On the agenda: Center City meeting — Data Center (Aug 6)

Meeting Agenda
August 6, 2026 | 7:00 pm
Chisago County Government Center | 313 N. Main Street | Board Room 160A | Center City, MN 55012

Planning Commission Tour: Wednesday, August 5, 2026 at 9:00 am
Departing from Chisago County Highway Department, 31325 Oasis Road, Center City, MN
1.

Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance

2.

Roll Call and Determination of a Quorum

3.

Approval of Agenda

4. Approval of Minutes
a.

July 2, 2026 Regular Meeting

5. Receive all Materials and Submittals into Record
a.

Complete meeting packet including attachments for agenda items 4a, 6a, 7a, and 11a

6. Public Hearings – New Hearings
a.

Daniel & Sheri Karpenko – Property owners Daniel & Sheri Karpenko are requesting a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) for Major Home Occupation to operate a home-based business specializing in
automobile restoration, repair, and machining on a 5± acre parcel in the Agricultural (AG) District.
The proposed business activities will be conducted within an existing detached accessory structure.
The subject site is located at 26781 Olympic Trail in Franconia Township, S23, T33, R20 (PID
04.00374.10).

7.

Public Hearings – Continued Hearings
a. Floodplain Management Ordinance Amendment – Chisago County is seeking comment on the
proposed repeal of Ordinance No. 12-1 Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance and all
Amendments thereto and adoption of a new Floodplain Management Ordinance in its place. The
purpose of the proposed Ordinance Amendment is to address deficiencies within the 2012 Floodplain
Management Ordinance by, but not limited to, providing specificity of permitted uses, adding a new
section pertaining to permitted activities, providing a modernization of the section pertaining to
Variances, including and amending definitions based on the Minnesota DNR Model Ordinance, and
enhancing the penalties and enforcement provisions. Most sections of the Floodplain Management
Ordinance will be impacted by the proposed Amendment. The predominant adjustments included
within the draft Floodplain Management Ordinance utilize direct language from the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources’ Simplified Model Floodplain Ordinance.

8. Old Business
None
9. New Business
10. Communications and Reports
a.

County Board Liaison Reports – Commissioners Greene and Dahlberg

11. Miscellaneous
a.

Ordinance Issue Identification Tracking Matrix

12. Adjourn Meeting
•
•

The next special work session is scheduled for Thursday, August 20, 2026 at 6:00 pm.
The next regular meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 3, 2026 at 7:00 pm.

Chisago County Planning Commission Tour
Wednesday, August 5, 2026 at 9:00 am
Departing from Chisago County Public Works
31325 Oasis Road, Center City, MN 55012

Daniel & Sheri Karpenko
26781 Olympic Trail
Franconia Township
PID 04.00374.10

CHISAGO COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
July 2, 2026
The Chisago County Planning Commission met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 2, 2026 at the
Chisago County Government Center.
Staff Present: Beth Gervais, Land Services Coordinator; and, Kurt Schneider, Director of Environmental Services.
Chair Wille called the meeting to order and led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. A roll call of
Commission members was taken. Commission members present: Eric Leivian, Chip Yeager, Chris DuBose, Jim
McCarthy, John Sutcliffe, Dave Whitney, and Jolene Wille. Absent: None. A quorum was established. Also
present: Ex Officio County Commissioners Rick Greene and Dan Dahlberg.
Approval of Agenda – Motion by Sutcliffe to approve the agenda as presented; second by DuBose. The
motion passed 7-0.
Approval of Minutes – Motion by DuBose to approve the June 4, 2026 regular meeting minutes as presented;
second by Yeager. The motion passed 7-0.
Receive all Materials and Submittals into Record – Motion by Sutcliffe to accept all materials and
submittals into the record, including two written testimonies for item no. 6e provided by Stephen Hofius and
Martha Arnold; second by Whitney. The motion passed 7-0. Materials distributed to the Planning
Commission in advance of the meeting for their review included the full meeting packet with meeting
minutes, staff reports and attachments. Copies of all meeting materials were made available for the public.
Public Hearings – New Applications
Principal Acres LLC – Gervais provided background information on property owner Principal Acres LLC’s and
applicant Kacper Piechnik’s request for the Preliminary Plat of Park Trail Estates, involving the creation of four
lots from the 46.46± acre tract of land. The subject site was zoned Agricultural (AG) District and generally
located between Oasis Road / CSAH 9 and 320th Street on the west side of Park Trail / CSAH 12 in Chisago
Lake Township, S26, T34, R20 (PID 02.00736.20).
Gervais provided details about the subject property, including general location, current vacant status,
topography, and surrounding zoning classifications and land uses.
Gervais highlighted details of the proposed Preliminary Plat, sharing that all proposed lots demonstrated
compliance with the County’s Home Site Area Standard, provided sufficiently sized areas for primary and
alternate septic sites, and complied with the County’s minimum dimensional requirements. The soils report
had been verified by County staff and found to be accurate. The wetland delineation had not been verified
upon completion of the staff report; however, the process was completed and a Notice of Decision had been
prepared prior to the July 2, 2026 meeting.
Gervais summarized details of the review process, explaining that the Technical / Plat Review Committee met
with Surveyor Shawn Kupcho of Widseth on June 10, 2026. The Committee didn’t identify any immediate
concerns with the request. Following the June 10th meeting, staff received confirmation from the Chisago
County Highway Department that the number and locations of proposed driveway accesses from CSAH 12
were acceptable. The Chisago Lake Town Board considered the request on June 16, 2026 and recommended
approval with no comments or recommended conditions. The Ordinance prescribed 120-day review period
was scheduled to expire on September 18, 2026.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

07/02/2026

Page 1 of 11

Gervais concluded her presentation by providing a recommendation of approval of the Preliminary Plat with
draft conditions, and reviewed options available to the Commission.
Chair Wille invited the applicant to address the Commission. The property owner’s representative, Tim Houle
of Widseth, was present and approached the Planning Commission. DuBose, noting that the proposed
driveway for proposed Lot 4 was shown abutting / within the soil test area, inquired if this presented any
concerns. Houle stated that the property owner was aware of the situation and understood that additional
soil testing would be required.
Chair Wille opened the public hearing and sought comment. With no members of the audience wishing to
speak, motion by Yeager to close the public hearing; second by Sutcliffe. The motion passed 7-0.
Motion by Whitney to adopt Resolution No. PC2026-0701, a resolution of the Planning Commission of Chisago
County, Minnesota, recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat of Park Trail Estates, with conditions as
presented; second by McCarthy. The motion passed 7-0.
Recommended Conditions:
1.

The Preliminary Plat of Park Trail Estates is approved per plat drawing dated signed May 14, 2026. Any
significant deviation from the approved plat drawing, except as noted herein and as determined by the
Department of Environmental Services, shall require further review by the Planning Commission and
approval by the County Board.

2.

Request for Final Plat shall not be submitted until the County has finalized its review of the associated
wetland delineation and issued a Notice of Decision pursuant to the MN Wetland Conservation Act.

3.

Request for Final Plat shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Services within one year of
Preliminary Plat approval unless an extension of time is requested by the property owner and/or applicant
and granted by the County Board upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. Such extension
must be granted prior to the end of the one-year timeframe.

4.

Property owner(s) shall obtain all necessary and applicable permits from Federal, State, and County
jurisdictions for any wetland impacts prior to commencement of development.

Jonathan & Nicole Baumann – Gervais stated that property owners Jonathan & Nicole Baumann had
requested an Interim Use Permit (IUP) allowing a singular accessory structure for personal use and storage
without the presence of a principal use structure, such as a dwelling, on an 18.78± acre property in the
Agricultural (AG) District. The subject site was generally located one-third of a mile north of 260th Street and
northwest of the northern extent of Pheasant Run in Franconia Township, S24, T33, R20 (PID 04.00397.00).
Gervais provided details about the subject property, including general location, topography, and
surrounding zoning classifications and land uses.
Gervais provided details about the request, noting that the proposed structure was 12’ x 18’ (216 sf) in size and
proposed to be used for the secure and weather-protected storage of materials and equipment associated
with maintenance and future development of the property. Gervais commented that the site plan showed
the structure to meet and exceed all required structural setbacks of the AG District.
Gervais summarized details of the review process, explaining that the Technical / Plat Review Committee met
with the property owners on June 10, 2026. With staff noting that the Zoning Ordinance would only allow one
non-ag accessory structure on the property prior to construction of a dwelling and questioning if the property
owners wished to increase the size of the proposed structure, the property owners explained their intentions
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

07/02/2026

Page 2 of 11

for the structure and stated that they were satisfied with the size as proposed. Additionally, the property
owners stated that they hoped to construct a dwelling on the site in 2029. The Committee didn’t identify any
immediate concerns with the request. The Franconia Town Board considered the request at its June 2, 2026
meeting and recommended approval with no comments or recommended conditions. The State mandated
review period was scheduled to expire on July 20, 2026.
Gervais concluded her presentation by providing a recommendation of approval of the IUP with draft
Findings of Fact and conditions, and reviewed options available to the Commission.
Chair Wille invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission. Property owners Jonathan & Nicole
Baumann were present and approached the Commission. Whitney inquired about the subject site’s
driveway. J. Baumann shared that his property had an easement in the southwest corner and two
neighboring properties to the east gained access through this easement. J. Baumann added that he had
submitted a driveway application to Franconia Township and was awaiting approval.
Chair Wille opened the public hearing and sought comment. With no members of the audience wishing to
speak, motion by Yeager to close the public hearing; second by Leivian. The motion passed 7-0.
Motion by DuBose to adopt Resolution No. PC2026-0702, a resolution of the Planning Commission of Chisago
County, Minnesota, recommending approval of an Interim Use Permit allowing a singular accessory structure
without the presence of a principal use structure on property identified as PID 04.00397.00 in Franconia
Township, with Findings of Fact and conditions as presented; second by Leivian. The motion passed 7-0.
Recommended Conditions:
1.

This approval allows for a singular accessory structure up to 216-sf in size for personal use and storage
without the presence of a principal use structure, subject to the conditions below. The structure shall be
constructed in general conformance with the application materials dated received May 18, 2026 and kept
on file with the Chisago County Department of Environmental Services. Any significant deviation from the
approved request, as determined by the Department of Environmental Services, shall require further
consideration by the Planning Commission and determination by the County Board of Commissioners.

2.

Prior to submitting application for building permit, the permit holder shall be responsible for obtaining a
driveway permit from Franconia Township.

3.

No sanitary facilities shall be allowed within the accessory structure until and unless the property is further
developed with a principal use structure such as a dwelling.

4.

The structure shall not be used for overnight accommodations or include residential living quarters, until
and unless the structure complies with all building and architectural requirements of the Chisago County
Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances / codes. Further, the structure shall not be used for
commercial purposes, until and unless the commercial use is allowed by or pursuant to the Chisago
County Zoning Ordinance and the structure complies with all requirements of applicable ordinances /
codes.

5.

Any change to the approved accessory structure involving enlargements, intensification or expansion of
use, or change not specifically permitted by this Interim Use Permit, shall require an Amendment to this
Interim Use Permit.

6.

Annual certification of the Interim Use Permit is required. The permit holder shall notify the County annually
that the activity permitted by the Interim Use Permit is ongoing and the activities being conducted
continue to adhere to the conditions of approval. Failure to maintain certification may be a basis to revoke
the Interim Use Permit. The property shall be made open and available for regular inspection at any time

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

07/02/2026

Page 3 of 11

during reasonable hours by the Chisago County Department of Environmental Services and/or any duly
authorized law enforcement agency.
7.

This Interim Use Permit shall expire at such time that the current or future property owner(s) construct(s) a
principal use structure.

8.

Violations of the conditions contained herein shall be cause for the revocation of the Interim Use Permit
upon action of the County Board.

Barbara Vanderbilt and Julie Mellum – Gervais provided background information on property owner
Barbara Vanderbilt’s and applicant Julie Mellum’s request for the Preliminary Plat of VM Acres, involving the
creation of one 5.28± acre lot from the 67.9± acre tract of land. The subject site was zoned Agricultural (AG)
District and generally located one-quarter of a mile west of Morgan Avenue and six-tenths of a mile south of
Chisago Boulevard / CSAH 23 in Chisago Lake Township with Maxwell Road bisecting the subject site such
that approximately 63 acres of land was north of Maxwell Road and approximately 5 acres of land was south
and west of Maxwell Road, S21, T33, R20 (PID 02.00212.00).
Gervais shared that the application, as originally submitted and as reviewed by the Chisago Lake Town
Board, included a Preliminary Plat drawing dated signed May 28, 2026. The May 28th drawing showed the
proposed creation of a 5.59-acre lot, with the proposed acreage including .99 acres of dedicated Right-ofWay. Based on discussion at the June 16, 2026 Chisago Lake Town Board meeting and the Town Board’s
recommendation, the property owner and applicant opted to revise the Preliminary Plat drawing such that
no Right-of-Way would be dedicated to the Township and, instead, the property owner would provide the
Township with a road easement. The surveyor provided a revised Preliminary Plat drawing dated amended
June 23, 2026, as well as a road easement exhibit. Gervais noted that the staff report was based on the
revised Preliminary Plat drawing dated amended June 23, 2026.
Gervais provided details about the subject property, including general location, current development of the
subject site located north of the roadway, topography, and surrounding zoning classifications and land uses.
Gervais highlighted details of the proposed Preliminary Plat, sharing that the proposed lot demonstrated
compliance with the County’s Home Site Area Standard, provided sufficiently sized areas for primary and
alternate septic sites, and complied with the County’s minimum dimensional requirements. The soils report
had been verified by County staff and found to be accurate. The wetland delineation had not been verified
upon completion of the staff report; however, the process was completed and a Notice of Decision had been
prepared prior to the July 2, 2026 meeting.
Gervais summarized details of the review process, explaining that the Technical / Plat Review Committee met
with the property owner, applicant, and Surveyor Shawn Kupcho of Widseth on June 10, 2026. The Committee
didn’t identify any immediate concerns with the request. The Chisago Lake Town Board considered the request
on June 16, 2026 and recommended approval with the comment that the “Road could stay as-is. Easement
needs to be recorded in plat.” The Ordinance prescribed 120-day review period was scheduled to expire on
September 25, 2026.
Gervais concluded her presentation by providing a recommendation of approval of the Preliminary Plat with
draft conditions, and reviewed options available to the Commission.
Chair Wille invited the applicant to address the Commission. Applicant Mellum was present and approached
the Planning Commission. The Commission didn’t have any questions for the applicant.
Chair Wille opened the public hearing and sought comment. With no members of the audience wishing to
speak, motion by Sutcliffe to close the public hearing; second by Yeager. The motion passed 7-0.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

07/02/2026

Page 4 of 11

Motion by Sutcliffe to adopt Resolution No. PC2026-0703, a resolution of the Planning Commission of Chisago
County, Minnesota, recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat of VM Acres, with conditions as presented;
second by DuBose. The motion passed 7-0.
Recommended Conditions:
1.

The Preliminary Plat of VM Acres is approved per plat drawing dated amended June 23, 2026. Any
significant deviation from the approved plat drawing, except as noted herein and as determined by the
Department of Environmental Services, shall require further review by the Planning Commission and
approval by the County Board.

2.

Per comments received from the Chisago Lake Town Board following its June 16, 2026 review of the
Preliminary Plat, the property owner may provide an easement for Maxwell Road rather than dedicating
Right-of-Way for Maxwell Road. This easement shall be provided and recorded at time of Final Plat. The
road easement document shall be reviewed and endorsed by the Chisago Lake Town Board / Road
Authority prior to submittal of request for Final Plat. Further, the applicant shall provide the Department
with written confirmation, as part of the Final Plat submittal, that the Town Board / Road Authority has
endorsed the easement.

3.

Request for Final Plat shall not be submitted until the County has finalized its review of the associated
wetland delineation and issued a Notice of Decision pursuant to the MN Wetland Conservation Act.

4.

Request for Final Plat shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Services within one year of
Preliminary Plat approval unless an extension of time is requested by the property owner and/or applicant
and granted by the County Board upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. Such extension
must be granted prior to the end of the one-year timeframe.

Arlen Burnside, Stacy & Jeanne Burnside and Melanie Emery – Gervais provided background information
on the request of property owners Arlen Burnside, Stacy & Jeanne Burnside and applicant Melanie Emery for
the Preliminary Plat of Burnside, involving the creation of one 5.1± acre lot from the 50± acre tract of land. The
subject site was zoned Agricultural (AG) District and generally located at the southeast corner of the
intersection of Silver Avenue and 350th Street / CR 79 in Shafer Township, S9, T34, R19 (PID 08.00092.10).
Gervais provided details about the subject property, including general location, current vacant status,
topography, and surrounding zoning classifications and land uses.
Gervais highlighted details of the proposed Preliminary Plat, sharing that the proposed lot demonstrated
compliance with the County’s Home Site Area Standard, provided sufficiently sized areas for primary and
alternate septic sites, and complied with the County’s minimum dimensional requirements. The soils report
and wetland delineation had been verified by County staff and found to be accurate.
Gervais summarized details of the review process, explaining that the Technical / Plat Review Committee met
with Surveyor Shawn Kupcho of Widseth on June 10, 2026. The Committee didn’t identify any immediate
concerns with the request. The Shafer Town Board considered the request on June 11, 2026 and recommended
approval with no comments or recommended conditions. The Ordinance prescribed 120-day review period
was scheduled to expire on October 2, 2026.
Gervais concluded her presentation by providing a recommendation of approval of the Preliminary Plat with
draft conditions, and reviewed options available to the Commission.
Chair Wille invited the applicant to address the Commission. Applicant Emery was present and approached
the Planning Commission. The Commission didn’t have any questions for the applicant.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

07/02/2026

Page 5 of 11

Chair Wille opened the public hearing and sought comment. With no members of the audience wishing to
speak, motion by DuBose to close the public hearing; second by Yeager. The motion passed 7-0.
Motion by McCarthy to adopt Resolution No. PC2026-0704, a resolution of the Planning Commission of
Chisago County, Minnesota, recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat of Burnside, with conditions as
presented; second by Leivian. The motion passed 7-0.
Recommended Conditions:
1. The Preliminary Plat of Burnside is approved per plat drawing dated signed May 20, 2026. Any significant
deviation from the approved plat drawing, except as noted herein and as determined by the Department
of Environmental Services, shall require further review by the Planning Commission and approval by the
County Board.
2.

Request for Final Plat shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Services within one year of
Preliminary Plat approval unless an extension of time is requested by the property owner and/or applicant
and granted by the County Board upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. Such extension
must be granted prior to the end of the one-year timeframe.

Sno-Baron’s Snowmobile Club, Inc. – Gervais stated that property owner Sno-Baron’s Snowmobile Club,
Inc., represented by applicants Deborah Olson, Meshell Gorsegner, and Laurie Vevle, had requested a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Commercial Recreation Area on a 148.9± acre subject site (combined
acreage) in the Agricultural (AG) District. The subject site was located at 38740 Oriole Avenue / CR 70 in
Sunrise and Amador Townships, S22 and 23, T35, R20 (PIDs 09.00269.00, 09.00271.00, and 01.00274.00).
Gervais explained that the property owner was requesting a CUP for Commercial Recreation Area allowing
up to 15 annual events, in addition to the annual Hay Days event, including events focused on educational,
youth and community programs, social gatherings, and cultural and festival gatherings. Gervais stated that
the application, as submitted on April 30, 2026 and as reviewed by the Sunrise and Amador Town Boards,
included a written narrative and Exhibit A dated May 31, 2026. Based on the Sunrise and Amador Town Board
meetings, the applicants revised the written narrative and Exhibit A with documents dated June 22, 2026. It
was the Department of Environmental Services’ understanding that the revised documents were primarily
intended to provide clarification to the original documents. One example of clarification related to the
proposed number of annual events being 15 and not 24 as interpreted by the Department based on detail of
the written narrative. The Department also noted that the maximum number of attendees had been reduced
significantly, with the greatest number of attendees reduced from 15,000 per event to 3,500 per event
(cultural & festival gatherings). Gervais shared that the original and revised materials were included in the
staff report for reference.
Gervais provided details about the subject site, including general location, current development of the site,
and surrounding zoning classifications and land uses.
Gervais provided details from the revised application materials, including information pertaining to the
proposed use, event attendance, and event frequency; hours of operation; on-site traffic and parking;
sanitation and waste; security and emergency medical services; food and beverages; operational and
mitigation plans; compatibility with surrounding area; economic impacts; and community engagement
through an open house on April 18, 2026. Referencing the three proposed event categories, Gervais provided
examples of proposed events and maximum attendance for each category. Additionally, Gervais shared five
site plans which showed proposed events in relation to the property boundaries of the subject site.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

07/02/2026

Page 6 of 11

Gervais summarized details of the review process, explaining that The Technical / Plat Review Committee met
with the applicants on June 10, 2026. The group discussed topics including, but not limited to, the total number
of proposed events, the idea and possible methods for providing advance notice of events to the Townships
and County, and internal and external traffic patterns. The Amador Town Board considered the request at its
June 16, 2026 meeting and recommended denial. To support the Town Board’s recommendation, a detailed
explanation was provided and included in the staff report. The Sunrise Town Board considered the request at
its June 18, 2026 meeting and recommended denial with the comment that there was not enough detail. To
support the Town Board’s recommendation, applicable portions of the meeting minutes were provided and
included in the staff report. The State mandated review period was scheduled to expire on August 2, 2026.
Given the scope and scale of the request and the involvement of the Chisago County Sheriff’s Office, Gervais
shared that staff forwarded the application to the Sheriff’s Office for review and comment. The Sheriff’s Office
didn’t have any concerns with the proposed CUP but did recommend two conditions of approval: 1) Each
event will require a security plan approved by the Chisago County Sherrif’s Office; and, 2) The permit holder is
responsible for any extraordinary law enforcement costs related to the events, as deemed necessary by the
Chisago County Sheriff. Given that the subject site abutted and gained access from St. Croix Trail / MN 95,
Gervais shared that staff forwarded the application to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
for review and comment; however, as of July 2, 2026, MnDOT had not provided any comment for the County’s
consideration.
Gervais concluded her presentation by explaining that staff had reservations about the scope and scale and
lack of detail within the original application but believed that the applicants had made some effort to
address Department and Town Board concerns through the revised application materials, adding that a
recommendation of approval may be possible through careful and comprehensive development of
conditions. Gervais noted, however, that staff also believed more detail / definition was still needed to fully
understand the request. Given the late submittal date of the revised application materials and the fact that
both Town Boards had serious concerns about the request, which led to recommendations of denial, and
they didn’t have opportunity to review the revised request, Gervais shared that staff wasn’t prepared to offer
a recommendation of approval or denial and, instead, recommended that the Planning Commission hear
from the applicants, open the public hearing and receive any verbal or written testimony into the record, and
continue the public hearing to a specific date in order to allow staff additional time to consider and develop
appropriate findings of fact and conditions for the Planning Commission’s consideration, and to allow the
Sunrise and Amador Town Boards opportunity to review the revised application materials and, potentially,
allow for new or amended Town Board recommendations or expanded comments. Gervais reviewed options
available to the Commission.
Chair Wille invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission. Applicants Meshell Gorsegner and
Deborah Olson were present and approached the Commission. DuBose inquired if the applicants were
withdrawing their original request and seeking approval for the revised request. Gorsegner confirmed that
the original request was withdrawn and the property owner was seeking approval of the revised request.
Yeager inquired if the property owner held any events on the subject site other than Hay Days. Gorsegner
stated that the Almelund Threshing Show tractor parade drove through the property each year and SnoBaron’s had held ATV and snowmobile youth safety training events in the past but had discontinued upon
learning that a CUP was required. McCarthy commented that the property owner sought a similar CUP in
2016 under the land use category of Rural Retail Tourism and inquired of staff why the current request was
submitted under the land use category of Commercial Recreation Area. Gervais responded that she was not
familiar with the 2016 request and couldn’t provide an answer. DuBose responded that the 2016 request was
submitted under a previous version of the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance. Leivian inquired of staff which
section of the Zoning Ordinance the current request was being submitted under. Gervais stated that the
property owner was seeking approval for Commercial Recreation Area, similar to the land use category
approved for the Hay Days event. Leivian inquired if the current request was subject to the current Zoning
Ordinance or a previous version of the Ordinance. Gervais confirmed that the current request was subject to
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

07/02/2026

Page 7 of 11

the current Zoning Ordinance. Leivan inquired about the current zoning classification of the subject site and if
there was any type of commercial overlay zoning classification. Gervais confirmed that the property was
located within the Agricultural (AG) District and there were no overlay districts. Leivian noted that the Zoning
Ordinance provided a definition of Commercial Recreation Area which didn’t align with the description of
Commercial Recreation Area provided within the Agricultural (AG) District section of the Ordinance, and
suggested that the current request didn’t fit the description provided within the AG District section. Gervais
acknowledged the discrepancy between the definition found within Zoning Ordinance Section 3 and the
description provided within Zoning Ordinance Section 5.06 and speculated that it was an oversight of the
previous Zoning Ordinance update process. Gervais added that the intent of the Zoning Ordinance was that
Commercial Recreation Area was an allowable use within the AG District with approval of a CUP and subject
to the definition found within Section 3. McCarthy again expressed concern about the current request being
classified as Commercial Recreation Area rather than Rural Retail Tourism. Schneider commented that the
Zoning Ordinance provided a clear and descriptive definition and performance standards for Rural Retail
Tourism and it didn’t provide this same clear and descriptive information for Commercial Recreation Area,
and speculated that the property owner chose to apply for Commercial Recreation Area because the scope
and scale of the request didn’t meet the performance standards required for Rural Retail Tourism. McCarthy
questioned if the applicants would control attendance. Gorsegner and Olson explained that attendance
would be controlled through wrist band or ticket sales. McCarthy introduced the issue of “segmenting” as a
means of gaining approval for multiple / separate applications rather than seeking approval for a single
comprehensive application, and recalled that the property owner had stated that they would not seek
approval for any events other than Hay Days. McCarthy suggested that the County Attorney’s Office provide
an opinion on whether the current request qualified was segmenting. DuBose inquired if tickets would be
sold for events and if ticket sales would cease once the event reached its proposed attendance capacity.
The applicants responded in the affirmative. Whitney inquired if the property owner provided annual Hay
Days attendance records to the County. Olson responded that Sno-Baron’s provided a post-event report to
the County annually, which included attendance information. Whitney suggested that a similar report could
be provided for the proposed events. Whitney asked if Sno-Baron’s would sponsor the proposed events or if
they would be contracted out to other organizations. Gorsegner explained that the majority of events would
be organized by outside groups / organizations. Whitney followed up by asking if the outside groups /
organizations would be subject to a contract and if the contract would include all conditions approved by
the County. Gorsegner responded in the affirmative. Whitney inquired if the applicants had a list of events
which would not be allowed. Gorsegner explained that they didn’t currently have a list of events which
wouldn’t be allowed but they weren’t interested in any events that would cause damage to the existing
infrastructure on the subject site. Gorsegner added that they would be willing to create a list of events which
wouldn’t be allowed. Whitney inquired if the events listed within the application were the only events that
would be allowed or if they were provided as examples. Gorsegner explained that the events listed within the
application were the only events; however, some examples, such as trade shows, were broad categories that
could allow for a variety of themes. Whitney asked if any of the proposed events would be allowed to have
amplified music, shooting or fireworks, and if the applicants would be opposed to a condition of approval
prohibiting these activities. Gorsegner responded that she wasn’t opposed to a prohibition on fireworks.
Whitney inquired about emergency services and emergency vehicles on-site during events. Gorsegner
responded that Sno-Baron’s would seek to discuss emergency services needs with providers prior to events
to assess and arrange for necessary services. DuBose, noting that the applicants only responded to the
fireworks portion of Whitney’s question, asked the applicants about amplified music and shooting. Gorsegner
stated that they didn’t have any plans for shooting events but would like the ability to have music, noting
that the music would comply with local noise regulations. Gorsegner added that they weren’t proposing any
music events and that any music would be secondary to the main event. DuBose asked who paid for any
emergency services needed for events. Gorsegner and Olson replied that Sno-Baron’s paid for all
emergency services on-site during events. Whitney stated that his interpretation of the application was that
all 15 proposed events could potentially be the largest size event with a maximum attendance of 3,500
people. Gorsegner responded that it wasn’t their intention to have all 15 events from the largest category.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

07/02/2026

Page 8 of 11

Gorsegner added that they would be willing to revise the application to clarify the issue. McCarthy
suggested that the only Commercial Recreation Area activity included within the application was a 5K-10K
Race and that all other events qualified as Rural Retail Tourism and speculated that the property owner had
requested approval of Commercial Recreation Area as a way of getting around the Rural Retail Tourism size
limits. McCarthy questioned why the request was being classified as Commercial Recreation Area and not
Rural Retail Tourism and opined that calling it Commercial Recreation Area was fraudulent.
With no further questions from the Commission, Chair Wille opened the public hearing and sought comment.
Jim Swenson of 7650 Casselberry Drive shared that he was aware that the North Branch Area High School was
interested in utilizing the subject site to host the annual Mississippi 8 cross country event and encouraged the
property owner to seek approval for additional events. Swenson encouraged the Planning Commission to
develop ideas for helping the property owner gain approval.
Lin Strong of 15695 368th Street voiced several concerns, including local property owners’ rights to peace and
quiet; the Almelund Fire Department being a volunteer organization which would be burdened by 15 events;
the legality of Sno-Baron’s having multiple CUPs; events taking place every weekend during summer months;
noise and traffic impacts to neighboring property owners; events other than Hay Days already taking place on
the subject site without a CUP; ability of the County to enforce CUP conditions with only one Code Enforcement
Officer on staff; the added burden placed on the Chisago County Sheriff’s Office; an open-ended approval for
any type of event rather than a CUP for each event; lack of detail on the types of events which would not be
allowed, adding that she didn’t want anything with weapons, vehicle racing, loud music, animals or fireworks;
and, the impact of increased traffic.
Perry Lindberg of 13340 375th Street stated that he was informed at the Sunrise Township meeting that the SnoBaron’s reported $50,000 in Hay Days revenue to the IRS and an attendance of 28,000 people, and shared that
a Google search of Hay Days revealed an attendance of 100,000 people and $5,000,000 in revenue. Lindberg
expressed concern about the existing Hay Days CUP and traffic concerns which impacted his property, and
questioned how a new CUP could be granted when the property owner was violating conditions of the existing
CUP. Lindberg provided the Planning Commission with copies of his results of a Google search for Hay Days.
Kelsey Zaavedra of 40422 Oriole Avenue recollected that Sno-Baron’s had promised in the past that Hay Days
would be the only event to take place on the subject site and expressed concern about Sno-Baron’s
converting agricultural land into a commercial event venue. Zaavedra spoke about concerns related to traffic,
noise, disruption, and expanding commercial activity within the farming community.
Rollin Erickson of 14475 390th Street spoke about his past experience with Hay Days traffic impacts, sharing that
he had a medical emergency and, due to Hay Days traffic on all surrounding roadways, was delayed in
getting to urgent care. Erickson expressed concern about the disruption of Hay Days and, more specifically,
parking, camping, helicopters and airplanes flying over his house, and the security of his private property
during events. Erickson shared that he believed Hay Days was out of control and was concerned that alcohol
was served, and was not in favor of the requested CUP.
Richard Scarrow of 38422 Oasis Road shared that he purchased his large-acreage property more than 30
years ago with the goal of having peace and quiet and was opposed to the requested CUP due to the many
unanswered questions, such as how many more events would be requested in the future. Scarrow spoke
about Hay Days related disruptions including helicopters and planes, amplified music, lights, noise, and traffic.
Greg Strom of 13165 382nd Street voiced concerns with Hay Days related impacts, such as noise, traffic, music,
dust, and illegal fireworks. Strom noted that Sno-Baron’s proposed the size of the subject site serving as a
natural buffer but countered with his belief that Sno-Baron’s utilized the entire property for the Hay Days event.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

07/02/2026

Page 9 of 11

Strom stated that United States property tax guaranteed the right of quiet enjoyment and the government’s
responsibility was to ensure this right.
Adam Grobove III of 11191 Wilcox Road shared his appreciation of the Planning Commission and its role in the
review of the requested CUP. Grobove spoke about his past experiences in working with and at large events
and his efforts to learn about Hay Days by attending the event. Grobove thanked the Planning Commission
and audience for having a civil discussion about the proposed CUP.
Matt Bauman of 38040 Nelson Avenue shared that he had worked at past Hay Days events and, based on his
experience, believed that they didn’t have enough on-site parking. Bauman voiced concerns about Hay Days
related noise.
Kevin Johnson of 40244 Reed Avenue shared that he believed 15 events to be too many and, as Chief of the
Almelund Fire Department, expressed concern with the Department’s ability to accommodate up to two
additional events per month. Johnson shared that he hoped for a compromise of possibly four or five new
events per year, and also thought it was important to identify events that wouldn’t be allowed. Johnson, as Fire
Chief, requested that, if the CUP was approved, it include conditions requiring that the Fire Department be
involved in emergency action plan development; that the Fire Department be provided with a 60-day notice
of events; and, that events not be allowed during the annual Almelund Threshing Show.
Matt Wright of 39233 Pebble Avenue spoke about the disruption of Hay Days attendees who drove their ATVs
on gravel roads, camp near his home at the end of a cul-de-sac, and exhibit ill-mannered behaviors. Wright
shared that he wasn’t concerned about school-related events but didn’t want the noise and other negative
impacts that may come with other types of events. Wright also expressed concern about the negative impact
to other existing events, such as the Almelund Threshing Show and Apple Festival, and Wild River State Park.
Susan Johnson of 13757 400th Street voiced concerns about IRS and attendance matters related to the annual
Hay Days event.
Holly Braun of 16750 410th Street expressed concerns related to Hay Days noise; the lack of an invitation from
Sno-Baron’s for its April 18, 2026 open house; her belief that any Scout and DNR related events would feature
shooting activities; her belief that the Mississippi 8 cross country event would bring in more than 500 people;
and, which wineries would be interested in having an event at the subject site.
No additional members of the audience wished to speak.
DuBose commented that Sno-Baron’s had revised its application and there were still items that he wished to
see clarified, and inquired if the Planning Commission would be able to identify specific items for the
applicants to address if the public hearing was continued. Following discussion amongst the Planning
Commission and Schneider regarding proper procedure, Chair Wille invited Commissioners to direct their
comments and questions to Gervais by July 9, 2026 to be forwarded to the applicants.
Motion by DuBose to continue the public hearing to September 3, 2026 and extend the review period by 60
days to accommodate for all necessary meetings; second by Leivian. The motion passed 7-0.
Public Hearings – Continued Hearings
Floodplain Management Ordinance Amendment – Director Schneider requested that the Commission
receive any public testimony into the record and continue the public hearing to August 6, 2026.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

07/02/2026

Page 10 of 11

Chair Wille sought testimony. No members of the audience were present to speak to the proposed
Ordinance Amendment. Motion by Sutcliffe to continue the public hearing to August 6, 2026; second by
DuBose. The motion passed 7-0.
Old Business – None
New Business
Data Centers – DuBose expressed interest in recommending that the County Board place a one-year
moratorium on data centers to allow the County time to develop zoning regulations. Sutcliffe and McCarthy
concurred with DuBose’s statement, with McCarthy citing a U.S. Department of Justice court case related to
data centers and the potential impact on local jurisdictions.
Motion by DuBose to recommend that the County Board enact a one-year moratorium on data centers for
the purpose of developing zoning regulations; second by Whitney. The motion passed 7-0.
Communications and Reports
County Board Liaison Reports – County Commissioner Dahlberg provided an update on trail projects.
Miscellaneous
Ordinance Issue Identification Tracking Matrix – Gervais shared that the matrix included minor updates
along with the addition of line item 11 related to the County Board’s recent enactment of an ordinance related
to the Subsurface Sewage Treatment System (SSTS) Ordinance.
Motion by DuBose to cancel the July 16, 2026 special work session; second by Yeager. The motion passed 7-0.
Adjourn Meeting – Motion by Sutcliffe to adjourn the meeting; second by Leivian. The motion passed 7-0. The
meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m.

____________________________________________
Jolene Wille

ATTEST:

Chair

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

_____________________________________________
Beth Gervais
Land Services Coordinator

07/02/2026

Page 11 of 11

SITE ANALYSIS

The 5± acre subject site is generally located

approximately one-half mile east of Olinda

Trail / 25 in Franconia Township. Olympic Trail
is a gravel surfaced Township Road extending
from Olinda Trail / CSAH 25 in Franconia
Township northerly to Glader Avenue in

Chisago Lake Township. The site has been
developed with a dwelling and three

detached accessory structures, including the

accessory structure proposed as the location
for Major Home Occupation activities. Using

the County’s GIS Viewer, staff estimates the

subject structure to be approximately 4,000 sf
in size.

Topography of the subject site includes

elevations ranging from 937’ to 956’ with lower
elevations near the southeast corner of the

property and elevations increasing up to the

dwelling. The adjacent image illustrates
elevations as yellow lines. There are no

wetlands, per the National Wetland Inventory,
and very little tree cover. Per a 2025 aerial

image and in proximity of the approximate

4,000 sf accessory structure, there is a cluster of five trees along the west property boundary, with

potentially two of these trees being located on the neighboring property, and a cluster of nine trees
located along the south property boundary, all of which are located on the neighboring property.
The subject site is located in the AG District and is entirely surrounded by the AG District.

Surrounding properties range in size from five acres to 80 acres, with the surrounding area
generally classified as a low-density residential area.
PROPOSAL ANALYSIS

The applicant’s written narrative explains that he’s intending to operate a home-based business

specializing in classic automobile repair and machining. Zoning Ordinance Section 4.04 (Home
Occupations), C. provides performance standards for Major Home Occupations. Using these

standards as a guide, the application materials offer the following details about the proposed land
use:

Accessory Structure:

While the written narrative states that the proposed business will be conducted within a 30’ x 40’

(1,200 sf) structure, staff estimates that the full structure is closer to 4,000 sf. However, to illustrate

2

additional screening is appropriate for this application. If the Commission feels that more

screening is appropriate, one option which has been included as a recommended condition of

approval may be the installation of a 6’ tall privacy fence in the southwest corner of the subject site
(i.e., extending 100’ north from the southwest corner and 175’ east of the southwest corner, as

illustrated in the adjacent image). Staff notes that the recommended privacy fence has also been
referenced in Finding of Fact #3 and #7 to support approval of the CUP.
Screening shall be required for Major Home Occupations as follows:

A fence, shrubs, or berm, while separate or in combination thereof shall achieve a height of not
less than five (5) feet high but shall not extend within fifteen (15) feet of any street or driveway.

Where required, screening shall be placed along property lines, but at least twenty (20) feet from

the street right-of-way.

Trees, while separate or in combination with other screening materials, shall achieve a height of
not less than eight (8) feet high but shall not extend within fifteen (15) feet of any street or

driveway. Where required, screening shall be placed along property lines, but at least twenty (20)
feet from the street right-of-way.

Tree screening shall include two staggered rows of trees with a minimum planting distance

between trees of sixteen (16) feet to achieve 80% screening within three (3) years after planting.
All screening shall achieve 80% screening within three years of planting.
Parking and Traffic:

The proposed business is expected to generate minimal traffic, with customer visits being limited
and scheduled as needed. The subject site features a driveway and parking areas which are

capable of accommodating all business traffic as well as emergency services. The applicant states
that business related traffic won’t impact the adjacent road system or neighboring properties.
Business Vehicles:

The applicant has not proposed the use of any business related vehicles.
Impact on Surrounding Area:

According to the written narrative, the proposed business has been designed to be compatible

with neighboring properties. The applicant states that there will be minimal impact to neighboring

properties due to the limited scale of the operation and given that work will be conducted within an
accessory structure and given the restricted daytime hours of operation.
Hours of Operation:

The application indicates that the Major Home Occupation is anticipated to operate Monday
through Friday between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:00 pm; however, during the July 8, 2026

Technical / Plat Review Committee meeting, the applicant indicated an interest in extending the
hours of operation to 6:00 pm.

No regular evening, overnight, or weekend business operations are planned.

4

Lot Size and Setbacks:

The subject site is 5± acres in size. The site plan shows the existing 4,000± sf accessory structure to

be located 63’± from the west property boundary and 42’± from the south property boundary. Staff

notes that, per the County’s GIS Viewer, the structure appears to be 264’± from the east property

boundary and 440’± from the north property boundary.

The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 5 acres for Major Home Occupations as well

as a 40’ setback from residential zoned or used properties for any accessory structure in which the
Major Home Occupation is being conducted. Staff notes that the lot size and setbacks meet the
requirements of the AG District and eligibility for Major Home Occupation.
Sanitation Accommodations:

The application doesn’t address sanitation accommodations or the existing septic system.

County records show that the existing system was last inspected in 2016 and found to be

compliant. Given that Certificates of Compliance are valid for three years, staff has included a

recommended condition of approval requiring that the system be inspected within 60 days of the
date of CUP approval.
REVIEW PROCESS
The Technical / Plat Review Committee met with Daniel Karpenko on July 8, 2026. After discussing

the CUP process and the implementation of conditions of approval, Karpenko verbally indicated

that he would like to extend the proposed hours of operation from 8:00 am - 4:00 pm to 8:00 am -

6:00 pm, Monday through Friday, and be allowed to have up to one non-resident employee in the
future. The Committee didn’t identify any immediate concerns with the request.

The Franconia Town Board considered the request on July 7, 2026 and recommended approval
with no comments or recommended conditions.

The application was submitted on June 5, 2026 and deemed complete on June 12, 2026. The State

mandated 60-day review period is scheduled to expire on August 11, 2026, prior to all requisite

meetings, therefore the Department has extended the review period by an additional 60 days as

allowed by Minnesota Statute 15.99. The extended review period is scheduled to expire on October
10, 2026.

WRITTEN TESTIMONY
No written testimony was received upon completion of the staff report.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Zoning Ordinance Section 8.04 (Conditional Use Permits), C. states that the Planning Commission

shall consider possible effects of the proposed conditional use based upon, but not limited to, the
general factors listed below. Staff has provided proposed findings, shown in italics below, for the
Commission’s consideration.
Factor #1

The [proposed action is consistent with the] Comprehensive Plan and development
policies of the County;

5

Finding #1

Chapter 6 of the Chisago County Comprehensive Plan identifies a goal of providing
for a range of economic diversity and development opportunities to maintain and
strengthen the County’s economy, with a policy of continuing to allow and

encourage Home Occupations in all zoning districts if performance standards are
met. Further, the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance provides allowance for Major

Home Occupations in the Agricultural (AG) District when operated in compliance

with stated performance standards and with issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.
The County finds that the proposed Major Home Occupation is consistent with the

Comprehensive Plan and either complies with or has the ability to comply with the
performance standards provided in Zoning Ordinance Section 4.04, C. through
implementation of conditions.

Factor #2

The use shall not create an excessive demand on existing parks, schools, streets and

Finding #2

The proposed use will utilize existing private sanitary facilities, private utilities, and

other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area;

off-street parking for business-related vehicles, and access to the subject site will

be gained from the well-established and well-maintained Olympic Trail and

surrounding roadway system. Further, given the nature of the automobile repair and

machining business, there is no evidence to suggest that the proposed use will have
any impact on schools or other public facilities or utilities. Therefore, the County
finds that the proposed Major Home Occupation will not create an excessive

demand on existing parks, schools, streets, or other public facilities and utilities

which serve the subject site and surrounding area.
Factor #3

Finding #3

The use shall be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from
adjacent development or land so that existing development does not suffer undue

negative impact and there will be no significant deterrence to future development;

Chisago County Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.04, C. 15. requires that an accessory

structure in which a Major Home Occupation is being conducted shall be at least
40’ from residential zoned or used properties. Based on submitted application

materials and the County’s GIS Viewer, the approximate 4,000 sf accessory structure
containing the proposed use meets and/or exceeds the 40’ setback requirement.
Together with screening by way of meeting minimum setback requirements, the

County finds that the implementation of a condition requiring the installation of a
privacy fence in the southwest corner of the subject site will help ensure that the
proposed use is sufficiently compatible with adjacent development and land by
way of distance and screening.
Factor #4

The structure(s) and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse

Finding #4

The proposed Major Home Occupation involves the use of an existing detached

effect upon adjacent properties;

accessory structure. The applicant is not proposing any exterior changes to the

structure, and all Major Home Occupation activity will take place within the
structure. The structure, being a pole building, has a size and appearance

consistent with structures commonly found in the Agricultural (AG) District and
6

surrounding area, including neighboring properties on Olympic Trail. Therefore, the

County finds that the appearance of the structure and site will not have an adverse
effect upon adjacent properties.
Factor #5

The use, in the opinion of the County, is reasonably related to the overall land use

goals of the County and to the existing land use; and is consistent with the purposes
of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the

Finding #5

applicant intends to locate the proposed use;

The Chisago County Zoning Ordinance identifies Major Home Occupations as an

allowable Conditional Use in various zoning districts, including the Agricultural (AG)
District. The County finds that the proposed use, involving the use of an existing

detached accessory structure for automobile repair and machining, is consistent
with the purposes of the AG District and consistent with existing land uses in the
general area of the subject site. Further, as described in Finding #1 above, the

Chisago County Comprehensive Plan identifies a goal of providing for a range of

economic diversity and development opportunities to maintain and strengthen the
County’s economy, with a policy of continuing to allow and encourage Home

Occupations in all zoning districts if performance standards are met. Therefore, the
County finds that the proposed use directly relates to the land use goals of the
County.
Factor #6

Finding #6

The use shall not cause traffic hazard or congestion; and

The subject site is located immediately adjacent to a well-established and well-

maintained road system, including direct access to Olympic Trail. As proposed, the
Major Home Occupation will not be open to the general public and will not employ

more than one non-resident, which means that the proposed use will not generate

a noticeable increase in traffic on Olympic Trail. Further, the Franconia Town Board,
serving as Road Authority for Olympic Trail, didn’t express any concern about

impacts related to traffic hazard or congestion as a result of the proposed use

following its review of the proposed use on July 7, 2026. Therefore, the County finds

no evidence to suggest that the proposed use will cause traffic hazards or
congestion.
Factor #7

Existing nearby properties shall not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare

Finding #7

The proposed Major Home Occupation will primarily be conducted within an existing

or general unsightliness.

approximate 4,000 sf accessory structure with customer parking located

immediately north of the accessory structure. Being that the proposed use will be

conducted inside a structure, not open to the general public, and subject to

established daytime hours of operation, the County finds no evidence to suggest
that the use would cause adverse impacts to nearby properties by way of noise.

Further, based on limited existing vegetative screening and the implementation of a

condition requiring the installation of a privacy fence in the southwest corner of the
subject site for additional screening, the County finds that the use will not cause
adverse impacts by way of glare / headlight wash or general unsightliness.

7

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff believes that the proposed CUP for Major Home Occupation complies with and is consistent

with the intent of the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Barring any new

or unknown evidence of compliance discovered after completion of this report or during the course
of the public hearing, staff recommends approval with draft Findings of Fact and conditions and

has prepared a resolution for the Commission’s consideration.
Recommended Condition(s):
1.

This Conditional Use Permit grants approval for a Major Home Occupation conducted within a
single accessory structure exceeding 1,200 square feet in area and specializing in automobile

maintenance, repair, restoration, and restoration-related machining services, as described in

the application materials dated received June 5, 2026 and kept on file with the Chisago County
Department of Environmental Services and as conditioned herein.
2.

Standard hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 6:00 pm. No Major

Home Occupation activities shall be conducted between the hours of 6:00 pm and 8:00 am,
unless the activity is taking place within the dwelling.

3.

The Major Home Occupation shall not be open to the public and shall receive customers by
appointment only.

4. There shall be no more than one (1) non-resident employee reporting to or working at the
subject site.

5. To mitigate potential adverse impacts related to noise and appearance, the Major Home
Occupation shall be subject to the following:

a. All Major Home Occupation activity shall be conducted within the single subject accessory
structure or dwelling.

b. No outdoor display or storage of business related materials / equipment shall be permitted.
c. The permit holder shall install a 6’ tall privacy fence in the southwest corner of the subject

site. At a minimum, the fence shall extend 100’ north from the southwest property corner and
175’ east of the southwest property corner. The fence shall be installed in accordance with
Chisago County Zoning Ordinance Section 4.11 (Fences).

d. The permit holder shall maintain existing tree cover and replace dying, dead, or downed
trees located between the area of business operations and the surrounding property
boundaries to the greatest extent possible.

6. The permit holder shall arrange for a septic compliance inspection to be completed within 60
days of the date of CUP approval.

7.

Any signage shall be installed in accordance with the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance.

8. Any expansion or intensification of the approved use – including, but not limited to, expanded
hours of operation, an increase in the number of non-resident employees working at the

premises, use of additional structures for business activity, or other expansion or intensification
as determined by the Chisago County Department of Environmental Services – shall only be
allowed upon further review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of
Commissioners by way of a Conditional Use Permit Amendment.

8

9. The permit holder shall be responsible for obtaining all applicable State licenses and Chisago

County permits, including but not necessarily limited to a change of occupancy for the subject

accessory structure.

10. Annual certification of the Conditional Use Permit is required. The permit holder shall notify the
County annually that the activity permitted by the Conditional Use Permit is ongoing and the

activities being conducted continue to adhere to the conditions of approval. Failure to maintain
certification may be a basis to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. The property shall be made

open and available for regular inspection at any time during reasonable hours by the Chisago
County Department of Environmental Services and/or any duly authorized law enforcement
agency.
OPTIONS
1.
2.

Recommend that the County Board approve the Conditional Use Permit with Findings of Fact
and conditions as presented or amended.

Should the Planning Commission determine that the proposed Conditional Use Permit does not

comply with and/or is not consistent with the intent of County’s Zoning Ordinance or

Comprehensive Plan upon completion of the public hearing and/or upon discovery of any new

or unknown evidence, recommend that the County Board deny the Conditional Use Permit

based on factors deemed appropriate. (Note: The Commission will need to include specific
finding(s) for denial in its motion.)
3.

Continue the public hearing to a specific date in order to receive additional public testimony

prior to making a recommendation on the proposed Conditional Use Permit.

4. Table the request to allow for submission of additional supporting documentation and/or
further review and consideration.

ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC2026-0801, a resolution recommending approval of a Conditional

Use Permit for Major Home Occupation on property located at 26781 Olympic Trail in Franconia

Township, with Findings of Fact and conditions as presented or amended.
ATTACHMENTS
1.

2.

3.

Application summary

Written narrative
Site plans

4. Township Presentation Form

5. Aerial photo (1) – subject site

6. Aerial photo (2) – vicinity map

7.

Draft Resolution No. PC2026-0801

9

PLAN DETAILED REPORT 2026-0012-LU
FOR CHISAGO COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Land Use

Project:

App Date:

06/05/2026

Work Class: Conditional Land Use

District:

Exp Date:

10/10/2026

Completed:

06/12/2026

Plan Type:

Status:

In Review

Square Feet:

0.00

Valuation:

$0.00

Assigned To: Beth Gervais

Approval
Expire Date:

Description: Request for Conditional Use Permit for Major Home Occupation. Would like to open a small machine
shop and classic car repair.
Parcel:

04.00374.10

Applicant
Dan Karpenko
26781 Olympic Trail
Lindstrom, MN 55045
Home:
Business:
Mobile:

Main

Address: 26781 Olympic Trail
Franconia Township, MN 55045

Owner
Dan Karpenko
26781 Olympic Trail
Lindstrom, MN 55045
Home:
Business:
Mobile:

1. Because initial 60-day review period does not allow for all
required meetings, the Department extended the review period
by an additional 60 days. The applicant was notified of the
extension via the 15-day letter of completeness.

June 12, 2026

Zone:

AG(Agricultural (AG))

Additional Owner
Sheri Karpenko
26781 Olympic Trail
Lindstrom, MN 55045

Note

Invoice No.
INV-00004250

Main

Created By

Date and Time Created

Beth Gervais

06/12/2026

Fee
CUP/IUP Application Fee

Fee Amount
$900.00

Amount Paid
$900.00

Recording Fee

$46 00

$46 00

Tech Fee

$12.50

$12.50

Total for Invoice INV-00004250

$958.50

$958.50

Grand Total for Plan

$958.50

$958.50

Chisago County, Minnesota

313 N Main Street Center City, MN 55012

Page 1 of 1

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NARRATIVE
Property Address: 26781 Olympic Trail, Lindstrom, MN 55045
Applicant Request
The applicant respectfully requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a homebased business specializing in classic automobile repair and machining at the property located
at 26781 Olympic Trail, Lindstrom, Minnesota. The proposed business will be conducted as an
accessory use to the existing residential property and will comply with all applicable Chisago
County zoning requirements and permit conditions.
Purpose and Need
This Conditional Use Permit application is being submitted at the request of Chisago County to
formally authorize and document the operation of a home-based business on the property. The
applicant has a longstanding interest and expertise in classic automobile restoration, repair, and
machining and seeks to conduct these activities in a manner that is fully compliant with county
regulations.
The home-based business will provide repair, restoration, and machining services for classic
vehicles while maintaining the residential character of the property. Approval of this permit will
allow the applicant to legally operate the business while ensuring compliance with all county
standards regarding home occupations and conditional uses.
Property and Site Description
The subject property is located at 26781 Olympic Trail in Lindstrom, Minnesota. The property
contains an existing residence and a detached 30-foot by 40-foot accessory building. The
proposed business activities will be conducted within the existing 30' x 40' building.
No new buildings, additions, or site modifications are proposed as part of this application.
Existing access, parking, and utility services are sufficient to support the proposed use.
Description of Proposed Use
The proposed home-based business will focus on classic car repair and machining services.
Work performed will include mechanical repairs, restoration-related machining, maintenance,
and related automotive services for classic and collector vehicles.
All business activities will be conducted within the enclosed accessory building. The operation
will remain small in scale and compatible with the surrounding area.
Hours of Operation

The anticipated operating hours will be:
Monday through Friday: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
No regular evening, overnight, or weekend business operations are planned.
Employees
The business will be operated exclusively by members of the household. Employees will consist
of:
• Property Owner
• Property Owner's Spouse
• Property Owner's Son
No outside employees are proposed.
Traffic and Parking
The proposed use is expected to generate minimal traffic. Customer visits will be limited and
scheduled as necessary. The existing driveway and on-site parking areas are adequate to
accommodate all vehicles associated with the business without affecting public roads or
neighboring properties.
The operation will not create traffic volumes that exceed the capacity of local roadways, nor will
it interfere with the safe movement of vehicles in the area.
Noise and Neighborhood Compatibility
The business has been designed to be compatible with neighboring residential and rural
properties. Repair and machining activities will be conducted within the enclosed building
during normal daytime business hours.
The limited scale of the operation, combined with indoor work areas and restricted operating
hours, will minimize noise impacts on surrounding properties. The applicant is committed to
maintaining the quiet and residential character of the neighborhood.
Environmental Impact
The proposed home-based business will not adversely affect drainage patterns, groundwater,
wetlands, wildlife habitat, or other environmental resources. No significant site disturbance is
proposed.
All materials, fluids, and equipment associated with vehicle repair activities will be handled,
stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable environmental regulations and industry
best practices.

Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
The proposed use will not create hazards to public health, safety, or welfare. Existing access to
the property provides adequate ingress and egress for normal business operations and
emergency services. The applicant will maintain compliance with applicable building, fire,
environmental, and zoning regulations.
Compliance with County Standards
The proposed home-based business is consistent with the intent of Chisago County's zoning
regulations governing conditional uses and home occupations. The use is limited in scale,
compatible with surrounding land uses, and will not create adverse impacts related to traffic,
noise, environmental concerns, drainage, or public safety.
Conclusion
The applicant respectfully requests approval of this Conditional Use Permit to operate a homebased classic car repair and machining business at 26781 Olympic Trail, Lindstrom, Minnesota.
The proposed use will be conducted in an existing accessory building, will employ only
household members, and will operate during normal daytime hours. The business will have
minimal impact on neighboring properties and will remain fully compliant with all applicable
county regulations and permit conditions.
The applicant believes the proposed use is reasonable, compatible with the surrounding area,
and consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare objectives of Chisago County.

Daniel & Sheri Karpenko – Property owners Daniel & Sheri Karpenko are requesting a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) for Major Home Occupation to operate a home-based business specializing in automobile restoration,
repair, and machining on a 5± acre parcel in the Agricultural (AG) District. The proposed business activities
will be conducted within an existing detached accessory structure. The subject site is located at 26781
Olympic Trail in Franconia Township, S23, T33, R20 (PID 04.00374.10).

Daniel & Sheri Karpenko – Property owners Daniel & Sheri Karpenko are requesting a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) for Major Home Occupation to operate a home-based business specializing in automobile restoration,
repair, and machining on a 5± acre parcel in the Agricultural (AG) District. The proposed business activities
will be conducted within an existing detached accessory structure. The subject site is located at 26781
Olympic Trail in Franconia Township, S23, T33, R20 (PID 04.00374.10).

Item No. 7a

Staff Report
TO:

Planning Commission

FROM:

Kurt Schneider, Environmental Services Director

SUBJECT:

Floodplain Management Ordinance Amendment

DATE:

August 6, 2026

BACKGROUND & STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission has scheduled a continued public hearing to consider a proposed
Amendment of the Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance with the goal of presenting
a draft Ordinance to the Chisago County Board of Commissioners for adoption (refer to May 7,
2026 Planning Commission meeting packet and meeting minutes for more details).
Due to the current Teamsters 320 labor strike and direct impacts to the Department and
Department operations, the anticipated refinement of the draft Floodplain Management Ordinance
cannot be prioritized. Therefore, Department staff are recommending that the Planning
Commission continue the public hearing to September 3, 2026.
ACTIONS REQUESTED
1.

Receive any public testimony into the record; and

2.

Motion to continue the public hearing to September 3, 2026.

CHISAGO COUNTY ORDINANCES: ISSUE IDENTIFICATION TRACKING MATRIX
August 6, 2026
No.

ISSUE TOPIC / SUMMARY

DATE
IDENTIFIED

SECTION
LOCATION(s)

PAGE(s)

ISSUE NARRATIVE / DETAIL

ALTERNATIVES / SOLUTIONS

COMMISSION / BOARD
CONSENSUS & DIRECTION

CONSENSUS
DATE

ACTION PRIORITY
High / Annual Update / Other

STATUS

1

Rural Retail Tourism Wedding/Gathering Venues

12/18/24

5.06
4.17

119
104

Improve code treatement of Rural Retail Tourism busineses - wedding/gathering venues.
Review recent wedding venue proposal on 260th for issues discussion.

Expand and detail wedding/gathering venue perfomrance standards
within the code

County Board Directed

CB 12/18/24

High

Completed 08/20/25 - Ordinance
Amendment Enacted as Ord. No.
2025/0820-2

Proposed by Commissioner Whitney. Horse-Equine Businesses are better suited as
Permitted Agricultural Use rather than a Major Home Occupation. An equine facility
whether it’s amateur or professional and whether its focus is on training, breeding,
showing, sales or boarding of equine animals is an agricultural business which should
meet agricultural standards NOT Major Home Occupation standards.

Commisison Direction
Requested; Commission
Consensus and Direction on
04/03/25 to Have Staff Further PC 04/03/25
Develop Verbiage and
Definitions; County Board
direction on 05/07/25 to proceed

High

Completed 08/20/25 - Ordinance
Amendment Enacted as Ord. No.
2025/0820-1

2

Major Home Occupation Horse / Equine

01/03/25

5.06 B & C
4.04
3

118
66
9

3

Zoning Map Amendment - RR
Districts Consolidation &
Renaming of UR District

01/07/25

5.02

116

As a part of the recent comprehensive update of the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance,
Amend the zoning map to reflect consolidated RR District and change
the Rural Residential Zoning Districts (RRI and RRII) were consolidated into one single
Rural Residential (RR) District; and "Urban Fringe" residential terminology is used in place the map legend to reflect Urban Residential as Urban Fringe Residential.
of "Urban Residential".

Board Directed Public Hearing

CB 01/07/25

High

Completed 02/19/25

Coordination and engagement with local units of government (LGUs)
with the intent of opening lines of communication, building
awareness, and providing opportunity for the LGUs to be more
involved.

Commission Consensus
Requested for County Board
Endorsement and Direction

PC 05/01/25

Other - Ongoing Effort

In Progress - Planning Commission
and Staff Discussing Strategy(ies)

Update of the 2010 Chisago County SSTS Ordinance in close consult
with MPCA staff and related rule and policy adjustments of the past 15
years.

Board Direction to Proceed

CB 03/19/25

Other

In Progress - Staff Review

Other

Completed 07/17/25 - Subcomittee
met on 07/17/25 and determined
Amendment was not warranted.
Instead, Department will coordinate
with CCSO for increased awareness of
licensed properties.

High

In progress - Public hearing to
consider interim ordinance for
moratorium was conducted by
County Baord on 08/05/2026.

Other

In Progress - Consultants provided
introductory presentation to
Planning Commission on 02/05/26,
and Commission motioned to
support the LSCWP's review of
County Ordinances with further
Commission discussion at the
03/05/2026 meeting. LSCWP to be
scheduled for future work session.

Other - Over the Course of the
Next Year

In Progress - Staff presented memo
to Planning Commission on 02/05/26
providing framework and ideas for
future discussion, and Commission
reached consensus to continue
monitoring Section 4.19 as adopted
and directed staff to provide
quarterly monitoring metric updates.
Staff provided Q1 2026 metrics on
04/02/26.

High

In-Progress - Public Hearing
scheduled for 05/07/26; continued to
06/04/26; continued to 07/02/26;
continued to 08/06/2026.

High

Completed 06/17/26 - County Board
conducted public hearing on
06/17/26. Ordinance Amendment
enacted as Ord. No. 2026/0617-1.

Ref. Commissioner Whitney research/reccomendation papers dated
01/02/25, 02/16/25, and 02/24/25

4

Zoning Map Amendment
Work Plan

02/06/25

5.02

116

Proposed by Commissioner McCarthy on 02/06/25 during public hearing to consider
adoption of Official Zoning Map with Amendments (matrix item no. 3). Added to
02/20/25 work session agenda but held over due to McCarthy's absence. Added to
04/09/25 meeting agenda but held over at McCarthy's request. Added to 05/01/25
meeting agenda, with consensus reached by Planning Commission on same date.

5

SSTS Ordinance 10-1

03/19/25

Full Ordinance

All

Comprehensive "housekeeping" review and update of 2010 septic system ordinance

All

Based on concerns expressed during County Board's 05/21/25 Citizen's Forum and
subsequent disucssion at County Board's 06/18/25 meeting, County Board has expressed
interest in organizing a sub-committee of County Board members and staff to review
ordinance and determine if an Amendment is warranted.

NA

Proposed by Commissioner McCarthy on 10/02/25 to consider potential sizes and
Board direction to schedule
impacts of data centers. Proposed by Commissioner DuBose on 07/02/2026 to consider Enact a moratorium on data centers for the study and development of public hearing to consider an
recommending a moratorium on data centers to allow for study and development of
zoning regulations specific to data centers.
interim ordinance establishing a
zoning regulations.
moratorium on data centers

6

7

8

Short-Term Rental Licensing
Ordinance 060320-1

06/18/25

Data Centers

10/2/2025
07/02/2026

Water-Related Regulations
within Zoning Ordinance

9

Temporary Storage and
Shipping Containers

10

Floodplain Management
Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 12-1)

11

SSTS Ordinance 10-1

11/06/25

11/12/25

Full Ordinance

NA

3
7.13-7.18

4.19

03/18/26

Full Ordinance

06/03/26

4, 5.03, 6.03,
6.06, 12, 13.01,
13.02, 13.05,and
13.06

9-58
179-182

Board Direction to Proceed

CB 06/18/25

The Lower St. Croix Watershed Partnership (LSCWP) extended an offer to review the
County's water-related regulations / ordinances to identify possible updates which
Preliminary discussion at
Consider suggested ordinance amendment(s) based on feedback from
provide clear, effective, and consistent standards with the intent of protecting the
11/06/25 Planning Commission PC 02/05/26
the Lower St. Croix Watershed Partnership and its consultant.
County's lakes, rivers, and wetlands. The LSCWP has engaged a counsultant to carry out
meeting
the review.

County Board has directed the Planning Commission to monitor effectiveness and
109-112 review Section 4.19 over the course of the next year to consider adjusting appropriate
allowances and approval processes for varied uses of storage and shipping containers.

All

Update the Short-Term Rental Licensing Ordinance 060320-1 based on
recommendations provided by sub-committee

Potential development of updated regulations pertaining to the
temporary use of storage and shipping containers.

Staff has identified deficiencies within the Ordinance including the lack of specificity of
driveways necessary to service permitted uses and the lack of definition and guidance
concerning public infrastructure driveways/roadways/bridges/culverts, etc. The County
Board directed, on March 18, 2026, to proceed with an adminstrative review / update
and public hearing process.

Update of the 2012 Chisago County Floodplain Management
Ordinance to address deficiencies and based on the current MN DNR
Simplified Model Floodplain Ordinance.

County Board identified a need to allow authorized agents to perform department
inspection responsibilities and to allow state licensed subsurface sewage treatment
system businesses, individuals, or agents to conduct point of sale or other compliance
inspections and administer certificates of compliance

Update of applicable sections within the 2010 Chisago County SSTS
Ordinance in close consult with MPCA staff.

Board Direction to Proceed with
Monitor & Review of Section CB 11/12/25
4.19

Board Direction to Proceed

Board Direction to Proceed

CB 03/18/26

CB 06/03/26

12

Buffer Ordinance
Ord. No. 17/1018-1

07/28/26

Full Ordinance

All

The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) notified the County that, due
to recent amendments and updates at the State level, the County must amend its
ordinance by July 31, 2027 to incoporate the required revisions.

Update the 2017 Chisago County Buffer Ordinance to incorporate
required changes identified by BWSR and based on BWSR's model
ordinance

High - Amendment Must be
Complete by July 31, 2027