On the agenda: Center City meeting — data center (May 7)

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

Planning Commission Tour: Wednesday, May 6, 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. April 2, 2026 Regular Meeting
5. Receive all Materials and Submittals into Record
a.

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

6. Public Hearings
a.

Lynette Regenauer – Property owner Lynette Regenauer is requesting an After-the-Fact Interim Use
Permit (IUP) allowing for the use of Multiple Storage Containers for a Duration Exceeding One Year in
the Agricultural (AG) District / Shoreland Management District. The 4.09± acre subject site is located at
14545 310th Street / CSAH 37 in Chisago Lake Township, S35, T34, R20 (PID 02.00941.00).

b.

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.

7.

Public Hearings – Continued Hearings
None

8. Old Business
None
9. New Business
None
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, May 21, 2026 at 6:00 pm.

•

The next regular meeting is scheduled for Thursday, June 4, 2026 at 7:00 pm.

Chisago County Planning Commission Tour
Wednesday, May 6, 2026 at 9:00 am
Departing from Chisago County Highway Department
31325 Oasis Road, Center City, MN 55012
Lynette Regenauer
14545 310th Street / CSAH 37
Chisago Lake Township
PID 02.00941.00
FOR REFERENCE ONLY

CHISAGO COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
April 2, 2026
The Chisago County Planning Commission met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 2, 2026 at the
Chisago County Government Center.
Staff Present: Beth Gervais, Land Services Coordinator; Kurt Schneider, Director of Environmental Services; and
Sarah Scheunemann, Office Support Specialist – Land 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: Dave Whitney, Jim McCarthy, Chip Yeager,
Chris DuBose, John Sutcliffe, and Jolene Wille. Absent: Eric Leivian (excused). 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 Yeager. The motion
passed 6-0.
Approval of Minutes – Motion by DuBose to approve the March 5, 2026 regular meeting minutes as presented;
second by Whitney. The motion passed 6-0.
Receive all Materials and Submittals into Record – Motion by Sutcliffe to accept all materials and
submittals into the record; second by DuBose. The motion passed 6-0. 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
Donna M. Johnson Revocable Trust – Coordinator Gervais provided background information on property
owner Donna M. Johnson Revocable Trust’s and applicant Tamara Johnson’s request for an Interim Use
Permit (IUP) allowing for a Residential Kennel on a 10± acre property in the Agricultural (AG) District. The
subject site was located at 50105 Bayview Avenue in Nessel Township, S22, T37, R22 (PID 06.00498.00).
Gervais explained that the County previously denied an IUP request for a Residential Kennel on the subject
property on October 15, 2025, based in part on findings that the use was commercial in nature. The current
application was determined by the Zoning Administrator to be substantially different, citing a reduced
number of dogs, a residential (non-commercial) use, and measures to prevent breeding. Gervais reported
that, following the 2025 denial, applicants Heather Phelps and Tamara Johnson developed a Departmentendorsed compliance plan to terminate the unpermitted Commercial Kennel and reduce the number of
dogs. While the plan did not include a subsequent IUP request, staff considered the current application as
part of a modified compliance effort.
Site analysis indicated that the property was located in the AG District, surrounded by similarly zoned land,
and developed with a dwelling and accessory structures. The dwelling was reported to be approximately 84
feet from the west property line, 40 feet from the north, 215 feet from the south, and approximately 1,205 feet
from the east property line.
The applicant proposed to keep up to eight dogs as household pets for the duration of the IUP, with no
breeding. At the time that the staff report was prepared, six of the eight dogs were either spayed or neutered
with the intent to spay / neuter the remaining two dogs pending IUP approval. However, following the April 1,

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

04/02/2026

Page 1 of 13

2026 site visit, it was staff’s understanding that all eight were spayed or neutered. Gervais provided
additional details from the application, including details pertaining to animal care and site management.
Staff noted that the application didn’t indicate whether the original eight dogs would be replaced with dogs
of the same breeds or different breeds, and encouraged the Planning Commission to take this into
consideration when establishing recommended conditions of approval.
Gervais summarized details of the review process, explaining that the Technical / Plat Review Committee met
with applicant Tamara Johnson and friend Heather Phelps on March 11, 2026, and the pair provided an update
on their efforts to reduce the number of dogs following the 2025 IUP denial. Johnson explained that, in addition
to the eight dogs included in this request, she still had two puppies that needed to be rehomed as part of the
compliance plan. Phelps explained that she was in the process of moving from the subject site with her
personal eight dogs; however, due to unforeseen delays, this move may or may not occur before completion
of the current IUP process. The Committee, including the Code Enforcement Officer, acknowledged Johnson’s
and Phelps’ efforts to gain compliance. The Committee did not identify any immediate concerns with the
request. The Nessel Town Board considered the request at its March 11, 2026 meeting and recommended
approval with no conditions or comments. The State mandated 60-day review period was scheduled to expire
on April 18, 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 Commission; however, applicant Tamara Johnson was not
present.
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 6-0.
Yeager sought clarification on the height of the fenced enclosure, noting that a 3’ height may be sufficient for
miniature dachshunds, but it may not be sufficient for dogs of other breeds. This led to Yeager reminding
fellow Commissioners to consider the issue of future dogs. Sutcliffe commented that he had never witnessed
unruly dogs on the premises or roadway when traveling past the subject site. McCarthy questioned whether a
condition related to size or weight could be established. In response, Wille suggested that enforcement would
be a challenge. Sutcliffe questioned how the County would ensure satisfactory compliance with the active
compliance plan. In response, Gervais provided an update on compliance activities. DuBose, noting that he
had visited the site twice in conjunction with IUP requests, expressed concern with conditions of the site and
the dwelling. DuBose’s April 1, 2026 observations included lingering odor, uncleanly dwelling conditions, visible
animal waste and residue on the floor within the dwelling, and excessive noise. DuBose also expressed
concern with the potential for replacement of the current dogs with larger, more aggressive breeds.
Whitney expressed concern that staff’s recommended conditions of approval did not address the
replacement of existing dogs with new dogs, specifically whether new dogs would be required to be spayed or
neutered. He noted the potential for litters of puppies and that the current conditions did not address how
many puppies would be allowed. Whitney stated that he was not in favor of requiring neutering and believed
such a requirement would be inconsistent with the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance, which defined a
Residential Kennel as “the keeping, breeding, raising, showing, or training of four or more dogs over six months
of age.” To address his concerns, Whitney proposed three possible solutions:
1.

Amend condition no. 1 to include the phrase “and one litter of puppies at any given time” after “six
months,” to address the potential for puppies.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

04/02/2026

Page 2 of 13

2.

Add a condition specifying a date by which the IUP must be deemed compliant, referencing Gervais’
update on code enforcement activity.

3.

Require the Chisago County Code Enforcement Officer to conduct on-site inspections every six months for
up to two years to monitor compliance.

McCarthy shared that, when the Planning Commission considered the 2025 request, he was more concerned
with conditions of the home being that customers would be entering the home. However, the current request
was for the applicant’s personal dogs and therefore he wasn’t as concerned. McCarthy stated that he wanted
to keep the number of dogs allowed strictly to eight dogs, and believed that managing litters would make
things complicated.
The Planning Commission broke into lengthy discussion about issues pertaining to the maximum number of
dogs allowed, how puppies factored into the maximum allowable number of dogs, the Zoning Ordinance
definition of Residential Kennel and the fact that it did not include puppies under six months of age, ongoing
code enforcement efforts, the possibility of the Code Enforcement Officer periodically visiting the property to
ensure compliance with the proposed IUP, and the possibility of adding a condition regulating the maximum
number of litters and/or timing of litters.
While the Planning Commission was engaged in discussion, applicant Tamara Johnson and friend Heather
Phelps arrived. Upon completion of the Commission’s discussion, Chair Wille invited questions from the
Planning Commission to the applicant. Whitney inquired if the IUP would be fully compliant by May 1, 2026.
Johnson addressed the Planning Commission’s previous topic of discussion on puppies, sharing that she was
confused why the Commission was discussing puppies and breeding. Johnson offered that she had no
intention of going back into breeding and that all puppies had been sold and were off the premises. Wille
explained that the Planning Commission was discussing the potential of breeding future dogs. Johnson
reiterated that she had no intent of going back into breeding. Wille requested that Johnson respond to
Whitney’s initial question pertaining to compliance. Johnson shared that she would be in compliance as long
as Phelps could move from the site by May 1, 2026, being that Phelps had eight dogs. Phelps shared that she
was working toward moving from the subject site; however, due to poor weather conditions, the move had
been delayed. Phelps stated that the property should gain compliance by June 1, 2026.
Motion by Whitney to add a condition stating that the IUP must be deemed fully compliant by the Department
of Environmental Services by June 1, 2026; second by Yeager. The motion passed 6-0.
Sutcliffe shared that he liked Whitney’s suggestion of adding a condition related to compliance inspections
every six months for two years. Director Schnieder responded that it wasn’t a sustainable activity; however,
inspections could possibly be done for up to one or one-and-a-half years.
Motion by Whitney to add a condition requiring compliance inspections every six months for one year; second
by Sutcliffe. Yeager inquired if the first visit would be on or after June 1, 2026. Whitney and Sutcliffe responded
in the affirmative. The motion passed 6-0.
Whitney reiterated that the Planning Commission needed to address the potential for litters and puppies. The
Commission began briefly discussing the issue, and Director Schneider reminded the Commission that the
applicant had volunteered into the record that she did not intend to breed the dogs or have litters of puppies.
Schneider suggested that the Commission could therefore consider adding a condition prohibiting breeding
activities and litters of puppies.
Motion by Whitney to add a condition stating that no puppies would be permitted as part of this Residential
Kennel and to amend other related conditions as needed; second Yeager. The motion passed 6-0.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

04/02/2026

Page 3 of 13

Motion by Sutcliffe to adopt Resolution No. PC2026-0401, a resolution of the Planning Commission of Chisago
County, Minnesota, recommending approval of an Interim Use Permit allowing a Residential Kennel on
property located at 50105 Bayview Avenue in Nessel Township, with findings of fact as presented and
conditions as amended; second by Whitney. The motion passed 5-1, with DuBose voting against.
Recommended Conditions as Amended:
1.

This Interim Use Permit for Residential Kennel allows for the keeping of no more than eight (8) dogs over
the age of six (6) months at any given time. The original eight (8) dogs, as described in the application
materials dated received February 13, 2026 and kept on file with the Department of Environmental Services,
may be replaced with new dogs as the original dogs pass or are otherwise rehomed.

2.

All original and future dogs, being no greater in number than eight (8) at any given time, shall be housed
within the dwelling.

3.

The Residential Kennel shall not engage in any Commercial Kennel activity, as defined by the Chisago
County Zoning Ordinance.

4.

All dogs shall receive regular veterinary care and be current on vaccinations. Veterinary and vaccination
records shall be made available to the Chisago County Department of Environmental Services, Chisago

5.

County Sheriff’s Office, and animal welfare agents upon request.
All dog waste shall be collected daily and disposed of in a legal and appropriate manner so as to avoid
undue odor or other negative impacts and to protect public health and the environment. Bagging the
waste and placing it in a commercial garbage receptacle for weekly collection, as proposed in the
February 13, 2026 application, is an acceptable option.
No dog waste shall be added to the septic system, and the burning of dog waste shall be strictly

6.

prohibited.
The permit holder shall control the barking of dogs while outdoors to avoid undue negative impact to
nearby properties. At no time shall any dog barking activity exceed twenty (20) continuous minutes with
less than thirty (30) seconds between each dog bark. Any more than twenty (20) minutes of continuous

7.

barking shall be silenced immediately by a resident of the household.
The permit holder shall comply with all relevant Minnesota Statutes and Rules regarding animal welfare

8.

and humane standards and licensing.
Any expansion or intensification of the approved use – including, but not limited to, an increase in the
number of dogs over the age of six months 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 an Interim Use Permit
Amendment.

9.

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

10. This Interim Use Permit shall expire at such time that the property is no longer owned by the Donna M.
Johnson Revocable Trust.
11.

Per verbal testimony provided by applicant Tamara Johnson on April 2, 2026, there are a total of 16 dogs
on the premises as of April 2, 2026. Of these 16 dogs, eight (8) are included in the current request and eight
(8) are proposed to be permanently leaving the premises in the near term. Therefore, this Interim Use
Permit shall be deemed fully compliant by the Department of Environmental Services by June 1, 2026,

including the maximum allowable number of dogs.
12. The Chisago County Code Enforcement Officer, or designee of the Department of Environmental Services,
shall visit the subject site and be granted access to the dwelling every six (6) months for a period of one

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

04/02/2026

Page 4 of 13

(1) year commencing on or after June 1, 2026 to ensure compliance with the conditions of this Interim Use
Permit.
13. Per verbal testimony provided by applicant Tamara Johnson on April 2, 2026, the applicant has no current
or future intention of breeding any of the eight (8) dogs allowed by this Interim Use Permit. Therefore, there
shall be no breeding activities allowed or litters of puppies produced on the premises as part of this
Interim Use Permit.
Calvary Evangelical Lutheran Church of Rush Point – Coordinator Gervais provided background
information on property owner Calvary Evangelical Lutheran Church of Rush Point’s and applicant Lee
Olson’s request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Place of Assembly (Church) and Cemeteries. The uses
had existed since 1870, prior to the County’s adoption of official land use controls, and the property owner
was seeking a CUP in order to be in compliance with the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance. The subject site
was currently 24.24± acres in size; however, the property owner was seeking concurrent Preliminary Plat
approval to subdivide the property with the Church and Cemeteries proposed to be situated on a 10.18± acre
lot. Gervais informed the Planning Commission that consideration of the request and any subsequent
recommendation was to be based on a land area of 10.18± acres. The property was located at 600 Rush
Point Drive / CSAH 7 in Nessel Township, S28, T37, R22 (PID 06.00603.00).
Gervais summarized details of the subject site, providing detail on general location, adjacent roads,
surrounding zoning classifications, and current development of the 10.18± acre site. Gervais reported that the
property owner proposed to subdivide the 24.24± acre subject property, and, during review of the proposed
subdivision and existing land uses, the Department determined that the Church and Cemeteries were
classified as legal non-conforming uses, resulting in the current request for CUP.
Gervais summarized historical details of the proposed uses, noting that the Church and Rush Lake
Evangelical Lutheran Cemetery had been located on the property since the 1870s. The cemetery plat for
Calvary Lutheran Church Northview Cemetery was filed with the Chisago County Recorder’s Office on
January 8, 1987. Church and Cemeteries were Permitted Uses under the original 1970 Zoning Ordinance but
became Conditional Uses under the 1987 Zoning Ordinance. As a result, the proposed uses were considered
compliant until 1987 and became legal non-conforming upon adoption of the 1987 Ordinance.
Gervais provided details of the request, including the proposed subdivision, current service schedule and
number of weekly service attendees, other associated uses of the Church facility, parking accommodations,
staffing and office hours, and the potential for future expansion of Northview Cemetery. Gervais further noted
that potential expansion of Northview Cemetery had been addressed by staff through proposed condition
no. 3.
Gervais summarized details of the review process, explaining that the Technical / Plat Review Committee
met with applicant Lee Olson and fellow church representative Doug Fischer on March 11, 2026. The group
discussed the concurrent CUP and Preliminary Plat Requests and potential future expansion of Northview
Cemetery. When asked how many cemetery plots remained, Olson speculated the number to be between 20
and 30. The Committee did not identify any immediate concerns with the request. The Nessel Town Board
considered the request on March 11, 2026 and recommended approval with no conditions or comments. The
State mandated 60-day review period was scheduled to expire on April 21, 2026.
Gervais concluded her presentation by providing a recommendation of approval of the CUP with draft
findings of fact and conditions, and reviewed options available to the Commission. Gervais also informed
the Commission that, because the requested CUP was based on the proposed 10.18± acre Lot 3, Block 1, Rush
Pointe and successful approval and recording of the Final Plat of Rush Pointe, staff had included a condition

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

04/02/2026

Page 5 of 13

addressing the platting process. Gervais explained that this condition recognized the potential for Final Plat
approval as well as the potential for the subject property remaining in its current 24.24± acre configuration.
DuBose sought clarification from staff regarding the status of the CUP in relation to the platting process.
Gervais responded by reviewing portions of the draft resolution, including recommended condition no. 2
which specifically addressed the platting process.
Chair Wille invited the applicant to address the Commission. Applicant Lee Olson and fellow church
representative Doug Fischer were present and approached the Planning Commission. Olson shared that the
proposed CUP was a direct result of the Church wanting to sell land with the parsonage and the adjacent
land with a ballfield.
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 6-0.
McCarthy suggested adding a condition that the Cemetery comply with State law being that State law had
changed over time and this was the Planning Commission’s first opportunity to consider the proposed use.
McCarthy noted that State law required an endowment to maintain cemeteries; otherwise, responsibility could
fall to the County if the Cemetery was abandoned. DuBose voiced that this wasn’t a new cemetery and he
didn’t believe that the suggested condition was necessary. Wille concurred with DuBose. The Planning
Commission had a brief discussion about the status of the Cemeteries.
Motion by McCarthy to add a condition requiring that the Cemetery complies with current State law; upon
multiple calls for a second and with no second offered, the motion failed.
Motion by Sutcliffe to adopt Resolution No. PC2026-0402, a resolution of the Planning Commission of Chisago
County, Minnesota, recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Place of Assembly and
Cemeteries on property located at 600 Rush Point Drive / CSAH 7 in Nessel Township, with findings of fact and
conditions as presented; second by DuBose. The motion passed 5-1, with McCarthy voting against.
Recommended Conditions:
1. This Conditional Use Permit grants approval for Place of Assembly (Church) and two Cemeteries as
described and illustrated in the application materials dated received February 18, 2026 and kept on file
with the Chisago County Department of Environmental Services (Department) and as conditioned herein.
2.

This Conditional Use Permit is based on the approved uses being situated on the 10.18± acre lot proposed
to be legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, Rush Pointe, rather than the unplatted 24.24± acre parent parcel
identified as PID 06.00603.00 at time of Conditional Use Permit application and approval. This means that
the resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit, as adopted by the Chisago County Board of
Commissioners, is contingent on the approval of the Final Plat of Rush Pointe, and the resolution approving
the Conditional Use Permit shall not be filed with the Chisago County Recorder’s Office until such time that
the Final Plat has been approved by the Chisago County Board of Commissioners and successfully filed
with the Chisago County Recorder’s Office.

3.

If, for any reason, the Plat of Rush Pointe is not approved by the Chisago County Board of Commissioners
or is otherwise withdrawn from consideration by the property owner, it shall not invalidate approval of the
Conditional Use Permit. In this event, the Department is hereby authorized to prepare a revised resolution,
incorporating the legal description of the 24.24± acre parent parcel and modifying any related references,

4.

for purposes of being filed with the Chisago County Recorder’s Office.
Any expansion or intensification of the approved use – including, but not limited to, expansion of the

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

04/02/2026

Page 6 of 13

Church facility, renting of the facility for commercial purposes or events, addition of a new Cemetery, or
other significant 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. The County
acknowledges that the application materials indicate the potential future expansion(s) of Calvary
Lutheran Church Northview Cemetery and will allow this expansion without Conditional Use Permit
Amendment so long as the expanded Cemetery maintains a setback of at least 100’ from all property
boundaries.
5.

Permitted activities may include worship service (typically Sundays but not limited to Sundays) and other
Church-related activities such as or similar to prayer nights, bible studies, Christian education classes,
counseling, food distribution, vacation bible school, weddings, funerals, and other Church-related and/or
sponsored functions.

6.

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.

Calvary Evangelical Lutheran Church of Rush Point – Coordinator Gervais provided background
information on property owner Calvary Evangelical Lutheran Church of Rush Point’s and applicant Lee
Olson’s request for the Preliminary Plat of Rush Pointe, involving the creation of four lots from the 24.24± acre
tract of land. The subject site was zoned Rural Residential (RR) District and was located at 600 Rush Point
Drive / CSAH 7 in Nessel Township, S28, T37, R22 (PID 06.00603.00).
Gervais reiterated that the property owner was seeking concurrent Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to
bring existing legal non-conforming land uses, including a Place of Assembly (Church) and Cemeteries, into
compliance with the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance. These uses were located on proposed Lot 3, Block 1,
Rush Pointe, consisting of 10.18± acres.
Gervais provided details about the subject property, including general location, existing development on the
proposed lots and satisfactory compliance with setback requirements, surrounding zoning classifications,
and topography.
Gervais highlighted details of the proposed Preliminary Plat, sharing that proposed lots ranged in size from
1.93± to 10.18± acres. The plat drawing exhibited that all proposed lots demonstrated compliance with the
County’s Home Site Area Standard. The soils report and wetland delineation were 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 applicant Lee Olson and fellow church representative Doug Fischer on March 11, 2026. Olson and Fischer
confirmed that the existing dwelling on proposed Lot 2, Block 1, Rush Pointe was formerly a parsonage and had
been rented out in the recent past but was presently vacant. When asked about proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Rush
Pointe being shown on the County’s GIS Viewer as “Lyn Klejeski Memorial Park” featuring a ballfield and picnic
shelter, Olson confirmed that the land had never been formally dedicated as a park and there were no deed
restrictions which would prevent the land from being platted. The Committee did not identify any immediate
concerns with the request. The Nessel Town Board considered the request on March 11, 2026 and
recommended approval with no conditions or comments. The Ordinance prescribed 120-day review period
was scheduled to expire on June 25, 2026.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

04/02/2026

Page 7 of 13

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 Lee Olson and fellow church
representative Doug Fischer were present and approached the Planning Commission. Neither Olson nor
Fischer had any additional information to share about the request.
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 6-0.
Yeager inquired if the Planning Commission should include a reverse condition stating that the Preliminary
Plat was contingent on the concurrently requested CUP. Gervais responded that she didn’t believe this type of
condition was necessary as the CUP was based on the specific land area of 10.18 acres, achieved through the
platting process, but the Plat wasn’t directly tied to or contingent on approval of the CUP.
Motion by DuBose to adopt Resolution No. PC2026-0403, a resolution of the Planning Commission of Chisago
County, Minnesota, recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat of Rush Pointe, with conditions as
presented; second by Sutcliffe. The motion passed 6-0.
Recommended Conditions:
1.

The Preliminary Plat of Rush Pointe is approved per plat drawing dated signed February 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.

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

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.

Franconia Township – Coordinator Gervais provided background information on property owner Franconia
Township’s and applicant Bolton & Menk, Inc.’s request for approval for the Preliminary Plat of Franconia
Township Hall involving the creation of one 13.14–acre buildable lot and one 13.85-acre outlot from the
combined 27± acre tract of land. The subject site was zoned Agricultural (AG) District / Shoreland
Management District and was generally located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Pleasant
Valley Road / CSAH 26 and Redwing Avenue / CSAH 21 in Franconia Township, S7 and 18, T33, R19 (PID
04.00107.00 and 04.00190.00).
Gervais provided details about the subject site, including general location, topography, and noted that the
subject site and surrounding properties were located within the AG District with surrounding properties
ranging in size from 5.3 acres to 120 acres. Additionally, and for reference, Gervais noted that Pleasant Valley
Orchard was located immediately adjacent to the site (southeast).
Gervais highlighted details of the proposed Preliminary Plat, sharing that the property owner wished to
create one 13.14-acre buildable lot and one 13.85-acre unbuildable outlot from the 27± acre subject site. The
plat drawing indicated that proposed Lot 1, Block 1 demonstrated compliance with the County’s Home Site
Area Standard and also provided locations of soil borings identifying sufficiently sized areas for primary and

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

04/02/2026

Page 8 of 13

alternate septic sites. Proposed Outlot A, being less than 20-acres in size, was not eligible for exemption from
the platting process. Additionally, because the outlot had no frontage on a public road and had not
demonstrated compliance with the Home Site Area Standard or septic requirements, it could not be platted
as a buildable lot. Therefore, it was shown and proposed as an outlot. In regard to outlots, Gervais explained
that the Chisago County Subdivision Ordinance stated that no remnants of land would be permitted, unless
a plan identifying a legitimate future use was approved by the County. Further, the purpose of said remnants
needed to be clearly identified and designed as an outlot through the platting process. Gervais noted that
the plat drawing included a Surveyor’s Note (J) explaining that the intended use of Outlot A was agricultural.
And, to ensure that Outlot A was only used for agricultural purposes and was not mistakenly viewed as a
buildable lot, staff included a recommended condition of approval requiring the recording of a deed
restriction. The submitted wetland delineation was verified by County staff and found to be accurate;
however, the soils report had not yet been verified due to seasonal constraints. Assuming the request for
Preliminary Plat was approved, the soils would need to be verified prior to submission of request for Final Plat.
Gervais summarized details of the review process, explaining that the Technical / Plat Review Committee met
with Franconia Township Supervisor Doug Wallis and applicant Cristina Mlejnek on March 11, 2026. The Highway
Department commented that the Final Plat would need to show a controlled access from Pleasant Valley
Road / CSAH 26 as well as an access easement for the landlocked Outlot A. Being that Outlot A was proposed
for agricultural use and would not be considered a buildable lot, Gervais indicated that staff would be
including a recommended condition of approval requiring that a deed restriction be filed. The Committee did
not identify any other immediate concerns with the proposed plat. The Franconia Town Board considered the
request on March 24, 2026 and recommended approval with no conditions or comments. The Ordinance
prescribed 120-day review period was scheduled to expire on June 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. Franconia Township Chair Owen Kuhnly and
Township Supervisor Sonny Sparby were present and approached the Planning Commission. Neither Kuhnly
nor Sparby had any additional information to share about the request.
DuBose inquired if the access easement for Outlot A would be included on the Final Plat drawing. Kuhnly
responded in the affirmative. McCarthy sought clarification from staff that this application was for the
approval of a Preliminary Plat and that a separate Conditional Use Permit would be required for the
proposed Franconia Town Hall. Gervais confirmed that this request was only for the Preliminary Plat.
DuBose, noting that proposed Outlot A was intended for agriculture and referred to as unbuildable, asked
staff whether a pole barn for agricultural use could be constructed on Outlot A. Director Schneider stated
that there would be an opportunity to evaluate such a request, explaining that staff would consider whether
the proposed structure was for an agricultural use and whether it involved any residential-related
infrastructure or needs. Schneider added that he was hopeful that there could be an opportunity to allow a
strictly agricultural building.
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
DuBose. The motion passed 6-0.
Motion by DuBose to adopt Resolution No. PC2026-0404, a resolution of the Planning Commission of Chisago
County, Minnesota, recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat of Franconia Township Hall, with conditions

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

04/02/2026

Page 9 of 13

as presented; second by Whitney. The motion passed 6-0.
Recommended Conditions:
1. The Preliminary Plat of Franconia Township Hall is approved per plat drawing dated signed February 12,
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
2.

Commission and approval by the County Board.
When seasonal conditions allow, Department of Environmental Services staff shall verify the submitted
soils report to determine suitability for primary and alternate septic system sites for proposed Lot 1, Block 1,
Franconia Township Hall. Request for Final Plat shall not be submitted until successful verification is

3.

complete.
The Final Plat shall illustrate a controlled access from the adjacent County State Aid Highway and, given

4.

that Outlot A is landlocked, the Final Plat shall also illustrate an access easement for Outlot A.
Outlot A shall be used only for agricultural purposes and shall not be considered developable.

5.

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.

6.

Following approval of the Final Plat and prior to it being filed with the Chisago County Recorder’s Office, the
property owner shall file a deed restriction with the Chisago County Recorder’s Office, in a form approved
by the Chisago County Attorney’s Office, on Outlot A stating that the outlot is undevelopable and may only
be used for agricultural purposes. This deed restriction shall run with the land and shall not be removed

7.

without prior approval of the County.
The property owner shall obtain all necessary and applicable permits from Federal, State, and County
jurisdictions for any wetland impacts prior to commencement of development.

Matthew & Hedi Johnson – Coordinator Gervais provided background information on property owners
Matthew & Hedi Johnson’s request for an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a Singular Accessory Structure Without
the Presence of a Principal Use Structure, such as a dwelling, on a 13.1± acre parcel in the Agricultural (AG)
District. The subject site was located at 41950 Ferry Road in Sunrise Township, S5, T35, R20 (PID 09.00035.00).
Gervais provided details about the subject site, including general location of the subject site and topography.
Gervais highlighted details of the proposed accessory structure, explaining that it would be constructed in
the style of an open-wall pavilion / picnic shelter and would be 25’ x 36’ (900 sf) in size and would be located
in the southeast quadrant of the subject site. The structure was proposed to be used primarily in conjunction
with the applicant’s North Branch-based daycare, as a location for the children to be outdoors, work on STEM
(science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) projects, learn about nature, and eat lunch.
Additionally, the property owners intended to utilize the structure for family activities. While the request had
not included allowance to install an in-ground septic system, the applicant was proposing the utilization of a
portable outhouse. Although, the property was heavily wooded, the property owners were considering the
installation of additional trees and shrubbery between the proposed structure and east property boundary
to increase privacy. Gervais also reviewed the nature of surrounding properties and the surrounding area,
and stated that the property owners gave no indication of further development of the subject site.
Gervais summarized details of the review process, explaining that the Technical / Plat Review Committee met
with the property owners on March 11, 2026. The County Sanitarian noted no concern with the proposed use of
a porta potty for sanitary needs. The property owners stated that the location of the proposed structure may
vary slightly from the site plan but would meet all structural setback requirements. The property owners
inquired about the potential for adding walls to the proposed structure in the future; therefore, staff had

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

04/02/2026

Page 10 of 13

included a recommended condition of approval which allowed this modification without need for Interim Use
Permit Amendment. The Committee did not identify any immediate concerns with the request. The State
mandated review period was scheduled to expire on April 27, 2026. The Sunrise Town Board considered the
request on March 19, 2026. The Town Board had recommended approval of the request in the event that the
County rejected the Township Planning Commission’s assertion that the proposed structure was exempt from
zoning and other land use regulations pursuant to Minnesota Stature 245A.14, subdivision 1. Gervais explained
that staff reviewed Minnesota § 245A.14, subdivision 1 and offered for the Planning Commission’s consideration
that the subject site was not the location of the licensed nonresidential program, as this licensed program was
located at the property owners’ residence within the City of North Branch. Gervais noted that she spoke with a
Chisago County Child Care Licensor on March 23, 2026, and received verbal confirmation that licenses were
not transferable from one location to another location (even if owned by the same party/parties), and that the
subject site, with the structure as proposed, would not be eligible for separate licensing. Therefore, staff
maintained that an IUP was required for the proposed structure.
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 Commission. Property owners Matthew & Hedi Johnson were
present and approached the Planning Commission. M. Johnson asked for clarification on the required
annual certification of the Interim Use Permit as described in staff-recommended condition no. 9. Gervais
responded by explaining the annual certification process involving an “Intent to Continue” form generated
and provided by the Department of Environmental Services.
DuBose asked the Johnsons whether use of the property would involve daycare field trips. H. Johnson
responded in the affirmative, explaining that she had a 15-passenger van and would transport daycare
children to the site for STEM activities, nature education, and planting.
McCarthy asked whether daycare fieldtrips would be the primary use of the proposed structure, and H.
Johnson responded in the affirmative. McCarthy stated that, in his opinion, the proposal appeared to be
more consistent with Rural Retail Tourism rather than a storage building. He noted that the Planning
Commission had previously approved a similar nature-based use under the land use category of Rural
Retail Tourism. Gervais stated that the Zoning Ordinance classified this type of structure as a detached
accessory structure, and the land use category of Singular Accessory Structure Without the Presence of a
Principal Use Structure did not require that the structure be used for storage. She added that Rural Retail
Tourism implied that the use was commercial in nature.
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 6-0.
Wille revisited McCarthy’s comment that the application appeared to be Rural Retail Tourism in nature. She
stated that transporting children in a single vehicle would be difficult to define as Rural Retail Tourism. Wille
further stated that, if the use was primarily personal and not open to the public, she believed an IUP for an
accessory structure was the appropriate application. McCarthy stated that the Planning Commission had
previously approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Rural Retail Tourism in Amador Township, and he
believed it to be similar to the Johnson’s request. Wille recollected details of the application referenced by
McCarthy, providing examples of how she believed it differed from the Johnson’s request. McCarthy restated
that he believed the proposed use was the same as the previously approved CUP for Rural Retail Tourism.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

04/02/2026

Page 11 of 13

Whitney asked the Johnsons whether they intended to allow other families or individuals to use the property
for picnics and how they planned to restrict access. H. Johnson stated that the property would be gated.
Motion by DuBose to adopt Resolution No. PC2026-0405, 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 located at 41950 Ferry Road in Sunrise Township,
with findings of fact and conditions as presented; second by Yeager. The motion passed 5-1, with McCarthy
voting against.
Recommended Conditions:
1.

This approval allows for a singular accessory structure up to 900-sf in size for personal use without the
presence of a principal use structure, subject to the conditions below. The accessory structure shall be
constructed in general conformance with the application materials dated received February 26, 2026 and
updated written narrative stamp dated received March 11, 2026, in terms of size and location, 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

2.

consideration by the Planning Commission and determination by the County Board of Commissioners.
Prior to submitting application for building permit, the permit holder shall be responsible for contacting
Sunrise Township to verify if the current driveway access is sufficient or if the Township will require that it
be upgraded.

3.

No sanitary facilities, other than seasonal use of a portable toilet, shall be allowed in conjunction with the
accessory structure until and unless the property is further developed with a principal use structure.

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

5.

Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances / codes.
Neither the structure nor the property shall not be used for commercial purposes, until and unless the
commercial use is allowed by and pursuant to the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance and the structure
complies with all requirements of applicable ordinances / codes.

6.

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. However, the permit holder shall be allowed to improve the structure by enclosing it
with walls without need for Interim Use Permit Amendment, so long as the permit holder obtains a building

7.

permit prior to commencement of the work.
Violations of the conditions contained herein shall be cause for the revocation of the Interim Use Permit

8.

upon action of the County Board.
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
during reasonable hours by the Chisago County Department of Environmental Services and/or any duly

9.

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

Public Hearings – Continued Hearings – None
Old Business – None
New Business - None

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

04/02/2026

Page 12 of 13

Communications and Reports
County Board Liaison Reports – County Commissioner Greene reported that, at its April 1, 2026 meeting, the
County Board approved a tax abatement for Kendall Howard. He stated that the project involved a $21 million
expansion expected to create approximately 200 jobs. County Commissioner Dahlberg reported that he had
received an email from Parks Director Joe Tart indicating that Fish Lake Park had been designated as a
regional park.
Miscellaneous
Ordinance Issue Identification Tracking Matrix – Gervais reported that there were minor updates to line items
8 (Water-Related Regulations within Zoning Ordinance) and 9 (Temporary Storage and Shipping Containers).
She noted that during the Planning Commission’s special work session on April 16, 2026, the Commission would
meet with representatives of the Lower St. Croix Watershed Partnership to discuss proposed Ordinance
amendments. In regard to line item 9, Gervais noted that staff provided first-quarter monitoring metrics in the
Commission’s April 2, 2026 meeting packet. Gervais added that one item not yet included in the matrix was
the County Board’s direction for the Planning Commission to consider minor updates to the Floodplain
Management Ordinance.
Temporary Storage and Shipping Containers – Quarterly Monitoring Metrics – Gervais provided the
Commission with Temporary Storage and Shipping Container monitoring metrics for the first quarter of 2026,
as requested at the February 5, 2026 meeting. Greene shared that he had received more complaints on
shipping containers, noting that he personally received one complaint and the County Board received
testimony in March. Dahlberg shared that he was contacted by an individual who was concerned about
placement of shipping containers in front yards.
DuBose asked if the Planning Commission would receive advance copy of April 16, 2026 work session
materials. Gervais shared that she and Director Schneider would be meeting with the Lower St. Croix
Watershed Partnership team on April 6, 2026 to discuss the work session, adding that she was hopeful that the
team would provide materials for the work session. Wille reminded fellow Commissioners that she would not
be available for the work session.
Minnesota Reformer Article Submitted by Commissioner McCarthy with Related HF 3895 and SF 4123 –
McCarthy provided a Minnesota Reformer article to be shared with fellow Commissioners. The article
discussed local governments having restrictive zoning regulations in regard to housing development.
McCarthy commented that he was glad that Chisago County took positive measures with the recent Zoning
Ordinance update to implement less restrictive regulations for housing, such as reducing the minimum
dwelling size and allowing Accessory Dwelling Units.
Adjourn Meeting – Motion by Yeager to adjourn the meeting; second by Sutcliffe. The motion passed 6-0. The
meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

____________________________________________
Jolene Wille

ATTEST:

Chair

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

_____________________________________________
Beth Gervais
Land Services Coordinator

04/02/2026

Page 13 of 13

Prior to the current Chisago County Zoning Ordinance being adopted on December 18, 2024 and
going into effect on January 1, 2025, the use of temporary storage containers, also known as

shipping containers, was prohibited on land governed by Chisago County. However, due to their

popularity and proliferation throughout the County, the Planning Commission recommended, and

the County Board adopted regulations which would allow the use of these containers. Zoning

Ordinance Section 4.19 outlines several parameters for the treatment and allowance of temporary
storage / shipping containers.

Section 4.19 allows the placement of up to one container, for a duration not to exceed one year,
with approval of an Administrative Permit. If a property owner wishes to place more than one

container on their property and/or for a duration exceeding one year, the use requires issuance of
an IUP. Section 4.19 states that IUPs shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and may require

conditions and requirements as deemed appropriate such as to location, number, appearance,

screening, and other criteria. This application represents the first request for IUP since the current

Zoning Ordinance went into effect.
SITE & PROPOSAL ANALYSIS

The 4.09± acre subject site is generally located one-quarter mile east of

Oasis Road / CSAH 9 and one-quarter mile west of Pleasant Valley Road /

CSAH 26 on the south side of 310th Street / CSAH 37 in Chisago Lake Township.
The subject site is situated immediately north of South Center Lake and is
therefore considered a riparian property.

Topography of the subject site includes elevations ranging from 888’ at the

south property boundary and increasing up to 925’ at the north property

boundary, with sparse tree cover and a row of bushes adjacent to the east

half of the north property boundary. The approximate south half of the
property is located within the FEMA Flood Zone. The adjacent image

illustrates both elevations (yellow lines) and the FEMA Flood Zone (turquoise

line and dots).

The application materials indicate that the property owner is seeking afterthe-fact approval for four 8’ x 20’ (160 sf each) storage containers for

personal storage for as long as she owns the property. The site plan shows
three containers located immediately adjacent to the east property

boundary, with the greatest setback being 5’, and one container located 5’

from the west property boundary. Staff notes, however, that during the April

8, 2026 Technical / Plat Review Committee meeting, the property owner

stated that she was considering locating all four containers to the west side
of her property.

The application suggests that the containers were intentionally placed in

their current locations based on water runoff patterns and a desire to not
impede water flow or cause flooding to neighboring properties.

2

process, staff has included a recommended condition of approval requiring that all containers are
brought into compliance with required structural setbacks within 60 days of IUP approval.

Staff’s second concern relates to screening. Zoning Ordinance Section 4.19 does not provide

specific screening requirements for the use of multiple temporary storage containers for a duration
exceeding one year, but does indicate that screening, and other criteria, will be evaluated on a

case-by-case basis. The application materials explain that the containers are screened from the
roadway / north by permanent structures on the subject site, shrubs, distance, and elevation

changes. Staff agrees that the containers are adequately screened from the roadway / north. The

application also suggests that the containers are screened from the side yards by distance, natural
vegetation, and personal property situated on the neighboring property(ies). Given that the

containers are 5’ or less from the west and east property boundaries (side yards), staff does not
generally agree that the containers are adequately screened from the west and east property

boundaries (side yards) by distance, and also has concern about personal property belonging to

the neighbors being used as screening. To address screening and appearance, staff has included

recommended conditions which pertain to setbacks and continual maintenance of the containers.
The Planning Commission may wish to discuss whether added screening measures are necessary
and, if deemed necessary, what screening measures are most appropriate.
REVIEW PROCESS
The Technical / Plat Review Committee met with Lynette Regenauer on April 8, 2026. The group

discussed such topics as structural setback requirements, screening, and anchoring of the

containers in compliance with the Building Code. Regenauer commented that she was considering
moving all of the containers to the west side of her property. Regenauer stated that the containers

may encroach on the septic system (shown on the site plan to be on the west side of the property),
and the Building Official advised against this.

The Chisago Lake Town Board considered the request at its April 21, 2026 meeting and

recommended approval with no comments or recommended conditions.

The application was originally submitted on September 30, 2025 and, following submission of all

required materials, deemed complete on March 17, 2026. The State mandated 60-day review

period is scheduled to expire on May 16, 2026, prior to all requisite meetings, therefore staff 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 July 15, 2026.
WRITTEN TESTIMONY
No written testimony was received upon completion of the staff report.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Zoning Ordinance Section 8.05 (Interim Use Permits), C. states that the Planning Commission shall
consider possible effects of the proposed interim use based upon, but not limited to, the general

factors listed below. Staff has provided draft findings, shown in italics below, for the Commission’s
consideration.

4

Factor #1

The use is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and development policies of the

Finding #1

The Chisago County Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address the

County;

proposed use; however, the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance allows the proposed

use in the Agricultural (AG) District with issuance of an Interim Use Permit. Therefore,
the County finds that the proposed use is consistent with the County’s development
policies.
Factor #2

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

Finding #2

Being that the proposed use is intended solely for personal storage purposes, the

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

County finds that the proposed use will not create any demand on existing parks,
schools, streets, or other public facilities or utilities which serve the subject site.

Further, the Chisago County Highway Department, serving as Road Authority, did not
express any concern regarding impact to 310th Street / CSAH 37 in conjunction with
the April 8, 2026 Technical / Plat Review Committee meeting.

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;

The application materials explain that the temporary storage containers are

screened from the roadway / north by permanent structures on the subject site,
shrubs, distance, and elevation changes; and, that the containers are screened

from the west and east (side yards) by distance, natural vegetation, and personal
property situated on the neighboring property(ies). With the implementation of

conditions requiring that the temporary storage containers maintain a specified

minimum setback from the roadway / north property boundary and compliance
with the County’s minimum structural setback from the west and east property
boundaries, the County finds that the proposed use will neither cause undue

negative impact to adjacent development or land nor deter future development.
Factor #4

The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect

Finding #4

The Chisago County Zoning Ordinance does not identify any aesthetic requirements

upon adjacent properties;

for temporary storage containers or provide specific screening requirements for

said containers. The application materials explain that the containers are screened
from the side yards – where there is greatest potential for impact to adjacent

properties – by distance, natural vegetation, and personal property situated on the
neighboring property(ies). Based on this explanation and implementation of a

condition requiring that the containers shall at all times remain in good structural

condition free of rust, holes, and peeling paint, the County finds that the temporary
storage containers will not have an appearance which will cause adverse effects
upon adjacent properties.

5

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 allows multiple temporary storage

containers and/or placement of temporary storage containers exceeding one year
in duration with issuance of an Interim Use Permit; therefore, the County finds that

the proposed use is in compliance with land use goals and regulations established

by the County’s official land use controls.
Factor #6

Finding #6

The use shall not cause traffic hazard or congestion; and

The application materials indicate that the proposed temporary storage containers

are intended for personal storage purposes and that all containers will be placed
more than 200’ from the adjacent roadway (310th Street / CSAH 37). Based on the

intended use and compliance with the County’s minimum structural setback from

the adjacent roadway, the County finds that the use will not create excessive traffic
or cause traffic hazard or congestion. Further, the Chisago County Highway

Department, serving as Road Authority, did not express any concern regarding

impact to 310th Street / CSAH 37 in conjunction with the April 8, 2026 Technical / Plat
Review Committee meeting.

Factor #7

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

Finding #7

The proposed temporary storage containers are intended for personal storage and

or general unsightliness.

will therefore not generate noise. And, given that the containers are intended for
storage, the containers may in fact be more aesthetically pleasing to nearby
properties than if these personal items were not stored within fully enclosed

structures. Ultimately, with proposed screening measures, implementation of

conditions requiring that the temporary storage containers maintain a specified

minimum setback from the roadway / north property boundary and compliance
with the County’s minimum structural setback from the west and east property

boundaries, and implementation of a condition requiring that the containers remain
in good condition free of rust, holes, and peeling paint, the County finds that the

proposed use will neither cause undue negative impact to adjacent development or
land nor deter future development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION

With side yard setback compliance and implementation of other conditions unique to the subject
site and proposed use, and Planning Commission discussion about screening, staff believes that

the proposed use complies with and is consistent with the intent of the County’s Zoning Ordinance.

Barring any new or unknown evidence of compliance discovered after the completion of this report
or during the course of the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the IUP with draft

Findings of Fact and conditions and has prepared a resolution for the Commission’s consideration.

6

Recommended Conditions:
1.

This approval allows for the placement of no more than four 8’ x 20’ temporary storage

containers for a duration exceeding one (1) year, in general conformance with the updated

application materials dated received March 12, 2026 and kept on file with the Chisago County
Department of Environmental Services and subject to the conditions below. 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.

All temporary storage containers shall be placed outside of the FEMA Flood Zone and subject to

the following structural setback requirements:

a. Roadway - Given that the application cites the use of permanent structures existing on the

subject site, shrubs, distance and elevation changes as screening from the roadway / north
property boundary, the containers shall be located no closer than 200’ from the north
property boundary / CSAH 37 Right-of-Way boundary.

b. Side Yards – 20’

Given that the containers do not meet the required side yard setback at time of application,
the containers shall be brought into compliance within 60 days of Interim Use Permit
approval.

c. Ordinary High Water Level – 75’
3.

The temporary storage containers shall be anchored to the ground pursuant to the Minnesota

State Building Code. Anchoring shall be complete within 60 days of Interim Use Permit approval.

4. The temporary storage containers shall at all times remain in good structural condition free of
rust, holes, and peeling paint.

5. The temporary storage containers shall not obstruct water flow or cause flooding of adjacent
properties.

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 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 subject property is no longer owned by
Lynette Regenauer and is not transferable. The permit holder shall be responsible for removing
all temporary storage containers from the property upon expiration.

OPTIONS
1.
2.

Recommend that the County Board approve the Interim Use Permit with Findings of Fact and

conditions as presented or amended.

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

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

7

completion of the public hearing and/or upon discovery of any new or unknown evidence,

recommend that the County Board deny the Interim Use Permit based on factors deemed

appropriate. (Note: If the Commission considers this option, specific factor(s) for denial should

be included in the 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 Interim Use Permit.

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

ACTION REQUESTED

Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC2026-0501, a resolution recommending approval of an Interim

Use Permit allowing multiple temporary storage containers for a duration exceeding one year on

property located at 14545 310th Street / CSAH 37 in Chisago Lake Township, with Findings of Fact and

conditions as presented or amended.
ATTACHMENTS
1.

2.

3.

Application summary

Written narrative
Site plan

4. Township Presentation Form

5. Aerial photo (1) – subject site

6. Aerial photo (2) – vicinity map

7.

Draft Resolution No. PC2026-0501

8

Item No. 6b

Staff Report
TO:

Planning Commission

SUBJECT:

Floodplain Management Ordinance Amendment

FROM:
DATE:

Beth Gervais, Land Services Coordinator
May 7, 2026

ACTION TO CONSIDER

The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on 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.
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED 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 are 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.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION EFFORTS

The draft Ordinance has been made available for viewing in-person at the Department of

Environmental Services and on the Chisago County website pursuant to public hearing notification
efforts initiated on April 10, 2026. These efforts included direct notifications to all Chisago County

cities and townships and the National Park Service, as well as posted notice at the Chisago County

Government Center. Legal publications of Ordinance viewing availability and public hearing

opportunity were published in the Chisago County Press (Official County Newspaper) and the
County News Review on April 16, 2026 and April 23, 2026.

REVIEW BY MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Per Ordinance No. 12-1 and in accordance with Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

requirements, all Amendments to the Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance must be
submitted to and approved by the DNR prior to adoption to verify that minimum state and federal
standards are met. The DNR was provided with a copy of the draft Ordinance and the County’s
intent to conduct a May 7, 2026 public hearing on April 3, 2026.

The DNR completed its review of the draft Ordinance and provided comment on April 10, 2026 for

the County’s consideration (see attached). Staff’s understanding of the DNR’s comments relates to

the fact that the County’s Floodplain Management Ordinance refers to the entirety of the 1% annual
floodplain as the “floodplain district” rather than making a distinction between the floodway and

flood fringe districts, and the potential for allowing newly proposed permitted activities within the

floodway. If the County’s intent is to allow non-structural development within the floodway, the DNR
is suggesting that the Ordinance incorporate floodway encroachment standards from the DNR’s

Model Ordinance. And, if it’s not the County’s intent is to not allow these activities in the floodway,
the DNR is suggesting a minor revision to Section 4.0 as a means of clearly prohibiting any
development within the floodway.

DRAFT CHISAGO COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE

Attached for review and consideration is the draft Chisago County Floodplain Management

Ordinance showing track changes, with verbiage proposed to be added shown underlined and
verbiage proposed to be deleted shown stricken. Staff notes that the attached draft Ordinance

neither incorporates the DNR’s floodway encroachment standards nor a revision to Section 4.0 as

suggested by the DNR. Staff will further discuss the DNR’s comments with the Planning Commission
on May 7, 2026 and may present the Commission with additional draft Ordinance verbiage for
consideration.

WRITTEN TESTIMONY
No written testimony was received upon completion of the staff report.
OPTIONS
Open the requisite public hearing and receive testimony into the record concerning the proposed
Floodplain Management Ordinance Amendment.
1.

Upon closing of the public hearing, finalize a recommendation copy of Chisago County
Floodplain Management Ordinance and provide a recommendation of approval for

presentation to the County Board of Commissioners for formal review, adoption, publication,
and recording.

2.
3.

If the Planning Commission wishes to solicit additional public testimony after May 7, 2026 and

prior to providing a recommendation, continue the public hearing to a specific date.

If the Planning Commission believes that all interested parties have been given opportunity to
provide testimony but wishes to further deliberate / develop / incorporate public hearing and
jurisdictional partners’ comments within the draft Ordinance, close the public hearing and
table the matter to an upcoming special work session or regular Planning Commission

meeting.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the requisite public hearing and receive

public testimony into the record; review comment provided by the DNR; and, deliberate on how the
Commission wishes to proceed based on the options provided above.
ATTACHMENTS
1.

2.

Comments provided by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Draft Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

Commissioner ________________ offered Ordinance No. 2026/______ and moved its enactment:
CHISAGO COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 2026/______
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL AND REENACT THE
CHISAGO COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
THE CHISAGO COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HEREBY ORDAINS, as follows:
Section 1. That the current Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance was enacted
by the Board of Commissioners as Ordinance No. 12-1 on March 21, 2012 and recorded as
Document No. A-542984, and, from time to time, the Board of Commissioners may have
enacted amendments to said Ordinance.
Section 2. That the County has initiated a comprehensive update of the Chisago County
Floodplain Management Ordinance for the purposes of addressing deficiencies within the
2012 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 proposed Floodplain Management Ordinance
utilize direct language from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ Simplified Model
Floodplain Ordinance.
Section 3. That notice was provided and on May 7, 2026, the Chisago County Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the proposed Floodplain Management
Ordinance update, at which it heard from the Director of Environmental Services and invited
members of the public to comment. The Planning Commission recommended [INSERT
RECOMMENDATION] of the proposed updated Floodplain Management Ordinance as detailed
in the Planning Commission meeting minutes of May 7, 2026.
Section 4. That the Board of Commissioners received advance copy of the proposed
updated Floodplain Management Ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Commission,
and formally reviewed said Ordinance at its [INSERT DATE] meeting.
Section 5. That the Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance, as enacted by
Ordinance No. 12-1 and all amendments subsequently enacted thereafter, are hereby
repealed in their entirety.

Page 1 of 20
May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Review

43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84

Section 6. That the Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance, as incorporated
herein and attached hereto, is hereby reenacted.
Section 7. That the Board of Commissioners finds that publication of the full reenacted
Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance would be cost prohibitive, and that
publication of the title and summary of the Ordinance will clearly inform the public of the
intent and effect of the Ordinance. The Board of Commissioners hereby ordains that only the
title of the Ordinance and a summary be published as follows:
CHISAGO COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2026/______
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL AND REENACT THE
CHISAGO COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
It is the intent and effect of this Ordinance to repeal the Chisago County Floodplain
Management Ordinance, enacted by Ordinance No. 12-1 on March 21, 2012, and all
amendments thereto in their entirety and reenact an updated Chisago County Floodplain
Management Ordinance in their place.
The development of the flood hazard areas of the unincorporated areas of Chisago County
could result in the potential loss of life and property, create health and safety hazards, and
lead to extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief. Therefore, the general
purpose of the Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance is to implement
regulations designed to minimize flood losses, prevent health and safety hazards, and
minimize expenditures related to flood protection and relief in compliance with the rules and
regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program.
The purpose of the reenacted Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance 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.
The full reenacted Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance is available for
inspection by any person during regular business hours at the Chisago County AuditorTreasurer’s Office and the Chisago County Department of Environmental Services, both
Page 2 of 20
May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Review

85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125

located at 313 N. Main Street, Center City, Minnesota, 55012. The full reenacted Chisago
County Floodplain Management Ordinance may also be viewed at [INSERT URL].
Section 8. That this Ordinance shall become effective upon its passage and publication.
Passed and approved this _________ day of _______________, 2026, by the Chisago County
Board of Commissioners.
Commissioner _____________________ seconded the Ordinance and upon a vote being taken
thereon, the following voted:
IN FAVOR THEREOF:
OPPOSED:
ABSENT:
Whereupon the proclamation was declared duly passed and enacted.
Enacted: __________________, 2026

____________________________________

ATTEST: __________________________________

Richard Greene

Chase Burnham

Chair, Board of Commissioners

County Administrator

This Ordinance was drafted and prepared by:
Chisago County Department of Environmental Services
313 N. Main Street, Suite 240
Center City, MN 55012

This Ordinance is approved as to form.
JANET REITER
CHISAGO COUNTY ATTORNEY
__________________________________________

Date: ___________________, 2026

Jeffrey B. Fuge, Assistant County Attorney

Page 3 of 20
May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Review

126

127

128
129

Chisago County
Floodplain Management
Ordinance
Ordinance No. 2026/______

130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148

Adopted: [INSERT DATE]

149

Effective: [INSERT DATE]
Page 4 of 20
May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Review

150

1.0

151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158

The legislature of the State of Minnesota in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103 and Chapter 394

159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167

The development of the flood hazard areas of the unincorporated areas of Chisago County

168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179

The Official Flood District Map, together with all materials attached thereto, is hereby adopted

180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190

3.1 Lands to Which Ordinance Applies. This Ordinance applies to all lands under the

STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION

has delegated the responsibility to local government units to adopt regulations designed to
minimize flood losses. This Ordinance is being adopted to comply with the rules and
regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program codified as 44 Code of Federal
Regulations Parts 59 -78, as amended, so as to maintain Chisago County’s eligibility in the
National Flood Insurance Program.
2.0

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

could result in the potential loss of life and property, create health and safety hazards, and
lead to extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief. Since development of
these areas is not essential to the orderly growth of the unincorporated areas of Chisago
County, and since these lands are suitable for open space uses that do not require structures,
fill, obstructions, or most other forms of development as defined in Section 7.0 of this
Ordinance, the Chisago County Board of Commissioners does ordain as follows.
3.0

ESTABLISHMENT OF FLOOD DISTRICT MAPJURISDICTION AND DISTRICTS

by reference and declared to be a part of this Ordinance. The attached material shall include
the Flood Insurance Study, Chisago County, Minnesota and Incorporated Areas, the Flood
Insurance Rate Map Index (Map Number 27025CIND0A), and all Flood Insurance Rate Map
panels therein indicated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map Index that apply to the
unincorporated areas of Chisago County, all of these documents being dated April 17, 2012
and prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Official Flood District Map
shall be on file in the Office of the Chicago County Auditor and the Director of Environmental
Services and Zoning. The Official Flood District Map shall be considered separate overlay
maps, and as such, not part of the Official Zoning Map contained in the Chisago County
Zoning Ordinance. The Flood Plain District jurisdiction of this Ordinance shall include those
100-year flood areas designated as Zone AE and Zone A on the aforementioned maps.
jurisdiction of Chisago County, Minesota within the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs),
shown as Zones A and AE on the Flood Insurance Rate Map panels referenced in Section 3.2.
3.11

The standards imposed in this overlay district are in addition to any other
requirements. In case of a conflict, the more restrictive standards will apply.

3.12

These regulations apply to all areas within the SFHA. If areas below the Base
Flood Elevation (BFE) extend beyond the mapped SFHA based on actual field
conditions, the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) shall be the governing factor in
locating the outer boundaries of the one-percent annual chance floodplain
Page 5 of 20
May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Review

191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232

and these regulations apply to the outer boundary of the one-percent annual
chance floodplain.
3.13

Persons contesting the location of the district boundaries will be given a
reasonable opportunity to present their case to Chisago County and to submit
technical evidence.

3.2 Incorporation of Maps by Reference. The following maps together with all attached
material are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this Ordinance. The
attached material includes the Flood Insurance Study 27025CV000A for Chisago County,
Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas, dated April 17, 2012, and the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) panel numbers 27025C0025D, 27025C0030D 27025C0035D 27025C0040D
27025C0045D 27025C0065D 27025C0075D 27025C0100D 27025C0125D 27025C0135D
27025C0145D 27025C0150D 27025C0155D 27025C0160D 27025C0165D 27025C0170D
27025C0200D 27025C0225D 27025C0250D 27025C0255D 27025C0260D 27025C0275D
27025C0288D 27025C0289D 27025C0290D 27025C0295D 27025C0300D 27025C0325D
27025C0360D 27025C0375D 27025C0380D 27025C0385D 27025C0400D 27025C0402D
27025C0406D 27025C0425D, 27025CINDOA, all dated April 17, 2012, and prepared by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). These materials are on file in the offices of
the Chisago County Environmental Services Department and FEMA online Flood Map Service
Center and hereby constitute the Official Flood District Map of all unincorporated areas of the
County and are adopted by reference as an overlay district designation to all land use maps
of the County.
4.0

PERMITTED ACTIVITIES, STANDARDS, AND USES IN THE FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT

4.1 The following activities, standards, and uses have a low flood damage potential and do
not obstruct flood flows. These activities, standards, and uses shall be permitted within the
Floodplain District without a permit to the extent that they are not prohibited by any other
ordinance and provided they do not require structures, fill, obstructions, excavations, drilling
operations, storage of materials or equipment or any other form of development as defined
herein in Section 7.0 of this Ordinance (except for recreational vehicles as permitted in
Section 4.15).
4.11

Agricultural uses such as general farming, pasture, grazing, farm fencing,
forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting.

4.12

Industrial-commercial uses such as driveway and parking areas and airport
landing strips.

4.13

Private and public recreational uses such as driveway and parking areas,
tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, picnic grounds, boat launching
ramps, swimming areas, parks, wildlife and nature preserves, game farms,
Page 6 of 20
May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Review

233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275

shooting preserves, target ranges, trap and skeet ranges, hunting and fishing
areas, and single or multiple purpose recreational trails.
4.14

Residential uses such as lawns, gardens, driveway and parking areas, and play
areas.

4.15

Recreational vehicles. There shall be no new recreational vehicle parks or
campgrounds located within the Floodplain District. Recreational vehicles will
be allowed on existing lots or parcels of record if they meet the following
standards:
(a) They have current licenses for highway use;
(b) They are highway ready, meaning on wheels or the internal jacking
system, are attached to the site only by quick disconnect utilities
commonly used in campgrounds and recreation vehicle parks;
(c) Except for at-grade patios, there shall be no new development on the lot
or parcel associated with the recreational vehicle including, but not limited
to, such activities as decks, storage buildings, garages, gazebos, fuel
storage tanks, and room additions.
(d) There shall be no development allowed on the lot or parcel that would
hinder the removal of the recreational vehicle to a flood free location
should flooding occur.
(e) They conform with Section 4.12 14 of the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance.

4.16

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4.2 of this Ordinance for permitted
activities and Section 10.0 of this Ordinance for nonconformities, all other
activities and uses and all uses that require structures, fill, obstructions,
excavations, drilling operations, storage of material or equipment or any other
form of development as defined herein in Section 7.0 of this Ordinance shall be
prohibited.

4.2 Permitted Activities. A permit must be obtained from the Zoning Administrator to verify
compliance with all applicable standards outlined in this Ordinance prior to the following
uses or activities:
4.21

Any modification, rehabilitation, maintenance, repair, or alteration to a
nonconforming structure as specified in Section 10.0 of this Ordinance or as
otherwise required by the County Building Official.
Page 7 of 20
May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Review

276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318

4.22

Any use that requires fill, excavation, storage of materials, or placement of
anything that may cause a potential obstruction, as well as any other form of
development as defined in Section 7.0 of this Ordinance. Said uses should be
de minimis in nature and may require mitigation through compensatory
storage improvements.

4.23

Buildings and Structures. No new structures, such as buildings or accessory
structures may be permitted in the regulatory floodplain. Modifications and
alterations of nonconforming structures are subject to the standards in Section
10.0.

4.24

Public Transportation Facilities. Development of public transportation facilities
such as railroad tracks, roads, trails, and bridges must be elevated to the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE) where such facilities are essential
to the orderly functioning of the area, or where failure or interruption would
result in danger to public health or safety. Development of minor or auxiliary
public roads, trails, or railroads may be constructed at a lower elevation where
failure or interruption of transportation services would not endanger the public
health or safety. All public transportation facilities should be designed to
minimize increases in flood elevations.

4.25

Public Utilities. All utilities such as gas, electrical, sewer, and water supply
systems to be located in the floodplain must be elevated and/or floodproofed
to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE), be located and constructed
to minimize or eliminate flood damage and be designed to eliminate
infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems
into flood waters. All public utilities should be designed to minimize increases in
flood elevations. New solid waste management facilities, as defined in
Minnesota Rules, part 7035.0300, are prohibited. Water supply systems are
subject to the provisions in Minnesota Rules, part 4725.4350.

4.26

Land Alterations. In areas within 25 feet of the ordinary high water level, land
alterations shall be restricted to:
(a)

the minimum required to accommodate beach and access areas, not
to exceed a volume greater than 10 cubic yards and meet all applicable
standards of the County Shoreland Management Ordinance, Wetland
Conservation Act, and Department of Natural Resources public waters
permitting as applicable; and

(b)

the minimum required to accommodate for public utilities, roads, trails,
railroad tracks, bridges, and shoreline stabilization projects or to correct
an identified erosion problem or install a recognized best management
Page 8 of 20
May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Review

319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359

water quality improvement, as verified by a qualified resource agency
or the zoning administrator.
4.27

Relocation or alteration of a watercourse (including stabilization projects or the
construction of new or replacement dams, culverts, and bridges). A local
permit is not required if public waters work permit has been obtained from the
Department of Natural Resources, unless a significant area above the ordinary
high water level is also to be disturbed.

5.0

ADMINISTRATION
5.1

Development Approvals.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4.0 of this Ordinance for permitted
activities, standards, and uses and Section 10.0 of this Ordinance for
nonconformities, no person shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair any
substantial damage, cause any substantial improvement, improve, or movein, or demolish any building or structure within the Floodplain District. No
mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, obstruction, drilling
operation or other form of development as defined herein in Section 7.0 of this
Ordinance shall be allowed. These activities are currently not allowed within
the Flood Plain District and would only be allowed if this Ordinance is amended
to allow such activities in the future with appropriate specified flood protection
performance standards and the issuance of development permits.

5.2

Interpretation of District Boundaries.
The boundaries of the zoning districts shall be determined by scaling distances
on the Official Flood District Map and the attachments thereto. Where
interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of the district
as shown on the Official Flood District Map and the attachments thereto, as for
example where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary
and actual field conditions and there is a formal appeal of the decision of the
Zoning Administrator, the Chisago County Board of Adjustment and Appeals
shall make the necessary interpretation. All decisions will be based on
elevations on the regional (100-year) flood profile, the ground elevations that
existed on the site at the time the Chisago County adopted its initial Floodplain
Management Ordinance or on the date of the first National Flood Insurance
Program map showing the area within the 100-year floodplain, if earlier, and
other available technical data. Persons contesting the location of the district
boundaries shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the
Board of Adjustment and Appeals and to submit technical evidence for
determining the 100-year flood elevation the floodway and flood fringe
boundaries pursuant to Section 8.07 08, Administrative Appeals, of the Chisago

Page 9 of 20
May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Review

360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402

County Zoning Ordinance, No. 08-3 and consistent with the definitions of
floodway and flood fringe in Section 7.0 of this Ordinance.
5.3

Variances.
The Board of Adjustment shall submit by mail to the Commissioner of Natural
Resources a copy of the application for proposed variances sufficiently in
advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the
hearing. A copy of all decisions granting variances shall be forwarded by mail
to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action.
No variance shall have the effect of allowing any use prohibited in the Flood
Plain District, permit a lower degree of protection than the regulatory flood
protection elevation or permit standards lower than those required by state
law. The Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant for a variance that: 1)
The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the 100-year flood
elevation will result in increased insurance premium rates for flood insurance
up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage; and 2) such
construction below the 100-year flood elevation increases risk to life and
property. The community shall maintain a record of all variance actions,
including justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its
annual or biennial report submitted to the Administrator of the National Flood
Insurance Program. The following additional variance criteria of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency must be satisfied:
(a)

Variances shall not be issued by a community within any designated
regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood
discharge would result.

(b)

Variances shall only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of
good and sufficient cause, (ii) a determination that failure to grant the
variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii)
a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in
increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety,
extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or
victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or
ordinances.

(c)

Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance
is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.

5.31

An application for a Variance to the provisions of this Ordinance will be
processed and reviewed in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section
394.27, Subd. 7 and this Ordinance.

5.32

Variances must not be issued within any designated regulatory floodway if any
increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result.
Page 10 of 20
May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Review

403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444

5.33

Variances from the provisions in this Ordinance may only be issued by a
community upon:
(a)

A showing of good and sufficient cause,

(b)

A determination that failure to grant the Variance would result in
exceptional hardship to the applicant, and

(c)

A determination that the granting of a Variance will not result in
increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety,
extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or
victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or
ordinances.

5.34

Variances from the provisions in this Ordinance may only be issued upon a
determination that the Variance is the minimum necessary, considering the
flood hazard, to afford relief.

5.35

Variances must be consistent with the general purpose of these standards and
the intent of applicable provisions in state and federal law.

5.36

Though Variances may be used to modify permissible methods of flood
protection, no Variance shall permit a lesser degree of flood protection than
the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE).

5.37

The Zoning Administrator must notify the applicant for a Variance that:
(a)

The issuance of a Variance to construct a structure below the base
flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up
to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage; and

(b)

Such construction below the base or regional flood level increases risks
to life and property. Such notification must be maintained with a record
of all Variance actions.

5.4

Notifications for Watercourse Alterations:
Before authorizing any alteration or relocation of a river or stream, the Zoning
Administrator must notify adjacent communities. If the applicant has applied
for a permit to work in public waters pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Section
103G.245, this will suffice as adequate notice. A copy of the notification must
also be submitted to FEMA.

Page 11 of 20
May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Review

445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486

5.5

Notification to FEMA When Physical Changes Increase or Decrease Base Flood
Elevations:
Where physical changes affecting flooding conditions may increase or
decrease the water surface elevation of the base flood, the County must notify
FEMA of the changes in order to obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), by
submitting a copy of the relevant technical or scientific data as soon as
practicable, but no later than six months after the date such supporting
information becomes available. Within areas where the floodway has not been
delineated, a map revision is only required if development results in stage
increases greater than 0.5 feet.

5.6

Notifications to the Department of Natural Resources.
5.71 All notices of public hearings to consider variances under this ordinance
must be sent via electronic mail to the Department of Natural Resources
respective area hydrologist at least ten (10) days before the hearings. Notices
of hearings to consider subdivisions/plats must include copies of the
subdivision/plat.
5.72 A copy of all decisions granting variances and conditional uses under this
ordinance must be sent via electronic mail to the Department of Natural
Resources respective area hydrologist within ten (10) days of final action.

5.7

Amendments.
All amendments to this Ordinance must be submitted to and approved by the
Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to adoption.

5.8

Detachments.
The Official Flood District Map and Flood Insurance Rate Map panels adopted
by reference into Section 3.0 of this Ordinance will include floodplain areas that
lie inside of the incorporated boundaries of municipalities at the time of
adoption of this Ordinance. If any of these floodplain land areas are detached
from an incorporated municipality and placed under the jurisdiction of
Chisago County after the date of adoption of this Ordinance, the newly
detached floodplain lands shall be subject to the provisions of this Ordinance
immediately upon the date of the detachment.

6.0

WARNING OF DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY

This Ordinance does not imply that areas outside the Floodplain District or land uses
permitted within the district will be free from flooding or damages. This Ordinance shall not
create liability on the part of Chisago County or any officer or employee thereof for any flood
damages that result from reliance on this Ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully
made thereunder.
Page 12 of 20
May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Review

487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528

7.0

DEFINITIONS

Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this Ordinance shall must be
interpreted according to so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common
usage and so as to give this Ordinance its most reasonable application.
Accessory Structure. A structure, as defined in this Ordinance, that is on the same parcel of
property as, and is incidental to, the principal structure or use; an accessory structure
specifically excludes structures used for human habitation.
Base Flood. The flood having a one-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any
given year. “Base flood” is synonymous with the term “regional flood” used in Minnesota Rules,
part 6120.5000.
Base Flood Elevation (BFE). The elevation of the base flood, regional flood, or one-percent
annual chance flood. The term “base flood elevation” is used in the flood insurance study.
Basement. Any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base subgrade
(below ground level) on all four sides, regardless of the depth of excavation below ground
level.
Building. See Structure.
Development. Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate including, but
not limited to, buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures, recreational vehicles,
mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, drilling operations, or storage of
materials or equipment.
Farm Fence. An open type of fence of posts and horizontally run wire, further specified in
Minnesota Statutes, section 344.02 Subd. 1(a - d).
Flood Fringe. The portion of the one-percent annual chance floodplain located outside of the
floodway. The flood fringe shall comprise those Zone AE areas shown on the Flood Insurance
Rate Map Panels adopted in Section 3.0 of this Ordinance that are located outside of the
delineated floodway. The flood fringe boundary and the regulatory flood protection elevation
for Zone A and Zone AE areas without a delineated floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
Panels adopted in Section 3.0 of this Ordinance shall be determined on a case-by-case basis
by Chisago County in accordance with the criteria spelled out in Minnesota Regulations, Parts
6120.5000 – 6120.6200 and 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 65. When determining the
flood fringe boundaries for lakes, wetlands, and other basins, Chisago County can determine
the area below the 100-year flood elevation and the area above the ordinary high water level
as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.005, subdivision 14 to be flood fringe.
Page 13 of 20
May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Review

529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). An official map of a community, on which the Federal
Insurance Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium
zones applicable to the community. A FIRM that has been made available digitally is called a
Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM).
Flood Insurance Study (FIS). The study referenced in Section 3.2, which is an examination,
evaluation and determination of flood hazards, and if appropriate, corresponding surface
elevations, or an examination, evaluation, and determination of mudslide (i.e. mudflow)
and/or flood-related erosion hazards.
Floodplain. The beds, channel and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse, or
other source which have been or hereafter may be covered inundated by the baseregional
flood.
Floodway. The bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions
of the adjoining floodplain which are reasonably requiredmust be reserved to carry or store
the base flood discharge without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more
than one-half foot.regional flood discharge. The floodway shall include those areas
delineated as floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Map Panels adopted in Section 3.0 of this
Ordinance. Floodway boundaries and the regulatory flood protection elevation for Zone A and
Zone AE areas without a delineated floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Map Panels
adopted in Section 3.0 of this Ordinance shall be determined on a case-by-case basis by
Chisago County in accordance with the criteria spelled out in Minnesota Regulations, Parts
6120.5000 – 6120.6200 and 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 65. When determining the
floodway boundaries for lakes, wetlands, and other basins, Chisago County can determine
the area at or below the ordinary high water level as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section
103G.005, subdivision 14 to be floodway.
Lowest Floor. The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An
unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, used solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or
storage in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building’s lowest floor;
provided, that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the
applicable non-elevation design requirements of 44 CFR § 60.3.
Manufactured Home. A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a
permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when
attached to the required utilities. The term “manufactured home” does not include the term
“recreational vehicle.”
New Construction. Structures for which the start of construction commenced on or after the
effective date of an adopted floodplain management regulation, and includes any
subsequent improvements to such structures.
Page 14 of 20
May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Review

572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614

Obstruction. Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection,
excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure,
or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, or regulatory flood
plain which may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or
by catching or collecting debris carried by such water.
Principal Structure. The main building or other structure on a lot that is utilized for the
property’s principal use.
Recreational Vehicle. A vehicle that is built on a single chassis, is 400 square feet or less
when measured at the largest horizontal projection, is designed to be self-propelled or
permanently towable by a light duty truck, and is designed primarily not for use as a
permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or
seasonal use. Those vehicles not meeting this definition shall be considered a structure for
the purposes of this Ordinance. For the purposes of this Ordinance, the term recreational
vehicle shall be synonymous with the term “travel trailer/travel vehicle”.
Regional Flood. A flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred
generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on
an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100 year recurrence interval. Regional flood is
synonymous with the term “base flood” used in the Flood Insurance Study.
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE). Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation - The
regulatory flood protection elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot above the
elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by
encroachments on the floodplain that result from designation of a floodway.
Special flood hazard area (SFHA). An area having special flood, mudslide (i.e., mudflow), or
flood-related erosion hazards, and shown on an FHBM or FIRM as Zone A, AO, A1-30, AE, AR,
AR/A1-30, AR/AE, AR/AO, AR/AH, AR/A, A99, AH, VO, V1-30, VE, V, M, or E.
Start of Construction. Includes substantial improvement, and means the date the permit was
issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation,
addition, placement, or other improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. The actual
start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site,
such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or
any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a
foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing,
grading and Last Revised July 2025 filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or
walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, foundations, or the
erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory
buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main
Page 15 of 20
May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Review

615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654

structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first
alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that
alteration affects the external dimensions of the building.
Structure. Anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground,
including, but not limited to, buildings, factories, sheds, detached garages, cabins,
manufactured homes, and other similar items.
Substantial Damage. Means damage of any origin sustained by a structure where the cost
of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent
of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.
Substantial Improvement. Within any consecutive 365-day period, any reconstruction,
rehabilitation (including normal maintenance and repair), repair after damage, addition, or
other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the
market value of the structure before the “start of construction” of the improvement. This term
includes structures that have incurred “substantial damage,” regardless of the actual repair
work performed. The term does not, however, include either:
(a)

Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state
or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been
identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum
necessary to assure safe living conditions.

(b)

Any alteration of an “historic structure,” provided that the alteration will not
preclude the structure’s continued designation as an “historic structure.” For
the purpose of this Ordinance, “historic structure” shall be as defined in 44
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 59.1.

Variance. “Variance” means the same as that defined in 44 CFR § 59.1 and Minnesota
Statutes, Section 394.27, Subd. 7.
Violation. “Violation” means the failure of a structure or other development to be fully
compliant with the community's floodplain management regulations.
8.0

PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT
8.1

Uses in Violation of the Ordinance. Every structure, fill, deposit, or other use
placed or maintained in the floodplain in violation of this Ordinance shall be
considered a public nuisance.

Page 16 of 20
May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Review

655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674

8.2

Civil Remedies. The creation of a public nuisance may be enjoined and the
maintenance of a public nuisance under this Ordinance may be abated by an
action brought by Chisago County or the Department of Natural Resources.

8.3

Enforcement. Violations of the provisions of this Ordinance constitute a
misdemeanor and is punishable as defined by law. The Zoning Administrator
may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to it including but
not limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions, after-the-fact permits, orders
for corrective measures or a request to the National Flood Insurance Program
for denial of flood insurance. The County must act in good faith to enforce
these official controls and to correct Ordinance violations to the extent possible
so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program.

Violation of the provisions of this Ordinance or failure to comply with any of its
requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection
with grants of variances) shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined
by law. Each additional day that lapses shall constitute an additional violation of this
Ordinance and shall be prosecuted accordingly.
9.0

SEVERABILITY

675
676
677
678
679

If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this Ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or

680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694

A structure or the use of a structure or premises which was lawful before the passage or

invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Ordinance shall not be
affected thereby.
10.0

NONCONFORMITIES

amendment of this Ordinance, but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this
Ordinance, may be continued subject to the following conditions.
10.1

No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a way that
increases its nonconformity. There shall be no expansion to the outside
dimension of a nonconforming structure in the floodplain.

10.2

Any structural alteration to a nonconforming structure or nonconforming use in
the floodplain which would result in increasing the flood damage potential of
that structure or use shall be protected to the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation in accordance with any of the flood proofing techniques ( i.e. , FP-1
thru FP-4 floodproofing classifications) allowable in the State Building Code,
except as further restricted in 10.4 below.

Page 17 of 20
May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Review

695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736

10.3

If any nonconforming use or structure is substantially damaged, as defined in
Section 7.0 of this Ordinance, it shall not be reconstructed unless it is located in
the flood fringe portion of the floodplain and it is reconstructed in accordance
with the standards found in Section 10.5 of this Ordinance.

10.4

If a substantial improvement occurs, as defined in Section 7.0 of this Ordinance,
from any rehabilitation, reconstruction, alteration, or other improvement to the
inside dimensions of an existing nonconforming structure, then the existing
nonconforming structure must be located in the flood fringe portion of the
floodplain and meet the requirements of Section 10.5 of this Ordinance. A
nonconforming structure shall not be substantially improved if said structure is
located in the floodway.

10.5

The following standards and procedures apply to nonconforming structures
that have been substantially damaged or substantially improved in the flood
fringe portion of the floodplain:
(a)

All structures, including manufactured homes, must be elevated on fill
so that the lowest floor including basement floor is at or above the
regulatory flood protection elevation. The finished fill elevation for
structures shall be no lower than one (1) foot below the regulatory flood
protection elevation and the fill shall extend at such elevation at least
fifteen (15) feet beyond the outside limits of the structure erected
thereon.

(b)

Fill shall be properly compacted and the slopes shall be properly
protected by the use of riprap, vegetative cover or other acceptable
method.

(c)

Floodplain developments shall not adversely affect the hydraulic
capacity of the channel and adjoining floodplain of any tributary
watercourse or drainage system where a floodway or other
encroachment limit has not been specified on the Flood Insurance Rate
Map Panels adopted in Section 3.0 of this Ordinance.

(d)

All manufactured homes must be securely anchored to an adequately
anchored foundation system that resists flotation, collapse and lateral
movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not to be limited
to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This
requirement is in addition to applicable state or local anchoring
requirements for resisting wind forces.

Page 18 of 20
May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Review

737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778

(e)

On-site Sewage Treatment and Water Supply Systems. Where public
utilities are not provided: 1) On-site water supply systems must be
designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the
systems; and 2) New or replacement on-site sewage treatment
systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood
waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood
waters and they shall not be subject to impairment or contamination
during times of flooding. Any sewage treatment system designed in
accordance with the State's current statewide standards for on-site
sewage treatment systems shall be determined to be in compliance
with this Section.

(f)

A permit issued by the Zoning Administrator in conformity with the
provisions of this Ordinance shall be secured prior to the
commencement of construction.

(g)

Application for a permit shall be made in duplicate to the Zoning
Administrator on forms furnished by Chisago County and shall include,
but may not be limited to, the following where applicable: plans in
duplicate drawn to scale, showing the nature, location, dimensions, and
elevations of the lot; existing or proposed structures, fill, or storage of
materials; and the location of the foregoing in relation to the stream
channel.

(h)

Prior to granting a permit, the Zoning Administrator shall determine that
the applicant has obtained all necessary state and federal permits.

(i)

Certification. The applicant shall be required to submit certification by a
registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land
surveyor that the finished fill, building elevations or flood proofing
measures were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this
Ordinance.

(j)

Record of First Floor Elevation. The Zoning Administrator shall maintain a
record of the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all
new structures and alterations to existing structures in the floodplain.
The Zoning Administrator shall also maintain a record of the elevation
to which structures or alterations to structures are flood proofed.

11.0

REPEALER

This Ordinance repeals and replaces the Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance
adopted on March 21, 2012 as Ordinance 12-1, and all amendments thereto.
Page 19 of 20
May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Review

779
780
781
782
783
784

1112.0 EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval and
publication, as required by law and/or charter.

Page 20 of 20
May 7, 2026 Planning Commission Review

CHISAGO COUNTY ORDINANCES: ISSUE IDENTIFICATION TRACKING MATRIX
May 7, 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

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 Coordination and engagement with local units of government (LGUs)
work session agenda but held over due to McCarthy's absence. Added to 04/09/25
with the intent of opening lines of communication, building awareness,
meeting agenda but held over at McCarthy's request. Added to 05/01/25 meeting agenda,
and providing opportunity for the LGUs to be more involved.
with consensus reached by Planning Commission on same date.

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.

Other

Staff to present topic to County Board
for consideration and direction

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
tentatively scheduled for 05/21/26
work session.

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

5

SSTS Ordinance 10-1

03/19/25

Full Ordinance

All

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

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

Board Direction to Proceed

Develop Zoning Ordinance regulations specific to data centers.

Commission Direction Requested

6

Short-Term Rental Licensing
Ordinance 060320-1

06/18/25

Full 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.

7

Data Centers

10/02/25

NA

NA

Proposed by Commissioner McCarthy on 10/02/25 to consider potential sizes and impacts
of data centers.

8

Water-Related Regulations
within Zoning Ordinance

9

Temporary Storage and
Shipping Containers

10

Floodplain Management
Ordinance
(Ordinance
No. 12-1)

11/06/25

11/12/25

03/18/26

3
7.13-7.18

4.19

Full Ordinance

9-58
179-182

The Lower St. Croix Watershed Partnership (LSCWP) extended an offer to review the
County's water-related regulations / ordinances to identify possible updates which
provide clear, effective, and consistent standards with the intent of protecting the
County's lakes, rivers, and wetlands. The LSCWP has engaged a counsultant to carry out
the review.

County Board has directed the Planning Commission to monitor effectiveness and review
109-112 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

Consider suggested ordinance amendment(s) based on feedback from
the Lower St. Croix Watershed Partnership and its consultant.

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
Update of the 2012 Chisago County Floodplain Management Ordinance
concerning public infrastructure driveways/roadways/bridges/culverts, etc. The County
to address deficiencies and based on the current MN DNR Simplified
Board directed, on March 18, 2026, to proceed with an adminstrative review / update and
Model Floodplain Ordinance.
public hearing process.

CB 06/18/25

Preliminary discussion at
11/06/25 Planning Commission
meeting

PC 02/05/26

Board Direction to Proceed with
Monitor & Review of Section
4.19

In Progress - Staff presented memo to
Planning Commission on 02/05/26
providing framework and ideas for
future discussion, and Commission
Other - Over the Course of the Next
reached consensus to continue
CB 11/12/25
Year
monitoring Section 4.19 as adopted
and directed staff to provide quarterly
monitoring metric updates. Staff
provided Q1 2026 metrics on
04/02/26.

Board Direction to Proceed

CB 03/18/26

High

In-Progress - Public Hearing Scheduled
for 05/07/26.