/TP-6A20-74426 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, September 2019).
2. Tad Heuer, “Permitting Perils: Navigating Zoning Law Challenges for Battery Energy Storage Projects,” Energy & Climate
Counsel, Foley Hoag, June 13, 2024.
3. Heuer, “Permitting Perils: Navigating Zoning Law Challenges for Battery Energy Storage Projects.”
4. Heuer, “Permitting Perils: Navigating Zoning Law Challenges for Battery Energy Storage Projects.”
5. Sarah Mills and Madeleine Krol, Planning & Zoning for Battery Energy Storage Systems: A Guide for Michigan Local
Governments (University of Michigan Center for EmPowering Communities, 2024), 7.
6. Brian O’Connor, “Battery Energy Storage Hazards and Failure Modes,” National Fire Protection Association, December 3,
2021.

WWW.BETTERENERGY.ORG

Data Center Overview
Defining Data Centers & Identifying Benefits/Drawbacks:
1) Corporate/Enterprise data centers store and process a single organization’s data, These data
centers often store the data of financial institutions that typically own and operate such
facilities themselves. At Colocation/Wholesale data centers, a third-party developer rents
large portions of the space and energy capacity to one company. Telecom data centers are
where traffic from cell towers “switches” to the internet. These facilities tend to be smaller than
the other data center types and require less energy. Hyperscale data centers are built for a
single customer: one of the large tech companies that provide many of the services we use
every day—Google (Google Cloud), Amazon (AWS), Microsoft, and Meta. These companies
sometimes own their own centers, and sometimes they lease them from a third-party
developer. - Urban Land Institute Pg 6-7
2) Typically, data centers are not explicitly mentioned in zoning codes. Instead, they fall under the
umbrella of general industrial zoning uses. But because they store data, they are not typical
warehouses. They differ by being odorless and lack truck traffic, are often taller (starting around
30 ft), require few employees and thus less parking and plumbing, require more robust
infrastructure, have external electrical/mechanical equipment, substantial security, and
backup generators and/or multiple power feeds. - Urban Land Institute Pg. 8
3) Most of the data centers developed today are hyperscale data centers—typically within
campuses. Campuses include the data center, and things like electrical yards to host
transformers, switchgears, and emergency generators, and mechanical yards to host chillers, of
which there are three types. Air-cooled, water-cooled, and evaporative, which have varying
levels of efficiency and water use. Urban Land Institute Pg. 9-10
4) Data centers benefit from “clustering”, locating multiple data centers close to one another
geographically for better data transmission, load balance, and overall improved operations.
Urban Land Institute Pg. 10
5) When in operation, data centers often generate remote jobs and require few employees with
low traffic impact long-term. Construction phases can extend over several years, providing jobs
in that industry but increasing traffic during that time. - Urban Land Institute Pg. 12-13
6) Tax revenue can be substantial. Hyperscale centers can cost billions to construct, and data
center owners pay property tax in addition to personal property tax, including assets in the
facility such as servers. It may lower overall tax burden; revenue can be channeled into net-zero

programs and critical public services. They also provide benefits through negotiated incentive
packages.- Urban Land Institute pg. 13

Planning and Pitfalls:
1) Factors for consideration: Power, roads, land, discharge infrastructure, and wet utilities. Urban
Land Institute Pg. 18
2) Common missteps arise around height restrictions, building codes, parking and plumbing
standards, zoning ambiguity or limitations, construction complications over long-term projects,
and fire department training/education on data centers. Urban Land Institute pg. 18-19
3) Regulation suggestions and a model ordinance guideline available through the Urban Land
Institute Pg. 20-22

Other Cities:
I reviewed a total of 18 cities and two counties. Below are the cities that have taken some form of
action or are engaged in data center discourse. Cities were chosen based on a combination of their
population, traits such as rural location or similar natural resources, the distance from Stacy, and if
they have significant activity regarding data centers.
1) Taylor’s Falls (1,165): Did not write a stand-alone ordinance, passed the data center language
within the Zoning Ordinance. It was added with some other items within a complete re-adoption
of the ordinance. The zoning administrator recommended elaborating on the reasons for
prohibiting it a bit more in the memo and resolution. Their attorney said “this language was fine,
but as more municipalities prohibit it, data center companies will start looking for cracks in
ordinances and processes to force their way in.” Zoning administrator also said “I haven’t seen
any other municipalities flat out prohibit data centers. There is some debate on strict
prohibition. Some say you have to allow it but can be restrictive. Our City Attorney said we can
prohibit it.”
a) Added under General District Provisions

b) Added new definitions

c) Supporting paragraph in their memo:

2) Pine City (3,468): Near Stacy. They permit “high technology”, which addresses many industries
but does encompass data centers. Currently permitted in their Central Business District (CBD),
Limited Technology/Industrial District (TI-1), and General Technology/Industrial District (TI-2).
General Business District (GB) by CUP. Pine City Land Use Code Title 13. They are currently
working to draft an overall data center ordinance and limit them to TI-2 by CUP only. Discussed
in their May planning commission minutes and ordinance draft presented in June.
3) Pine Island (3,580): Two hours south of Stacy. Embroiled in legal battle, focused on the
Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) environmental review regarding Project Skyway
which refers to an area encompassing approximately 482 acres located to the NE, partially in
the City of Pine Island and Pine Island Township. The city administrator and deputy city

administrator had signed NDAs at one point, which has been terminated since. Nobody on
council or planning commission signed any NDAs. Extensive information is available on the city
website pertaining to Project Skyway. No existing ordinances regarding data centers or similar.
4) Scandia (3,950): Near Stacy. Mayor posted on Facebook page “Scandia Now and Then” stating
people reached out with concerns about data centers. He posted “I have discussed this issue
with our Administrator and our Planners. We believe our zoning ordinances are written in a way
that “does not allow anything not explicitly allowed.” As such, we all believe that Data Centers
cannot be built in Scandia. To further strengthen this position, I have asked for a Memorandum
of Understanding to be drafted showing our Administrator, our Planning Staff, and our Attorney
agree with this position. This MOU should be presented to the Council in July so they can state if
they also agree that Scandia does not allow Data Centers now and should not allow them for
the foreseeable future.” Offered to share the MOU once drafted. The City Council is set to
discuss data centers again at its July 21 meeting. At this time, no MOU has been presented for
review or approval.

5) Chisago City (5,899): Currently permitted in industrial district (I). Chisago Co. Press published
6/5/26 that Chisago City Mayor stated they do not enter into non-disclosure agreements with
prospective businesses. City Admin said that if a one or two-year moratorium were to be
approved, it could only allow the city to examine its zoning maps to identify where within the
city data centers could exist and under what conditions. Earlier this year the council had told
another concerned resident that, in the past, the city heard from a company exploring the
possibility of building a data center, but the project was dropped after Xcel Energy said the local
power grid is inadequate.
6) Hermantown (10,218): Near Duluth and a hot topic in the news RE: Data centers. City officials
engaged in discussions for over a year with project developers about the proposal, dubbed
“Project Loon,” before the city and Google released details to the public. Several Hermantown
and St. Louis County officials signed non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, which prohibited
them from discussing details with area residents. Hermantown has a page on their website with
extensive information. They also have a recording of the October 20 council meeting addressing
data centers. City Administrator of Hermantown has offered to chat with me in more detail but
we have not been able to connect as of this writing.
7) North Branch (11,565): Near Stacy. Currently permits data centers in the Business and
Industrial districts. However, the city council has requested the Planning Commission review
this at their meeting in July.
8) Monticello (14,858): One hour west of Stacy. Hot news topic RE: data centers. Passed
Ordinance 865 in April 2026 outlining Data Center Planned Unit Development (DCPUD) zones.

Data centers are only permitted in DCPUD, and land is only permitted to be rezoned if it is
already zoned at Light Industrial or guided as Light Industrial by the Comprehensive Plan.
DCPUD also permits “technology campuses” defined as “more than one principal data center
building, but otherwise interconnected by power supply, communication systems, power
generation or other operational systems to form a unified Data Center facility”. Explicitly
prohibits data mining in this zone, in contrast to Taylor’s Falls ordinance. Additional information
is available on their website. Located in Wright County, referenced in bullet 10) below.
9) Farmington (25,000): An hour south of Stacy. The city and neighboring township have been in a
lawsuit since November 2024 over Farmington Technology Park Project data center citing
environmental impact, property values, and breaching an orderly annexation agreement. The
company pursuing a data center had active NDAs from Oct. 2023 until April 2026 with the city
administrator, public works director/city engineer, Community and economic development
director, economic development coordinator, and planning manager. Tract dissolved the NDA
after purchasing the property. Tract stated it was to protect them from competing developers
also interested in the property in question. Farmington City Council voted in Dec. 2024 to
approve a contract with Tract. Permit Data centers in highway business district, general
business, Mixed Use District, Mixed Use Commercial/Industrial, Industrial, and Planned Unit
Development District 1 (PUD-1 Farmington Technology Park). Zoning information available here.
Farmington website has additional information.
10) Wright County (157,500): To compare, Chisago Co. has an estimated population of
approximately 59,000 and its population density per sq mile is about half that of Wright County.
I chose this county as it has been in the news for data centers recently, a city I cited is located in
Wright County, and the county passed a county moratorium for townships in May 2026. County
Ordinance 26-2 created an emergency moratorium on applications for the construction of data
centers in Wright County townships, including those that do their own planning and zoning. The
moratorium would provide the county with up to one year to study, review and adopt ordinance
language that would establish the time, place and way data centers would be permitted.
11) Chisago County (59,000): Currently has no ordinances or explicit regulations of data centers,
as far as I could discern.
I also noticed while searching that there were tendencies for cities with recent annexations of land
to be dealing with this topic including Pine Island/Pine Island Township, Farmington/Castle Rock
Township, and Hampton/Hampton Township (not cited here but located near Farmington with data
center activity). Many objections and lawsuits connected to environmental review
concerns/shortfalls, or non-transparency with city staff through data request mismanagement or
NDAs.

Existing State Regulations
1) The state of MN has passed legislation for incentivization, evaluation, and regulation of data
centers. A summary of SSHF16 and reactions of citizens and MN elected officials can be found
on the League of Women Voters UMRR site.

Additional Information
Some research was also done on environmental impact such as water consumption, sound
generation, and power usage. Further information can be provided regarding these topics, as well
as additional ordinance examples from larger cities, at request of the council.

ORDINANCE NO. 2026-_ - _
CITY OF STACY
CHISAGO COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 151, SECTION 151.65 PUBLIC USE OF
DEDICATION OR CONTRIBUTION (FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS ONLY) OF THE
STACY CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of Stacy hereby ordains:
SECTION 1. Chapter 151, Section 151.65 PUBLIC USE OF DEDICATION OR
CONTRIBUTION (FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS ONLY) is amended by adding the
underlined language and deleting the strikethrough language as follows:
PUBLIC USE OF DEDICATION OR CONTRIBUTION (FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS
ONLY)
§ 151.65 GENERAL.
(A) Required. Pursuant to M.S. § 462.358, subd. 2(b), as amended from time to time, except
as otherwise provided in this section, the city requires all owners or developers, as a prerequisite
to approval of a plat, subdivision or development of any land, to convey to the city, or dedicate
to the public use, a reasonable portion of any such proposal for public use as streets, roads,
sewers, electric, gas and water facilities, stormwater drainage and holding areas or ponds, similar
utilities and improvements, or parks playgrounds, trails or open space, such portions to be
approved and acceptable to the city.
(B) Suitability of dedicated land. Any land to be dedicated as a requirement of this section
shall be reasonably adaptable for its proposed use and shall be at a location convenient to the
people to be served. Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of proposed park and open space
areas shall include size, shape, topography, geology, tree cover, access, and location.
(C) Park dedication requirements. Except as otherwise provided in this division (C),
subdividers and developers of land within the city shall be required to dedicate to the city for
park, playground, trail, and public open space purposes the following minimum amounts of land
or cash, or both, whichever the city, at its option, shall require. The required dedication shall be
made prior to the city’s release of the final plat for filing. The amount of any required cash
contribution shall be calculated based upon rates established by the city and in effect as of the
date of the release of the final plat for filing. For purposes of this division (C), words such as, but
not limited to, “total acreage”, “subdivision area”, “the property in the plat, subdivision or
development”, and “the property being platted”, whenever such words appear in this division or
any resolution or policy adopted pursuant thereto, shall mean the gross area of the plat,
subdivision or development except any undeveloped outlot that will, by current standards, be
required to make the dedication required in this division at such time as the outlot is developed,
subdivided or platted in the future.
(1) Agricultural Dedications (Agriculture zone).
Proposed Ordinance Posted:
Public Hearing Date:
Adoption Date:
Publication Date:

(a) Land shall be dedicated pursuant to the following schedule, wherein the number of lots
being platted is calculated by considering the total number of lots being proposed
within the entire plat, excluding any proposed outlots. A cash contribution in lieu of
land dedication (or ‘fee in lieu’) may be required at the discretion of the city. The cash
contribution shall be calculated pursuant to the following schedule, with estimated
market value based on the value of the entire site as estimated by the County at the
time of application. Alternatively, the city may require the subdivider or developer to
make a combination of cash and land dedication pursuant to the following schedule:
Dedication Type

Amount Per Lot

Land Dedication

0.125 acres per lot

Cash Fee in Lieu

(amount of land to be
dedicated) X (estimated
market value per acre)

Combination Land & Fee

((the amount of the land
required to be dedicated) (the amount of land proposed
to be dedicated)) X
(estimated market value per
acre)

(2) Residential dedications (All Rural Residential and Residential zones).
(a) Land shall be dedicated pursuant to the following schedule, wherein density is
calculated by considering the total acreage of the entire plat, subdivision or development being
considered. A cash contribution in lieu of land dedication (or ‘fee in lieu’) may be required at the
discretion of the city. The cash contribution shall be calculated pursuant to the following
schedule, with estimated market value of current improvements based on the value as estimated
by the County at the time of application. Alternatively, the city may require the subdivider or
developer to make a combination of cash and land dedication pursuant to the following schedule:
Dedication Type
Land Dedication*

Proposed Ordinance Posted:
Public Hearing Date:
Adoption Date:
Publication Date:

Density of 9.0 dwelling units
per gross acre or less

Density of greater than 9.0
dwelling units per gross acre

5% of the acreage being
subdivided

10% of the acreage being
subdivided

Cash Fee in Lieu**

(percentage amount of the
land to be dedicated) X (the
estimated market value of
current improvements on the
land)

(percentage amount of the
land to be dedicated) X (the
estimated market value of
current improvements on the
land)

Combination Land* & Fee**

((the percentage amount of the land required to be dedicated) (the percentage amount of land proposed to be dedicated)) X
(the improved fair market value of the land)

*If a major subdivision is proposed of a parcel with an existing single-family dwelling, and
said single-family dwelling is proposed to remain on one of the proposed parcels, the land
dedication calculation shall not include the land remaining in the parcel with the remaining
single-family dwelling.
**If no current improvements/buildings are present on the site at the time of application (i.e.,
the site is vacant), the formula shall be:
(percentage amount of the land to be dedicated) X (the estimated market value per acre)
or
(percentage amount of land to be dedicated) X ($50,000)
whichever is greater

(3) Miscellaneous requirements. The following requirements apply to all dedications or
conveyances for park, playground, trail, or public open space purposes:
(a) Installation of improvements. As part of their development contract or site plan
approval responsibilities, owners and developers shall be responsible for making certain
improvements to the developments for park, playground, trail, and public open space purposes,
including, but not limited to, finished grading and ground cover for all park, playground, trail
and public open spaces within their developments.
(b) Standards for location.
1. The City Council shall determine the location of any park land dedication as a
condition of subdivision approval.
2. All land transfers shall be by warranty deed.
(c) Acquisition of sites proposed on official map or comprehensive plan. Where a
proposed park, playground, trail, open space, or other recreational area that has been indicated on
the official map and/or comprehensive plan is located in whole or in part within a proposed
subdivision, such proposed site shall be designated as such and be dedicated to the city.

Proposed Ordinance Posted:
Public Hearing Date:
Adoption Date:
Publication Date:

(d) Density and open space requirements under zoning regulations. Land area so
conveyed or dedicated for park playground, trail and open space purposes may not be used by an
owner or developer as an allowance for purposes of calculating the density requirements of the
development as set out in Chapter 153.

Proposed Ordinance Posted:
Public Hearing Date:
Adoption Date:
Publication Date:

(f) Private open space. Where private open space for park, playground, trail, open space or
other recreation purposes is provided in a proposed subdivision and such space is to be privately
owned and maintained by the future residents of the subdivision, such areas may be used for
credit at the discretion of the city council against the requirement of dedication for purposes
described in this division (C), provided the City Council finds it is in the public interest to do so
and that the following standards are met:
1. Yards, court areas, setbacks, and other open space required to be maintained by the
zoning and building regulations shall not be included in the computation of such private open
space;
2. The private ownership and maintenance of the open space shall be adequately
provided for by written agreement;
3. The private open space shall be restricted for park, playground, trail, open space, or
recreational purposes by recorded covenants which run with the land in favor of the future
owners of property within the tract and which cannot be eliminated without the consent of the
City Council;
4. The proposed private open space must be reasonably adaptable for use for such
purposes, taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology, access, and
location of the private open space land;
5. Facilities proposed for such purposes must be in substantial accordance with the
provisions of the recreational element of the comprehensive plan, and be approved by the City
Council; and
6. Where such credit is granted, the amount of credit shall not exceed 25% of the
amount calculated in division (C)(1) or (2) of this section, whichever is applicable.
(g) Disposition of cash contributions. The city shall establish a separate fund into which
all cash contributions received from owners and developers in lieu of conveyance or dedication
of land for park, playground, trail, and open space purposes shall be deposited. The city shall
establish separate budgeting and accounting procedures for such fund and shall make from time
to time appropriations from such fund for acquisition of land for such purposes, for developing
existing park, playground, trail, and open space sites or for debt retirement in connection with
land previously acquired for such purposes.
(h) Administrative procedures. The city shall establish such administrative procedures as
it may deem necessary and required to implement the provisions of this division (C).
(4) Determination of land type. The determination of land type under this division (C) shall
be based upon the zoning of the particular land for which dedication is required at the time of
application. Zoning classifications shall be categorized as follows:
Base Zoning
Land Type
R-1, R-2, R-3A, R-3B, R-M, RR-A, RR-I, Residential
RR-II
CBD, GB, RTC
Commercial

Proposed Ordinance Posted:
Public Hearing Date:
Adoption Date:
Publication Date:

I, LI

Industrial

A, RR-A, RR-I, RR-II

Agricultural

(a) If a rezoning is proposed at the time of or concurrently with a major subdivision request,
the determination of land type shall be based on the zoning district being proposed.
(b) For a major subdivision proposed as part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that
includes residential uses, the requirements of division (C)(2) shall apply.
(5) Waivers. The park dedication requirement may be waived by the city council in
connection with lands described below in (a) and (b) of this division (C)(5), subject to the
requirements of (c) and (d) of this division (C)(5). Such lands include:
(a) Land owned by a government or governmental subdivision, which land is or will be
devoted to a public purpose; and
(b) Privately owned land that is intended to be maintained or developed so as to contain
on at least 90% of the gross subdivision area large park-like areas open to use by the public such
as a golf course.
(c) Prior to subdivision approval and any such waiver, the property owner (public or
private) must present to the city in recordable form a covenant running with the land and
satisfactory to the city wherein the owner agrees for himself, his heirs, successors, and assigns to
make park dedication for the land according to prevailing requirements at the time dedication is
required in any of the following circumstances:
1. Whenever public lands or uses or portions thereof which are otherwise exempt
become privately owned and do not or will not meet the 90% requirement set forth in this
division, as measured at the time of the covenant;
2. Whenever more than 10% of the gross subdivision area of any privately owned
property, as measured at the time of the covenant, becomes developed so as to prevent the public
by design or implication from unrestricted access to the land; or
3. If the actual or intended use of the land changes so as to be inconsistent with the types
of public activities and uses set forth in this subsection.
(d) The covenant referred to in division (C)(5)(c) of this section shall be filed in the office
of the county recorder at the owner’s expense at or before the recording of the plat by which the
subdivision is accomplished.
SECTION 2. Legislative Findings. The proposed dedication requirements in Chapter 151 are
based on the findings made by the city that new subdivisions and development resulting in new
dwelling units creates a need for parks, playgrounds, trails, and other public open spaces; and
that development in different land types can result in different densities, which can create
different needs for parks, playgrounds, trails, and other public open spaces; and that in order to
implement the goals and policies of the city’s Comprehensive Plan and the city’s Parks, Trail and
Open Space Plan a dedication of land, cash, or a combination of each are to be required for major
subdivisions.
Proposed Ordinance Posted:
Public Hearing Date:
Adoption Date:
Publication Date:

SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and
publication.
ADOPTED this __th day of _____, 2026, by the City Council of Stacy, Minnesota.

Mark Utecht, Mayor
ATTEST:

Angie Comstock, City Clerk

Proposed Ordinance Posted:
Public Hearing Date:
Adoption Date:
Publication Date:

Memo
To:

Stacy Planning Commission

From:

Evan Monson, AICP

Project/File:

193804175

Date:

July 17, 2026

ITEM: Comprehensive Plan
OVERVIEW
City staff contacted Planning staff regarding the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The current Plan is the City of
2040 Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted shortly after the annexation of Lent Township into the city.
Both the city (in 2020) and the Township (in 2021) had adopted Comprehensive Plans recently before the
annexation was completed.
Below is an overview of what a Comprehensive Plan is, what should be in a Plan, and items the city should
consider adding as part of an update to the 2040 Plan.
•

•

What is a Comprehensive Plan?
o A Comprehensive Plan is a long-range policy document that guides the physical, social,
and economic development of a city. The Plan serves as the community's vision for future
growth and provides the foundation for zoning, subdivision regulations, capital
improvements, infrastructure investments, and development decisions.
▪ The Comprehensive Plan is a ‘high-level’ look at the community, while the city’s
land use controls (zoning code, subdivision code, etc.) are the specifics on how to
implement the Plan.
o State statute defines a comprehensive municipal plan as a compilation of policies, goals,
standards, maps, and recommendations that guide the future development of the
community and its surrounding area. It is intended to direct both public and private
development over a planning horizon that is often 10–20 years or more.
o In addition to aiding in decision-making by the Planning Commission and City Council, the
Plan can be used to support requests and applications for grants and other funding
opportunities.
What is typically included in a Plan?
o Vision, Goals and Policies
o Engagement
o Demographic data on the community
o Land Use
o Transportation
o Utilities and Infrastructure
o Parks & Open Space
o Implementation

July 17, 2026
Stacy Planning Commission
Page 2 of 3

•

Items to update and consider adding:
o General Items
▪ Review the vision statement
• A vision statement serves as an idea of what the city wants to look like in
the next 20 years
▪ The city should engage with the public to identify the needs and wants of the
community. Without engagement, the goals and policies of a Plan may not be
supported by the community, making the Plan unusable.
• Methods for engagement can include surveys, open houses, or ‘pop-up’
stands at community events.
• Engagement events can be done in-person or online.
▪ Provide an overview of how amending the Plan works. A Comprehensive Plan is a
living document, and can be changed in order to address issues as they arise.
o Goals and Policies Section
▪ The city should review the Goals and Policies from the 2040 Plan
▪ Create an implementation plan identifying how and when goals and policies moving
forward will be completed.
▪ The goals and policies should correspond to the sections or chapters of the Plan.
• Goals are general statements about what the city wants to do to achieve
the vision statement, while policies are more specific ideas on how to
achieve the goals.
o Community Profile
▪ Update information, add information that can help inform decision making later in
the Plan.
• Current and projected population, age, education, jobs, commuting in or
out of the city, household size, number of houses and housing vacancies,
owner-occupied and rental units, etc.
o Land Use
▪ Review the future land use categories from the 2040 Plan, and create a
corresponding Future Land Use Map.
• The key piece of this section or chapter in a Plan is a Future Land Use
Map, which identifies what uses and developments will be in the city in the
next 20 years.
• Different future land use categories may focus on specific development
patterns, and serve as a guide when reviewing rezonings, subdivisions,
and other zoning requests.
• The future land use map, and the future land use categories should focus
on ‘high-level’ issues (density, residential vs commercial, retail vs
manufacturing/industrial business, areas for wind and solar energy), as the
information in the Plan can help guide changes and updates to the zoning
ordinance (such as updating the city’s current zoning districts, dimensional
requirements, etc.).
▪ Identify and map phases or priority areas for development, and areas that could be
rezoned in the future.

2

July 17, 2026
Stacy Planning Commission
Page 3 of 3

What is the vision for the next 20 years in the downtown area, and what goals and
policies could support the heart of the city.
Parks/Natural Spaces
▪ Incorporate strategies from the Parks Plan into the Comprehensive Plan.
▪ Add strategies for preservation of natural and spaces and agricultural land, and
new or potential trails and parks.
Transportation
▪ Map existing roads based on functional classifications, and map existing roads
based on jurisdictional ownership.
▪ Identify areas for improvements, extensions, realignments, jurisdictional transfers,
etc.
▪ The city should review plans from County, State, and Federal agencies, to ensure
that there are not conflicts between what they are planning and the city is planning.
Infrastructure & Utilities
▪ Identify and map where new infrastructure is needed, or where investments should
be studied for.
▪ Other areas to focus on could include access to internet, stormwater management,
and municipal buildings (Town Hall, City Offices, Public Works facilities, etc.).
Sections that could be added:
▪ Housing
• Consider studying whether there is a need for additional housing in the
city, and how to accommodate it.
▪ Economic Development
• This section can establish high-level goals for sustainable growth of the
city’s tax base, jobs, and housing options.
▪ Energy
• Identify strategies and opportunities for solar, wind, geothermal, and other
energy systems in the city.
▪ Other?
▪

o

o

o

o

3