On the agenda: Center City meeting — data center (Sep 3)

Meeting Agenda
September 3, 2026 | 7:00 pm
Chisago County Government Center | 313 N. Main Street | Board Room 160A | Center City, MN 55012

The Planning Commission’s Wednesday, September 2, 2026 tour has been CANCELED

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.

August 6, 2026 Regular Meeting

5. Receive all Materials and Submittals into Record
a.

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

6. Public Hearings – New Hearings
None
7.

Public Hearings – Continued Hearings
a. Sno-Baron’s Snowmobile Club, Inc. – Property owner Sno-Baron’s Snowmobile Club, Inc. is requesting
a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Commercial Recreation Area allowing up to 15 annual events, in
addition to the annual Hay Days event, including events focused on educational, youth and
community programs, social gatherings, and cultural and festival gatherings. The combined 140±acre subject site is located within the Agricultural (AG) District at 38740 Oriole Avenue / CR 70 in
Sunrise Township, S22, T35, R20 (PIDs 09.00269.00 and 09.00271.00).
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.

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

County Board Liaison Reports – Commissioners Greene and Dahlberg

11. Miscellaneous
a.

Ordinance Issue Identification Tracking Matrix

12. Adjourn Meeting
•

The next special work session is scheduled for Thursday, September 17, 2026 at 6:00 pm.

•

The next regular meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 1, 2026 at 7:00 pm.

Chisago County Planning Commission Tour
Wednesday, September 2, 2026 at 9:00 am
Departing from Chisago County Highway Department
31325 Oasis Road, Center City, MN 55012

THIS TOUR HAS BEEN CANCELED ~ THE MAP IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY

Sno-Baron’s Snowmobile Club, Inc.
38740 Oriole Avenue / CR 70
Sunrise Township
PIDs 09.00269.00 and 09.00271.00

CHISAGO COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
August 6, 2026
The Chisago County Planning Commission met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 6, 2026 at
the Chisago County Government Center.
Staff Present: Beth Gervais, Land Services Coordinator; and, Kurt Schneider, Director of Environmental Services.
Chair Wille called the meeting to order and led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. A roll call of
Commission members was taken. Commission members present: Eric Leivian, Chip Yeager, Chris DuBose, Jim
McCarthy, Dave Whitney, and Jolene Wille. Absent: John Sutcliffe (excused). A quorum was established. Also
present: Ex Officio County Commissioners Rick Greene and Dan Dahlberg.
Approval of Agenda – Motion by Yeager to approve the agenda as presented; second by Leivian. The motion
passed 6-0.
Approval of Minutes – Motion by DuBose to approve the July 2, 2026 regular meeting minutes as presented;
second by Leivian. The motion passed 6-0.
Receive all Materials and Submittals into Record – Motion by Whitney 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
Daniel & Sheri Karpenko – Gervais stated that property owners Daniel & Sheri Karpenko had requested a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Major Home Occupation on property located at 26781 Olympic Trail in
Franconia Township, S23, T33, R20 (PID 04.00374.10). Gervais explained that the business would provide repair,
restoration, and machining services for classic vehicles. Because the Home Occupation was proposed to be
conducted within an accessory structure greater than 1,200 sf in size, the proposed activity qualified as a
Major Home Occupation rather than a Minor Home Occupation.
Gervais provided details about the 5± acre subject property, including general location, zoning classification
of Agricultural (AG) District, surrounding zoning classification of AG District, and surrounding property sizes.
Additionally, Gervais provided detail about the approximate 4,000-sf structure proposed to be used for Major
Home Occupation purposes, noting that there was a cluster of five trees in close proximity along the west
property boundary, with potentially two of the trees located on the neighboring property, and a cluster of
nine trees in close proximity located along the south property boundary, all of which were located on the
neighboring property.
Gervais provided details about the proposed Major Home Occupation as provided in the application
materials and included in the staff report, such as detail about the approximate 4,000-sf detached
accessory structure used for business purposes, employees, waste disposal / environmental impacts,
screening, parking and traffic, impact on surrounding area, hours of operation, lot size and setbacks, and
sanitation accommodations.
Gervais summarized details of the review process, explaining that the Technical / Plat Review Committee met
with property owner D. Karpenko on July 8, 2026. Karpenko verbally indicated that he would like to extend the
proposed hours of operation from 8:00 am - 4:00 pm to 8:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday, and be
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

08/06/2026

Page 1 of 4

allowed to have up to one non-resident employee in the future. The Committee didn’t identify any immediate
concerns with the request. The Franconia Town Board considered the request at its July 7, 2026 meeting and
recommended approval with no comments or recommended conditions. The State mandated 60-day review
period was scheduled to expire on August 11, 2026, prior to all requisite meetings, therefore the Department
extended the review period by an additional 60 days as allowed by Minnesota Statute 15.99. The extended
review period was scheduled to expire on October 10, 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.
Chair Wille invited the applicant to address the Planning Commission. The property owners’ representative,
Shannon Kratzke, was present and approached the Commission. Whitney inquired if there was water within
the accessory structure and, if there was, were there also floor drains. Kratzke responded that she believed
there was water in the building but, with remote confirmation from D. Karpenko, there were no floor drains.
McCarthy, recalling from the Planning Commission’s August 5, 2026 site visit that D. Karpenko commented
that used motor oil was placed in the residential garbage, questioned if this disposal method was
appropriate. DuBose responded that recycling haulers were known to take used motor oil. DuBose inquired if
the septic system was a mound system. Kratzke responded in the affirmative.
Chair Wille opened the public hearing and sought comment.
Peter Storlie of 26798 Olympic Trail, Franconia Township stated that he believed the approach for the subject
site driveway was partially located on the neighboring property, 26725 Olympic Trail, which was owned by his
daughter and son-in-law, and was concerned that an accident at the approach could create liability for the
neighboring property owners.
With no additional members of the audience wishing to speak, motion by DuBose to close the public hearing;
second by Yeager. The motion passed 6-0.
DuBose, referring to Storlie’s comment, speculated that the approach may have been located within
Township Right-of-Way.
DuBose, reflecting on his observations from the Planning Commission’s August 5, 2026 site visit, offered
comments on screening, suggesting that his only area of concern was the approximate 100’ distance along
the west property boundary between the two stands of existing trees. DuBose added that he asked D.
Karpenko about his preference between fencing and trees as a screening method and Karpenko indicated
that he had fencing material available and fencing was his preference.
Motion by DuBose to amend staff-recommended condition no. 5c to eliminate the need for a 175’ length of
fence extending east of the southwest property corner and only require a 100’ length of fence extending
north of the southwest property corner; second by Whitney. Whitney commented that he didn’t believe any
fencing or added screening was necessary being that the accessory structure proposed to be used for Major
Home Occupation purposes sat at a lower elevation than surrounding homes and any added screening
would not serve the intended purpose. Whitney added that the accessory structure was consistent in
appearance with neighboring properties. Members of the Planning Commission briefly discussed their views
on screening. The motion passed 5-1 (Whitney).
DuBose noted that the request didn’t involve an increased strain on the septic system, and he didn’t believe
it was necessary to require the applicants to have a septic compliance inspection as recommended by staff.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

08/06/2026

Page 2 of 4

Motion by DuBose to eliminate staff-recommended condition no. 6 which required a septic compliance
inspection within 60 days of CUP approval; second by Whitney. The motion passed 6-0.
Motion by DuBose to adopt Resolution No. PC2026-0801, a resolution of the Planning Commission of Chisago
County, Minnesota, recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Major Home Occupation on
property located at 26781 Olympic Trail in Franconia Township, with Findings of Fact as presented and
conditions as amended; second by McCarthy. The motion passed 6-0.
Recommended Conditions:
1. This Conditional Use Permit grants approval for a Major Home Occupation conducted within a single
accessory structure exceeding 1,200 square feet in area and specializing in automobile maintenance,
repair, restoration, and restoration-related machining services, as described in the application materials
dated received June 5, 2026 and kept on file with the Chisago County Department of Environmental
Services and as conditioned herein.
2.

Standard hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 6:00 pm. No Major Home
Occupation activities shall be conducted between the hours of 6:00 pm and 8:00 am, unless the activity is
taking place within the dwelling.

3.

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

4.

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

5.

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

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

b.

No outdoor display or storage of business related materials / equipment shall be permitted.

c.

The permit holder shall install a 6’ tall privacy fence in the southwest corner of the subject site. At a
minimum, the fence shall extend 100’ north from the southwest property corner and 175’ east of the
southwest property corner. The fence shall be installed in accordance with Chisago County Zoning
Ordinance Section 4.11 (Fences).

d.

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

6.

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

7.

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

8.

Any expansion or intensification of the approved use – including, but not limited to, expanded hours of
operation, an increase in the number of non-resident employees working at the premises, use of
additional structures for business activity, or other expansion or intensification as determined by the
Chisago County Department of Environmental Services – shall only be allowed upon further review by the
Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Commissioners by way of a Conditional Use Permit
Amendment.

9.

The permit holder shall be responsible for obtaining all applicable State licenses and Chisago County
permits, including but not necessarily limited to a change of occupancy for the subject accessory
structure.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

08/06/2026

Page 3 of 4

10. Annual certification of the Conditional Use Permit is required. The permit holder shall notify the County
annually that the activity permitted by the Conditional Use Permit is ongoing and the activities being
conducted continue to adhere to the conditions of approval. Failure to maintain certification may be a
basis to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. The property shall be made open and available for regular
inspection at any time during reasonable hours by the Chisago County Department of Environmental
Services and/or any duly authorized law enforcement agency.
Public Hearings – Continued Hearings
Floodplain Management Ordinance Amendment – Chair Wille noted that staff had requested that the
Commission receive any public testimony and then continue the public hearing to September 3, 2026. Chair
Wille then sought testimony. No members of the audience were present to speak to the proposed Ordinance
Amendment.
Motion by DuBose to continue the public hearing to September 3, 2026; second by Yeager. The motion
passed 6-0.
Whitney inquired about the status of the proposed Amendment. Director Schnieder explained that the draft
Ordinance was nearly complete; however, due to the ongoing labor strike and prioritization of Department
activities, staff was not able to focus on the Ordinance. McCarthy sought clarification on the purpose of the
proposed Amendment. Director Schneider provided a brief summary, explaining that the existing Ordinance
was quite restrictive and the proposed Amendment would allow for such activities as public infrastructure
improvement projects.
Old Business – None
New Business – None
Communications and Reports
County Board Liaison Reports – County Commissioner Greene shared that the County Board adopted a
twelve-month moratorium on data centers at its August 5, 2026 meeting. Commissioner Dahlberg shared that
the County Board approved the abatement of a property which posed a public health hazard in Rushseba
Township at its August 5, 2026 meeting.
Miscellaneous
Ordinance Issue Identification Tracking Matrix – Gervais shared that the matrix included minor updates
along with the addition of line item 12 related to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources’ requirement
that the County update its Buffer Ordinance by July 31, 2027.
Motion by DuBose to cancel the August 20, 2026 special work session; second by Whitney. The motion passed
6-0.
Adjourn Meeting – Motion by Leivian to adjourn the meeting; second by Yeager. The motion passed 6-0. The
meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m.

____________________________________________
Jolene Wille

ATTEST:

Chair

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

_____________________________________________
Beth Gervais
Land Services Coordinator

08/06/2026

Page 4 of 4

Item No. 7a

Staff Report
TO:

Planning Commission

SUBJECT:

Conditional Use Permit Allowing Commercial Recreation Area

FROM:

DATE:

Beth Gervais, Land Services Coordinator

38740 Oriole Avenue / CR 70, Sunrise and Amador Townships
September 3, 2026

ACTION TO CONSIDER

The Planning Commission will conduct a continued public hearing to consider a request for

Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Commercial Recreation Area allowing up to 15 annual events,

including events focused on educational, youth and community programs, social gatherings, and
cultural and festival gatherings.

SITE & APPLICATION INFORMATION
Property Owner(s):
Applicant(s):

General Location:

Sno-Baron’s Snowmobile Club, Inc.

Deborah Olson, Meshell Gorsegner, and Laurie Vevle

38740 Oriole Avenue / CR 70

Sunrise Township

Section 22, Township 35, Range 20

PIDs:

09.00269.00 and 09.00271.00

Current Zoning:

Agricultural (AG) District

Property Area:

Adjacent Zoning:
North:

South:

East:

West:

Date Application Received:

140± Acres Combined

Agricultural (AG) District

Agricultural (AG) District

Agricultural (AG) District

Agricultural (AG) District
April 30, 2026

Date Application Complete: June 3, 2026

60-Day Review Period:

Extended Review Period:

Permit Number:

August 2, 2026

October 1, 2026

2026-0010-LU

BACKGROUND

Property owner Sno-Baron’s Snowmobile Club, Inc.,

represented by applicants Deborah Olson, Meshell

Gorsegner, and Laurie Vevle, is requesting a CUP for
Commercial Recreation Area allowing up to 15

annual events, in addition to the annual Hay Days
event, including events focused on educational,

youth and community programs, social gatherings, and cultural and festival gatherings.
The application, as submitted on April 30, 2026 and as reviewed by the Sunrise and Amador Town
Boards in June 2026, included a written narrative and Exhibit A dated May 31, 2026. Based on the

Sunrise and Amador Town Board meetings, the applicant revised the written narrative and Exhibit A
with documents dated June 22, 2026. The revised documents were primarily intended to provide

clarification to the original documents. The original and revised versions were included in the staff

report prepared for the July 2, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, the same date that the requisite

public hearing was opened.

After receiving public testimony on July 2nd and discussing the request, the Planning Commission

motioned to continue the public hearing to September 3, 2026 and extend the review period by 60
days. Among other reasons, this extended review period allowed Commissioners opportunity to

submit comments and questions about the application to staff to be forwarded to the applicants
for possible consideration of a clarified and/or amended application. The applicants received

notice of the extended review period, compiled Planning Commissioner feedback, and draft July 2,
2026 Planning Commission meeting minutes via correspondence dated July 10, 2026.

The applicants submitted a revised application, dated July 30, 2026, to the Department of

Environmental Services on July 31, 2026. Upon review of the July 30th application, staff notes the

following but is not intending for this to be an exhaustive list of observations:
•

The original application included three parcels, two within Sunrise Township and one within

Amador Township. With no activities proposed on the Amador Township parcel, the applicants
removed this parcel from the amended application. This revision resulted in a second review

and recommendation from Sunrise Township, but no second formal review or recommendation
sought from Amador Township. However, the Department provided a courtesy copy of the
amended application to Amador Township via email on July 31, 2026.
•

With each version of the application, the proposed maximum number of event attendees has,
for the most part, been reduced.

Version 1 – May 31, 2026

Version 2 – June 22, 2026
Version 3 – July 30, 2026

•

Educational, Youth &
Community Programs

Social / Community
Gatherings

Cultural & Festival
Gatherings

500

2,000

3,500

100-1,000
600

500-5,000

1,000-15,000

1,500

3,000

The written narrative provides more detailed descriptions for the three proposed event
categories, as well as proposed maximums for each event category per year.

•

The written narrative notes that no events will be held on the same weekend as the Almelund
Threshing Show.

•

The written narrative includes a 60-day notice to the Department of Environmental Services of
scheduled events as well as attendance numbers provided 60-days post event.

To view copies of the May 31, 2026 and June 22, 2026 applications, please refer to the July 2, 2026
Planning Commission meeting packet (Planning Commission Meeting Agenda).

2

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
There was Planning Commissioner discussion and public hearing testimony provided on July 2,

2026 about a similar request from Sno-Baron’s in 2016. In preparation for the continued public
hearing, staff reviewed the 2016 application and provides the following details:
•

Sno-Baron’s submitted an application for CUP Amendment with the intent of amending

conditions specific to the annual Hay Days event and to allow additional activities at the

property (PIDs 09.00269.00 and 09.00271.00). Rather than requesting a specific number of

additional events, the property owner requested an additional 20 days of permitted activities.
•

The Planning Commission conducted the requisite public hearing on February 4, 2016 and
tabled the request to allow Commissioners additional time to review the application.

•

The Planning Commission further discussed the application at its March 3, 2016 meeting and

ultimately recommended approval of the request, with a vote of 5-1, with findings of fact and

conditions presented by staff and further developed by the Commission. Among several other
recommended conditions of approval, the Planning Commission offered support for up to five

additional annual events with a maximum of 15 days, and no more than one outdoor event per
month.
•

The County Board directed at its March 16, 2016 meeting that findings of fact to support denial
be developed for consideration at the April 6, 2026 meeting.

•

The County Board denied the request for CUP Amendment with a vote of 3-1-1 on April 6, 2016.

LEGAL OPINION ON “SEGMENTING”

At the July 2nd Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner McCarthy introduced the issue of

“segmenting” as a means for Sno-Baron’s to more easily gain approval for multiple / separate

applications rather than seeking approval for a single comprehensive application and requested

that the County Attorney’s Office provide an opinion on whether the current request qualifies as
segmenting.

Assistant County Attorney Fuge has provided a legal opinion memo on this issue; however, the

memo was provided following completion of the staff report and draft resolutions. Therefore,

neither the report nor the draft resolutions benefit from or contemplate the contents of the legal

opinion memo and staff reserves the right to provide the Planning Commission with amended draft
resolutions at the September 3, 2026 meeting.
PROPOSAL ANALYSIS
The following analysis is based on the amended July 30, 2026 application. Some details of the
previous application are shown stricken with corresponding details of the current application
shown underlined.

Description of Proposed Use, Attendance, and Frequency:
•

Exhibit A shows that there will be three categories of events with varying maximum attendance.
o

Educational, youth and community programs will have a maximum attendance of 500 600;

o

Cultural and festival gatherings will have a maximum attendance of 3,500 3,000.

o

Social gatherings will have a maximum attendance of 2,000 1,500; and,

3

•
•
•

Exhibit A provides examples of events for each of the three categories.

Two of the 15 proposed events may be multi-day events (Saturday and Sunday).

The maximum number of events per quarter is proposed as follows:
o

January – March: 3

o

April – June: 6

o

October – December: 4

o

July – September: 2 (excluding the weekend of the Almelund Threshing Show)

Hours of Operation:
•
•

Events will occur between the hours of 7:00 am and 10:00 pm.

Event set up and tear down may occur 24 hours in advance and 24 hours post event, if needed.

On-Site Traffic & Parking:

•
•
•
•
•

Each event will be planned according to activity and parking needs.

All parking will be contained on-site within internal parking areas, preventing congestion on

Oriole Avenue and surrounding roads.

Gate 3 allows for a 3-lane system which accommodates up to 180 vehicles on the property for
entry.

Exhibit B5 B4 illustrates on-site parking areas and numbers of vehicles accommodated.
Exhibits D1 – D5 provide examples of event parking and gate locations.

Sanitation & Waste:
•

Portable restrooms and trash containers will be provided as needed, with numbers of each
based on event scope / size.

Security & Emergency Medical Services:
•

Security, law enforcement, and emergency medical services will be utilized for events as
needed, with event scope / size determining the number of personnel needed.

Food & Beverages:
•

Any selling of food and/or beverages, including alcohol, will be done in compliance with
applicable State and County regulations.

Operational & Mitigation Plans and Other Concerns:
•

•

Event staffing is primarily provided by the event host with a property owner liaison.

The property owner is proposing to coordinate with Department of Environmental Services and
Sheriff’s Office staff 60 days prior to events to provide the most adequate approach to any

•
•

concerns.

In regard to noise, the property owner states that events will abide by Chisago County noise

regulations.

There shall be no fireworks without permission.

Compatibility:
•

The property owner believes that the subject site is uniquely suited for the proposed CUP due to
its size and existing infrastructure.

4

•
•

The size of the subject site provides a natural buffer to adjacent properties, thereby maintaining
the rural and agricultural character of the area.

The property owner believes that the 15 proposed events will be compatible with adjacent land

uses and will not adversely affect the appearance of adjacent properties.
REVIEW PROCESS

The Technical / Plat Review Committee met with four Sno-Baron’s representatives, including

applicants Deborah Olson and Meshell Gorsegner, on June 10, 2026. The group discussed topics

including, but not limited to, the total number of proposed events (15 as indicated in the original /
May 31, 2026 written narrative or 24 as interpreted by the Department based on detail within the
written narrative), the idea and possible methods for providing advance notice of events to the

Townships and County, and internal and external traffic patterns. While the Technical / Plat Review
Committee received the amended application for review and discussion on August 12, 2026, no
members of the Committee provided additional comments.

Given the scope and scale of this particular land use and the involvement of the Chisago County

Sheriff’s Office, staff forwarded the application materials to the Sheriff’s Office on June 9, 2026 for
review and comment. Chief Deputy Wood stated in an email dated June 17, 2026 that the Sherrif’s
Office didn’t have any concerns with the proposed CUP but did recommend two conditions of
approval:
1.

2.

Each event will require a security plan approved by the Chisago County Sherrif’s Office.

The permit holder is responsible for any extraordinary law enforcement costs related to the
events, as deemed necessary by the Chisago County Sherrif.

The Sunrise Town Board considered the request on June 18, 2026 and recommended denial with

the comment that there was not enough detail. To support the Town Board’s recommendation,

applicable portions (Citizens Forum and Sno-Baron’s CUP) of the meeting minutes were provided

(refer to July 2, 2026 staff report). The Town Board considered the amended application on August
20, 2026 and again recommended denial and provided applicable portions (Citizen Forum and
Sno-Baron’s CUP) of the meeting minutes (attached).

Given that the subject site abuts and gains access from St. Croix Trail / MN 95, staff forwarded the
application materials to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) on June 9, 2026

for review and comment. As of completion of this report, MnDOT had not provided any comment for
the County’s consideration.

The application was submitted on April 30, 2026 and, with submission of all required application

materials, deemed complete on June 3, 2026. Prior to expiration of the August 2, 2026 State

mandated 60-day review period and by motion of the Planning Commission, the review period was
extended by an additional 60 days. The extended review period will expire on October 1, 2026.

WRITTEN TESTIMONY
As of completion of this report, written testimony had been received from Tim Smith of 14946 410th

Street, North Branch (attached).

5

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff has prepared two draft resolutions for the Planning Commission’s consideration, one offering

draft findings of fact and draft conditions to support a recommendation of approval and the other
offering draft findings of fact to support a recommendation of denial. The conditions included in
the draft resolution of approval are largely based on details of the July 30, 2026 application.
Whether the Commission supports approval or denial, these resolutions are offered for the

Commission’s review and will likely require further development by the Commission following

closure of the public hearing and deliberation of the request.
OPTIONS
1.

Recommend that the County Board approve the proposed CUP with findings of fact and

conditions presented by staff and, if appropriate, further developed by the Planning
Commission.

2.

Should the Planning Commission determine that the proposed CUP does not comply with

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

upon completion of the public hearing and/or upon discovery of any new or unknown evidence,
recommend that the County Board deny the CUP based on findings of fact presented by staff
and, if appropriate, further developed by the Planning Commission.

Given that the extended review period will expire on October 1, 2026, the Planning Commission
does not have the ability to continue the public hearing or table the request and must instead

make a recommendation of approval or denial on September 3, 2026, unless the property owner
volunteers an extension or a waiver of the review period. If the property owner is willing to

volunteer an extension or waiver of the review period, it must be provided to the County in
writing.

ACTION REQUESTED

Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission hear from the applicants about the amended

application, receive additional testimony into the record and close the public hearing, and motion
to either recommend approval or denial of a Conditional Use Permit allowing Commercial

Recreation Area activities on parcels identified as PIDs 09.00269.00 and 09.00271.00 in Sunrise
Township, with findings of fact and conditions as presented or amended.
ATTACHMENTS
1.

Legal opinion memo

3.

Compiled Planning Commissioner feedback

2.

Amended application dated July 30, 2026

4. Township Presentation Form with meeting minutes

5. Written testimony

6. Draft Resolution No. PC2026-0901 (recommendation of approval)

7.

Draft Resolution No. PC2026-0901 (recommendation of denial)

6

Office of the Chisago County Attorney
Janet Reiter, County Attorney
313 North Main Street, Suite 373
Center City, MN 55012
Phone (651) 213-8400
Facsimile (651) 213-8401

August 28, 2026
To:

LEGAL OPINION MEMO

Chisago County Planning Commission
Attention: Jolene Wille, Chair

From: Jeffrey B. Fuge, Assistant County Attorney
Re:

Conditional Use Permit Application of Sno-Baron’s Snowmobile Club –
Segmenting Conditional Use Permit Applications
Subject Property: 38740 Oriole Avenue, North Branch, MN
PID Nos. 09.00269.00 and 09.00271.00
Zoning District:
Agricultural (AG) District

The County Attorney’s Office provides this legal opinion memo to the Planning Commission for its
September 3, 2026 meeting. The Planning Commission will take up the Conditional Use Permit
Application of Sno-Baron’s Snowmobile Club, “current Sno-Baron’s CUP Application” and make a
recommendation to the County Board for its final determination on the current Sno-Baron’s CUP
Application. The questions for which the opinion was requested are whether the current Sno-Baron’s
CUP Application is a “segmented conditional use permit application” and, if so, is the “segmented
conditional use application” permissive or, conversely, prohibited. This legal opinion memo addresses
each question below on a high level.
Background.
1.

Subject Property:

The subject property consists of two tax parcels located in Almelund township. The Chisago County
Zoning Ordinance zones the subject property within the Agricultural (AG) Zoning District, and the
Chisago County Zoning Ordinance authorizes properties within the AG Zoning District to be used for
commercial event purposes as a conditional use and upon the issuance of a CUP consistent with Section
8.04 of the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance.
2.

Overview of the Current Sno-Baron’s CUP Application and CUP history:

The current Sno-Baron’s CUP Application proposes using the subject property to host 15 commercial
events per year held annually with 2 of those commercial events being multi-day weekend events. The
current Sno-Baron’s CUP Application describes the contemplated annual commercial events as follows:
1

-

6 events for educational, youth and community programs having a maximum attendance of 600
people;
6 events for social gatherings having a maximum attendance of 1,500 people; and
3 cultural and festival gatherings with a maximum attendance of 3,000 people

The uses contemplated in the Current Sno-Baron’s CUP Application are reflective of the conditional
uses authorized by a CUP issued in 2009. The CUP history of the subject property tells us the following:
o In 2009, the Chisago County Board approved a conditional use permit to allow the SnoBarons to conduct one annual event limited to two days the weekend of after the Labor
Day weekend. Sno-Baron’s markets the event as “Hay Days” and this 2009 CUP is
frequently referred to as the initial “Hay Days CUP.” The Hay Days CUP, as issued in
2009, pertains to the two parcels that are subject to the current Sno-Baron’s CUP
Application.
o Subsequently, Sno-Barons applied to the County to amend the Hay Days CUP to expand
the CUP from the two parcels, PID Nos. 09.00269.00 and 09.00271.00, to a third parcel,
PID No. 01.00274.00. The County Board approved the amendment for expansion of the
Hay Days CUP to this third parcel. (The current CUP application applies only to two
parcels, PID Nos. 09.00269.00 and 09.00271.00, but not the third parcel, PID No.
01.00274.00.)
o In 2015, Sno-Barons applied for an amended Hay Days CUP that sought to expand Hay
Days to a third day, remove some of the conditions of the Hay Days CUP and expand the
number of events on the subject properties to 20 events each year. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of the application for an amended Hay Days CUP.
The County Board denied the application for an amended Hay Days CUP and the County
Board’s decision was appealed. The Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a decision to
uphold the County Board’s denial. See Sno-Barons Snowmobile Club, Inc. vs. Chisago
County Board of Commissioners, (Minn. Ct. App. Docket No. A16-0862, March 17, 2017).
A copy of that decision is provided with this legal opinion memo.
Analysis:
What is a Segmented Conditional Use Permit Application and Is a Segmented
Conditional Use Permit Facially Prohibited?
The County Attorney’s Office understands that the apparent tie of the current Sno-Baron’s CUP
Application with the zoning history of the Sno-Baron’s Hay Day’s CUP gave rise to the request for legal
opinion.
A “segmented conditional use permit application” or “piecemealing” is an informal reference to a
practice of dividing or splitting a single CUP application into multiple CUP applications, potentially
limiting the scope of the approval process. Nonetheless, written commentary suggests that developers
engage in the practice of piecemealing to circumvent a comprehensive review of the plan as a whole.
2

Pivotal in the analysis is that term “segmented conditional use permit” does not exist in Minnesota’s
land use and zoning law. Minnesota law does not define or regulate segmented conditional use permits
in the land use and zoning context and neither the Chisago County Comprehensive Plan nor the Chisago
County Zoning Ordinance outright address segmented conditional use permitting or piecemealing. It
may be concluded then that a “segmented CUP application” is not prohibited per se, meaning contrary to
law by its very nature. For those reasons, it is unnecessary to consider further whether the current SnoBaron’s CUP Application is a “segmented conditional use permit” or whether a “segmented conditional
use permit” may or may not be consistent with law.
Guidance.
As such, the Planning Commission must review the current Sno-Baron’s CUP Application no differently
than it would a single CUP application:
-

Make an independent review of the application;
Hold a public hearing; and
Conduct the fundamental analysis as to whether the use proposed in the current Sno-Baron’s
CUP Application is consistent with, or, conversely, contrary to those applicable standards and
factors found in 1) the Chisago County Comprehensive Plan; 2) the general provisions of the
Chisago County Zoning Ordinance; and 3) those specific provisions of the Chisago County
Zoning Ordinance that apply to the review and determination of CUP application found at
section 8.04 of the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance.

Only by considering the proposed use, and the record on application and applying the standards and
factors found within Section 8.04 of the Chisago Zoning Ordinance may the Planning Commission reach
a recommendation on the current Sno-Baron’s CUP Application that, if adopted by the County Board, is
likely to withstand legal challenge, regardless of the ultimate determination.
The County Attorney’s Office cautions the Planning Commission from making a recommendation on
the current Sno-Baron’s CUP Application that adopts as its rationale the reasons of the County Board in
denying the 2015 application to amend the Hay Days CUP. That is not to say that an independent
review of the record on the current Sno-Baron’s CUP Application would not support conclusions similar
to those reached previously by the County Board with respect to the 2015 application to amend the Hay
Days CUP.
Equally, it would be impermissible for the Planning Commission to consider whether Sno-Baron’s
should have submitted its current CUP application as an application to amend the Hay Days CUP. The
Hay Days CUP is not before the Planning Commission and the sole application before the Planning
Commission is for a new CUP application.
To provide the current Sno-Baron’s CUP Application an independent review analysis, Planning
Commission will need to analyze the current Sno-Baron’s CUP Application as to whether the uses
proposed by the current Sno-Baron’s CUP Application are consistent with, or, conversely, contrary to
those applicable standards and factors found in Chisago County Comprehensive Plan, the general
provisions of the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance and those specific provisions of the Chisago

3

County Zoning Ordinance that apply to the review and determination of CUP application found at
section 8.04 of the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance.
It would be impermissible for the Planning Commission to consider whether Sno-Baron’s should have
submitted its current CUP application as an application to amend the Hay Days CUP. The Hay Days
CUP is not before the Planning Commission for review, and the conditions of the Hay Days are not
subject to review or modification.
That is not to say the Planning Commission must consider the current Sno-Baron’s CUP Application in
a vacuum. It would be permissible for the Planning Commission to direct its line of inquiry to ask how
the current Sno-Baron’s CUP Application addresses those concerns cited by the County Board in
reaching its decision on the previous application to amend the Hay Days CUP and to ask how the use
proposed in the current Sno-Baron’s CUP Application can be differentiated from the previous
application to amend the Hay Days CUP. Nonetheless, the Planning Commission must apply the
standards and factors found in Section 8.04 C. of the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance directly to the
proposed use of current Sno-Baron’s CUP Application and the reasoning and recommendation of the
Planning Commission should reflect an analysis independent of any of the previous CUP decisions.
*This legal opinion memo is characterized as public data under the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act and may be distributed to the Planning Commission members in advance of the September
3, 2026 meeting.
cc:

Beth Gervais, Land Services Coordinator

Attachment:

Sno-Barons Snowmobile Club, Inc. vs. Chisago County Board of Commissioners,
(Minn. Ct. App. Docket No. A16-0862, March 17, 2017)

4

Sno–Barons Snowmobile Club, Inc. v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners, Not Reported in N.W. Rptr.
(2017)

2017 WL 1157888
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED AS
UNPUBLISHED AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT
AS PROVIDED BY MINN. ST. SEC. 480A.08(3).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited
except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
SNO–BARONS SNOWMOBILE CLUB, INC., Relator,
v.
CHISAGO COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, Respondent.
A16–0862
|
Filed March 27, 2017
Chisago County Board of Commissioners
Attorneys and Law Firms
Paula A. Callies, Callies Law, PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota
(for relator)
Paul D. Reuvers, Nathan C. Midolo, Iverson Reuvers Condon,
Bloomington, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge; Reilly,
Judge; and Smith, Tracy M., Judge.
Smith, Tracy M., Judge
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
*1 Relator Sno–Barons Snowmobile Club (Sno–Barons)
appeals by writ of certiorari the Chisago County Board
of Commissioners' denial of its request for an amended
conditional-use permit (CUP), arguing that the board's
decision was arbitrary and capricious. Because the denial of
the CUP was supported by legally sufficient reasons having a
factual basis in the record, we affirm.

FACTS

WESTLAW

Sno–Barons owns approximately 140 acres of land in Chisago
County that is zoned agricultural. In 2009, Sno–Barons was
granted a CUP to hold an annual two-day festival called
“Hay Days” involving grass snowmobile races and other
motorsport-related events. In 2015, Sno–Barons began the
process of applying for an amended CUP that would add
a third day to Hay Days, remove some conditions from
the current Hay Days CUP, and permit Sno–Barons to hold
additional “commercial recreation” and “rural retail tourism
business” events for 20 days each year. Both commercial
recreation and rural retail tourism business are conditional
uses that may be permitted in agricultural zones under the
Chisago County Zoning Ordinance. Sno–Barons did not
specifically define the proposed additional events in its
application, but it suggested they might include horse shows,
car shows, fitness competitions, holiday festivals, Boy Scout
meetings, tractor pulls, drone exhibitions and competitions,
paintball events, snow cross, and BMX racing, among others.
After twice asking Sno–Barons for additional information, the
county received a complete application on January 25, 2016.
On February 4, the Chisago County Planning Commission
held a public hearing to consider Sno–Barons' request. The
county received written and oral comments from members
of the public opposing and supporting the request. Public
comments opposing the request highlighted concerns that
additional noise, light, and traffic from the proposed activities
would disrupt the rural character of the community. The
planning commission voted to revisit the matter at its
next meeting. On March 3, the planning commission voted
to recommend approval of the CUP request with revised
conditions.
The Chisago County Board of Commissioners met on March
16. There is no recording or transcript of that meeting.
The agenda and minutes from that meeting state that there
was an update on zoning activities, including the Sno–
Barons application, but that “[n]o action was taken” on that
matter. However, according to the statements of several board
members during the board's next meeting, the board voted
at the March 16 meeting to deny Sno–Barons' request and
directed staff to draft findings supporting denial.
On March 17, the county notified Sno–Barons that it was
extending the statutory deadline to consider the request by 60
days pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 3 (2016), to allow
time to prepare “findings consistent with denial of the permit
request.”

© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

1

Sno–Barons Snowmobile Club, Inc. v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners, Not Reported in N.W. Rptr.
(2017)

At its next meeting, on April 6, the board discussed reasons
for denial, voted to deny Sno–Barons' request, and adopted
written findings supporting denial.
*2 Sno–Barons appeals.

DECISION
A county board's decision regarding a CUP is quasi-judicial
and reviewable by writ of certiorari. Interstate Power Co.
v. Nobles Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 617 N.W.2d 566, 574
(Minn. 2000). “An appellate court will reverse a governing
body's decision regarding a conditional use permit application
if the governing body acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or
capriciously.” Perschbacher v. Freeborn Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs,
883 N.W.2d 637, 643 (Minn. App. 2016) (quotation omitted).
A decision is arbitrary or capricious if it represents the
decision-maker's will rather than its judgment, or if it is
“based on whim or is devoid of articulated reasons.” Id. at 643
(quotation omitted).
Sno–Barons alleges that both procedural and substantive
issues demonstrate that the board's denial of its CUP request
was arbitrary and capricious.
I. Procedural issues
Sno–Barons asserts that the board voted to deny the request
on March 16 without stating reasons for denial, making the
denial “per se arbitrary and capricious.” Minn. Stat. § 15.99,
subd. 2(c) (2016), governs the procedures for denying a CUP.
That statute states:

If a multimember governing body
denies a request, it must state the
reasons for denial on the record and
provide the applicant in writing a
statement of the reasons for the denial.
If the written statement is not adopted
at the same time as the denial, it
must be adopted at the next meeting
following the denial of the request
but before the expiration of the time
allowed for making a decision under
this section. The written statement
must be consistent with the reasons

WESTLAW

stated in the record at the time of the
denial.

Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2(c).
Sno–Barons rightly does not argue that, because the board
did not state reasons for denial on the record on March 16,
the CUP must be automatically approved as a penalty. As
Sno–Barons recognizes, in a case addressing what is now
subdivision 2(a) of section 15.99, the supreme court held that
a statutory requirement that a state agency provide a written
statement of reasons for denying a request is directory rather
than mandatory and that the automatic-approval penalty
from subdivision 2(a)—which applies when a decision is
not made within 60 days—does not attach to the writtenstatement requirement. Johnson v. Cook County, 786 N.W.2d
291, 296 (Minn. 2010); see also Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd.
2(a) (2016). 1 Sno–Barons does not argue that the statingreasons-on-the-record requirement of subdivision 2(c) should
be treated differently from the written-statement requirement
in subdivision 2(a). Thus, even if the board voted to deny the
CUP application at the March 16 meeting without stating its
reasons on the record, the CUP would not automatically be
approved.
*3 Rather, Sno–Barons argues that even if no penalty
attaches to the failure to comply with subdivision 2(c), the fact
that the board voted to deny the request without articulating
reasons at the time demonstrates that the decision was
arbitrary. But we have previously upheld denials for which
reasons were adopted only after the vote. See Perschbacher,
883 N.W.2d at 642–43 (holding that Minn. Stat. § 15.99,
subd. 2(b) (2016), which contains language similar to that
in subdivision 2(c), permits the board to state reasons after
the vote but before the statutory deadline); see also Concept
Props., LLP v. City of Minnetrista, 694 N.W.2d 804, 812
(Minn. App. 2005) (affirming denial of zoning request where
the city voted a second time after it failed to adopt written
findings supporting previous vote to deny same request),
review denied (Minn. July 19, 2005). Thus, even if the board
did vote to deny the CUP on March 16, the failure to state
its reasons at that time does not in itself render the decision
arbitrary and capricious.
Sno–Barons argues that the board's action in extending
the deadline for decision-making was a subterfuge to gain
time in order to fabricate reasons for denial. On March
17, the board notified Sno–Barons that it was extending

© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

2

Sno–Barons Snowmobile Club, Inc. v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners, Not Reported in N.W. Rptr.
(2017)

the statutory deadline for deciding the request to allow
time to prepare findings consistent with denial. At the
board's next meeting on April 6, it was acknowledged that
the staff had prepared findings for denial pursuant to the
board's direction and had also prepared findings for partial
approval and partial denial should the board wish to consider
them. These communications openly acknowledged that, at
the board's direction, staff prepared reasons for denial; the
communications suggest transparency, not subterfuge. The
record demonstrates that the board lawfully extended the
deadline and, within the extended deadline, stated reasons
for denial on the record and adopted a written statement of
reasons for denial. We conclude that the alleged procedural
errors do not warrant reversal.
II. Substantive issues
Sno–Barons asserts that the reasons adopted by the board at
the April 6 meeting are not legally sufficient to deny the CUP
and are not factually supported in the record.
In determining whether a county acted unreasonably,
arbitrarily, or capriciously in denying a CUP, an appellate
court must examine whether the reasons given by the county
were “legally sufficient” and determine whether the legally
sufficient reasons “had a factual basis in the record.” RDNT,
LLC v. City of Bloomington, 861 N.W.2d 71, 75–76 (Minn.
2015). “A legally sufficient reason is one reasonably related to
the promotion of the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the community.” BECA of Alexandria, LLP v. Cty.
of Douglas ex rel. Bd. of Comm'rs, 607 N.W.2d 459, 463
(Minn. App. 2000) (quotation omitted). The applicant bears
the burden of persuading the court that the reasons for denial
are legally insufficient or have no factual basis in the record.
Hubbard Broad., Inc. v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757, 763
(Minn. 1982).
A conditional use is one

that would not be appropriate
generally but may be allowed with
appropriate restrictions as provided by
official controls upon a finding that
(1) certain conditions as detailed in
the zoning ordinance exist, and (2) the
use or development conforms to the
comprehensive land use plan of the

WESTLAW

county and (3) is compatible with the
existing neighborhood.

Minn. Stat. § 394.22, subd. 7 (2016). The reasonableness
of a decision on a CUP application “is measured by the
standards set out in the local ordinance.” White Bear Docking
& Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear Lake, 324 N.W.2d 174,
176 (Minn. 1982). Not all of the reasons given must be legally
sufficient and supported in the record in order to affirm the
decision. See Barton Contracting Co. v. City of Afton, 268
N.W.2d 712, 719 (Minn. 1978) (upholding city's denial of a
CUP even though one of five given reasons was not legally
sufficient to support denial). A denial is not arbitrary when at
least one reason given has a rational basis. Trisko v. City of
Waite Park, 566 N.W.2d 349, 352 (Minn. App. 1997), review
denied (Minn. Sept. 25, 1997). The applicant has the burden
of showing that the county's denial was without any legally
sufficient reasons with factual support in the record. Hubbard,
323 N.W.2d at 765.

A. Legally sufficient reasons
*4 Sno–Barons argues that the county's decision lacks a
legally sufficient basis because the county ordinances do not
provide express standards or criteria that must be satisfied to
obtain a CUP. We disagree.
The county's ordinances lay out specific standards for
evaluation of proposed conditional uses. The general CUP
provision of the Chisago County Zoning Ordinance directs
the planning commission to consider eight general factors
before providing the board with a recommendation on a CUP
request. Chisago County, Minn, Zoning Ordinance § 8.04(C)
(Dec. 30, 2008). In this case, the board's written findings cite
seven of the eight factors that were not satisfied and were the
bases for denial:
1. [Possible effect of the CUP on] [t]he Comprehensive
Plan and development policies of the County;
...
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;

© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

3

Sno–Barons Snowmobile Club, Inc. v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners, Not Reported in N.W. Rptr.
(2017)

4. The structure and site shall have an appearance that will
not have an adverse effect upon adjacent properties;
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;
6. The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning
Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in
which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use;
7. The use shall not cause traffic hazard or congestion; and
8. Existing nearby properties shall not be adversely affected
by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness.
See id.
These factors apply to “commercial recreation areas”
and “rural retail tourism businesses,” both of which are
recognized and defined by county ordinances as conditional
uses that may be permitted in the agricultural zone.
Commercial recreation areas are

similar to public recreation areas
including private campgrounds, golf
courses, swimming pools, resorts, and
crafting uses such as quilting and
scrapbooking [and] [r]estaurants and/
or liquor establishments when clearly
incidental and associated with the
primary commercial recreation use.

Id., § 5.06(C)(5). Rural retail tourism businesses must have “a
unique and demonstrable relationship with Chisago County
or its region, and its history, culture, traditions, arts, crafts,
lore, natural resources, or other features and amenities,” and
should be “small-scale” and “low impact.” Id., § 4.15(B)–
(C) (Nov. 16, 2011). The county's findings address both of
these conditional-use ordinances and find that Sno–Barons'
proposed use exceeds the scale of commercial recreation areas
and rural retail tourism businesses.
The county ordinances relied on by the board provide
legally sufficient bases for denying a CUP. The ordinances
lay out multiple factors relating to “public health, safety,
and welfare.” RDNT, LLC, 861 N.W.2d at 76 (holding
that a city ordinance providing that use “not be injurious

WESTLAW

to the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise harm the
public health, safety and welfare” was legally sufficient).
For example, preventing traffic hazards and congestion are
goals reasonably related to the promotion of public safety.
C.R. Invs., Inc. v. Village of Shoreview, 304 N.W.2d 320,
325 (Minn. 1981). In addition, incompatibility between a
proposed use and a comprehensive plan is a legally sufficient
reason for denying a CUP. Barton Contracting Co., 268
N.W.2d at 717–18.

B. Reasonable factual basis
*5 Having concluded that the county gave legally sufficient
reasons, we turn to whether those reasons are supported by a
reasonable factual basis. We conclude that they are.
Sno–Barons argues that the county lacked a reasonable factual
basis for finding that the proposed CUP is not consistent with
the county's comprehensive plan and development policies,
that the proposed uses cannot be practically or strategically
screened, that the proposed uses would have an adverse effect
on adjacent properties, that the proposed uses are inconsistent
with the county's land use goals, that the proposed uses
would cause traffic hazards or congestion, and that nearby
properties would be adversely affected by noise, glare, or
general unsightliness. With respect to these factors, Sno–
Barons relies primarily on the argument that the proposed
CUP would add only 21 additional days a year to the two days
of events already permitted for Hay Days, that any concerns
are already well managed for Hay Days, and that the proposed
uses would not all be of the same large scale as that event.
The county's findings determine that the proposed uses,
if extended to the limits of Sno–Barons' requested CUP,
would be incompatible with comprehensive-plan goals such
as preventing incompatible uses in agricultural areas and
encouraging growth in village centers and in areas where
urban services and adequate roads are already available. The
findings also express a concern that granting the request for
20 days per year of new crowd-drawing events in addition to
Hay Days, with no limitations on scale beyond the physical
limitations that the event be contained within Sno–Barons'
140 acres and 8,600 parking spots, would draw too much
traffic and congestion to a rural area with limited road access.
The findings observe that the traffic, noise, light, and glare
already present for Hay Days would be increased, adversely
affecting neighboring properties. And the findings express
concern that the loosely defined events proposed by Sno–

© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

4

Sno–Barons Snowmobile Club, Inc. v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners, Not Reported in N.W. Rptr.
(2017)

Barons would result in an unknown number of days of preand post-event preparations, temporary structures, and site
changes that would result in a continual appearance of a
commercial district in the rural area.
The county's findings have a factual basis in the record.
The county received public comments on Sno–Barons'
proposed CUP throughout the application process. A citizens'
organization expressed concern about the uncertain nature
and size of proposed uses and the impacts on traffic, noise, and
lighting. Area businesses expressed concern about the impact
of larger scale events like Hay Days on their rural businesses.
Residents testified to the noise, light, traffic congestion, and
disruption they experienced during Hay Days and expressed
concern about increasing those negative effects throughout
the year.
A staff report to the planning commission provides additional
factual support for the county's findings. The staff report
found that the proposed uses would bring traffic congestion
and possible traffic hazards to the area, as Hay Days has
in the past. It found that neighboring properties would
be impacted visually by the requested addition of new
permanent lighting, outdoor lighting during night events,
and the presence of additional cars and event attendees in
the area. The staff report noted that there is insufficient
landscaped or natural buffering to insulate some of the nearby
residential properties from the visual impacts of Sno–Barons'
events. The staff report also found that even the smaller
proposed events might impact neighboring properties with

noise from “cars arriving and departing, engines starting, car
doors slamming, as well as normal crowd gathering sounds
such as conversation and laughter.” Further, it found that some
events would generate more significant auditory impacts from
amplified announcing and racing engines. The staff report
cited a 2010 study of Hay Days noise, which is included
in the record and which found measurable noise impacts
from snowmobile racing, motorcycle and ATV events, a PA
system, generators, vehicles, and banner-pulling airplanes.
According to the study, Hay Days noise was audible at several
nearby locations and exceeded state noise-level standards at
one of the neighboring residential locations during the 2010
Hay Days event. The staff report also found that adding more
days of events would have cumulative impacts on the closest
neighbors who are accustomed to the existing agricultural
land uses.
*6 Because the board provided reasons for denying the
CUP that are legally sufficient and have a factual basis in
the record, we conclude that the denial was not arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable and reversal is not warranted. See
Barton Contracting Co., 268 N.W.2d at 719; Perschbacher,
883 N.W.2d at 643.
Affirmed.
All Citations
Not Reported in N.W. Rptr., 2017 WL 1157888

Footnotes
1

“[A] statute may contain a requirement but provide no consequence for noncompliance, in which case
we regard the statute as directory, not mandatory.” Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista, 728
N.W.2d 536, 541 (Minn. 2007). If a directory statute “requires a governmental body to perform some act, it is
reasonable to assume the governmental body will do so or it could be compelled to do so by mandamus.” Id.

End of Document

WESTLAW

© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

5

Am
en
d
Ju ed
ly A
30 pp
, 2 lic
02 at
6 ion
Chisago County
Planning and Zoning
313 N. Main Street
Center City, MN 55012

Re:

July 30, 2026

Conditional Use Permit Request
PID Nos: 09.00269.00 and 09.00271.00

Dear Planning and Zoning:

Since 2004, the Sno-Barons Snowmobile Club has been a proud, active member of this rural
agricultural community. Founded in 1966, our volunteer-led organization is dedicated to
making a positive impact across Minnesota and beyond. While our passion lies in snowmobiling
and outdoor recreation, we consistently dedicate our time, talents, and resources to advance
the sport and support our local community.

1. Purpose of Request

The Sno-Baron’s Snowmobile Club is seeking a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) under the
Commercial Recreation Area land use category to allow for up to 15 events per year with 2 of
those possibly being multi-day (Saturday/Sunday) events on our 140-acre property located at
38740 Oriole Ave, North Branch.

2. Detailed Description of Proposed Use

Am
en
d
Ju ed
ly A
30 pp
, 2 lic
02 at
6 ion

2A. Educational, Youth and Community Programs (Max Attendance 600)

Example 1: We would like to host MN DNR Field Days for Safety Training with the primary goal
of youth certification and community safety for ATV/UTV and Snowmobile certification. These
events are scheduled in conjunction with the DNR and we do not charge for these classes.
These training classes are usually capped at around 50 youth participants, with parents
remaining onsite during the 2–3 hour training, making total projected attendance around 100
people. The training involves an informational presentation by our certified instructors and a
written exam, followed by a field course that would be set up within the interior of our
property. Our goal is to certify these participants, ensuring they have the necessary knowledge
and skills to safely operate these vehicles.

Example 2: The Mississippi 8 Cross Country Running Championship has inquired about the use
of our property to host their event. This event would include 9 member schools Becker, Big
Lake, Cambridge-Isanti, Chisago Lakes, Monticello, North Branch, Princeton, St. Francis and
Zimmerman. There will be no charge to The Mississippi 8 Cross Country Running Conference.
This event brings together 9th grade, JV, and Varsity athletes from across the conference to
compete for individual and team titles, celebrating a season of athletic achievement, and
sportsmanship. The event serves as an event championship and a key post-season competition.
Maximum number of events in this category annually – 6

2B. Social Gatherings (Max Attendance 1,500)

Example 1: We would potentially like to hold a Car Show at our property. This would be an
organized event for displaying, judging and celebrating automobiles; focusing on classic,
vintage, custom and specialty automobiles. This event would also feature some related exhibits
and food and beverage/alcohol vendors. This is an exhibit show only; with no vehicle racing.
Example 2: We would like to hold a Winery and Brewery Expo which would feature wineries
and breweries. Attendees would sample craft beer and wine, meet local makers and explore
and enjoy at their own pace. This event would also include some local food vendors as well.
Maximum number of events in this category annually – 6

2C. Cultural and Festival Gatherings (Max Attendance 3,000)

Am
en
d
Ju ed
ly A
30 pp
, 2 lic
02 at
6 ion

Example 1: We would potentially like to host a Hot Air Balloon Expo. This would be a spectator
event where balloons are sponsored by businesses or private entities. Enjoy beautiful,
decorative balloons, at a family-friendly event. This event would also include food and
beverage/alcohol vendors, exhibits and merchandise along with magnificent balloons. Any
event that includes flight of hot air balloons would comply with federal aviation rules and
regulations.

Example 2: We would also like to potentially host a Horse Skijoring event. The expertise of the
rider, the skills of the horse, and the stability of the skier become one as they navigate a course.
This is a fun family event that includes the skijoring expo, along with related merchandise,
exhibits and food and beverage/alcohol vendors.
This category could potentially include 2-day events. There shall be no more than 3 events
annually with greater attendance than 2,000.
Maximum number of events in this category annually – 3

Please see Exhibit A: Categories for additional information about possible types of events
within each category.

3. Operational & Mitigation Plans

We are aware that parking, local traffic, noise, and sanitation are areas of concern. We will
coordinate with Chisago County Environmental Services and Sheriff’s Department 60-days prior,
to provide the most adequate approach to any concerns. We will abide by applicable noise
ordinances. For sanitation needs, we will require the necessary trash removal and portable
restrooms. Event staffing is primarily provided by the event host with a property owner
representative. Security and EMS services will be utilized for events, as needed, and will come
from a number of different sources. If needed, these services will be provided and covered by
the event host.
There shall be no fireworks without permission or similar historic wording.
Please see Exhibits B1 – B4 for Property and On-Site Parking Zone Maps and refer to Exhibit C
for our Recorded Deeds.

3A: Hours of Operation: Between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM. All ordinances will be followed. Set
up and tear down may occur 24-hours in advance and post event if needed.

Am
en
d
Ju ed
ly A
30 pp
, 2 lic
02 at
6 ion

3B: Traffic & Parking: Each event will be planned according to activity and parking needs. All
parking will be contained on-site within our internal parking areas, minimizing any congestion
on Oriole Avenue or surrounding county roads.
Gate 3 allows for our 3-Lane System which can hold up to 180 vehicles on the property for
entry. Please refer to Exhibits D1 – D5 for a sample of aerial maps and gate access.
3C: Sanitation & Waste: Event scope will determine the necessary quantity of portable
restroom facilities and trash collection containers needed. We would comply with any
regulations required.

3D: Security & EMS: Event scope will determine the number of security and EMS needed,
drawing from a number of different sources.

3E: Noise Management: Some events may have music or require use of a PA system. We will
comply with all Chisago County noise ordinances.

3F: Food and Beverages: Any selling or serving of food or beverages, including alcohol, would
require compliance with Minnesota State licensing.
3G: Calendar:

January - March: 3
April - June: 6
July - September: 2 (Excluding the weekend of the Almelund Threshing Show)
October - December: 4
Total = 15

3H: Event Notifications: We will notify Chisago County Planning & Zoning 60-days prior to a
scheduled event and provide attendance numbers if required, 60-days post event based on
gate admissions.

4. Land Use Compatibility

Am
en
d
Ju ed
ly A
30 pp
, 2 lic
02 at
6 ion

The subject property is uniquely suited for this request due to its size and existing
infrastructure. The 140-acre footprint provides a significant natural buffer to adjacent
properties, maintaining the rural and agricultural character of the area. This proposal aligns
with the Chisago County Comprehensive Plan by promoting rural tourism and providing
essential community services without the need for new development.
Please see Exhibit E: Buildings Map for additional information.

Factors for Consideration

The Proposed Amendments Do Not Create an Excessive Demand on Existing Parks, Schools,
Streets, and other Public Facilities and Utilities.

The 15 requested activities would not impose additional strain on the existing parks, schools,
streets, or other public facilities and utilities. All parking will be on our property.

The Proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Uses are Sufficiently Compatible with Adjacent Land
Uses.

The Property consists of approximately 140 acres, which allows a significant buffer between the
surrounding properties. In addition, all parking will be within the confines of our property. The
15 events will be compatible with adjacent land uses.
The Site’s Appearance Shall Not Have an Adverse Effect Upon Adjacent Properties.

The 15 events will be within the property and will be for the purposes as previously indicated.
This will allow us to provide further community participation allowing the use of the property.
The proposed 15 events will not adversely affect the appearance of the adjacent properties.

The Proposed CUP is Reasonably Related to the Overall Land Use Goals of Chisago County and to
the Existing Land Uses.
The proposed CUP is consistent with Chisago County’s Comprehensive plan goals promoting the
expansion of businesses, economic opportunities, and promoting tourism. This CUP furthers
Chisago County’s Comprehensive Plan and goals.

The Proposed CUP Will Not Cause Traffic Congestion.

Am
en
d
Ju ed
ly A
30 pp
, 2 lic
02 at
6 ion

It is not anticipated that this proposed CUP will change the traffic or cause considerable
congestion.
The Proposed CUP Will Not Adversely Affect Existing Nearby Businesses.
The proposed 15 events will not adversely affect nearby businesses.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,

Deborah Olson
Meshell Gorsegner
Laurie Vevle
Sno-Baron’s Snowmobile Club, Inc.

Exhibit List

Am
en
d
Ju ed
ly A
30 pp
, 2 lic
02 at
6 ion

Exhibit A: Categories

Property and On-Site Parking Zone Maps
Exhibit B1: Property HDP
Exhibit B2: HDP Property ID#s
Exhibit B3: Property
Exhibit B4: HDP Parking Spaces 2026
Exhibit C: Recorded Deeds
Property IDs 09.00269.00, 09.00271

Aerial Maps & Gate Access Examples
Exhibit D1: MN DNR Field Days Youth Safety Training Event Map Example
Exhibit D2: Hot Air Balloon Expo Event Map Example
Exhibit D3: Car Show Event Map Example
Exhibit D4: High School Track Meet Event Map Example
Exhibit D5: Winery and Brewery Expo Event Map Example
Exhibit E: Buildings Map

Exhibit A: Categories

Am
en
d
Ju ed
ly A
30 pp
, 2 lic
02 at
6 ion

Educational, Youth & Community Programs (Max attendance 600)
MN DNR Field Days Safety Training – Limited to ATV/UTV and Snowmobiles
School Events

Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, 4-H Activities

Family-friendly Events (Movie night, roller skating, etc.)
Community Athletic Events (5K -10K Race)

Social Gatherings (Max attendance 1,500)

Vehicle (Non-Racing) Expos (Car Show, Bike Show, Boat Show, Vintage Sled Show)
Animal Expo (Dog Show, Horse Show)
Arts and Crafts Show & Flea Markets
Local Winery and Brewery Expo

Cultural & Festival Gatherings (Max attendance 3,000)
Small Model Aircraft Expo (Drones)
Kite and Hot Air Balloon Expo
Horse Skijoring Event

Outdoor Trade Shows & Business Job Fair
Heavy Equipment Expo

Hay
Hay Days
Days Park
Park

Source:
Source: Mapbox,
Mapbox, OpenStreetMap
OpenStreetMap

300 ft

Created with pdfmapmaker.com on: Sun Apr 13 2025 20:39:40 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)

Am
en
d
Ju ed
ly A
30 pp
, 2 lic
02 at
6 ion
Exhibit B1: Property HDP

=)
=
°a
7)
L.
<
>)

Am
en
d
Ju ed
ly A
30 pp
, 2 lic
02 at
6 ion
Exhibit B2: HDP Property ID#s

Am
en
d
Ju ed
ly A
30 pp
, 2 lic
02 at
6 ion
Exhibit B3: Property

X

Am
en
d
Ju ed
ly A
30 pp
, 2 lic
02 at
6 ion

Exhibit B4: HDP Parking Spaces 2026

Only used
during
Hay Days
or for
Emergency Services

Auto
Entrance

Only used
during
Hay Days

Auto
Entrance
3 Lanes

en
d
Ju ed
ly A
30 pp
, 2 lic
02 at
6 ion

Exhibit D1: MN DNR Field Days Youth Safety Training Event Map Example

Am

Gate 1
Low Density Entry
1 Lane 25 cars

number and location
as determined by event

en
d
Ju ed
ly A
30 pp
, 2 lic
02 at
6 ion

Exhibit D2: Hot Air Balloon Expo Map Example

Gate 1
Low Density Entry
1 Lane 25 cars

Am

Gate 2

number and location
as determined by event

en
d
Ju ed
ly A
30 pp
, 2 lic
02 at
6 ion

Exhibit D3: Car Show Event Map Example

Gate 1
Low Density Entry
1 Lane 25 cars

Am

Gate 2

number and location
as determined by event

en
d
Ju ed
ly A
30 pp
, 2 lic
02 at
6 ion

Exhibit D4: High School Track Meet Event Map Example

Gate 1
Low Density Entry
1 Lane 25 cars

Am

Gate 2

Gate 3
High Density Entry
3 Lanes 180+ cars

number and location
as determined by event

en
d
Ju ed
ly A
30 pp
, 2 lic
02 at
6 ion

Exhibit D5: Winery and Brewery Expo Event Map Example

Gate 1
Low Density Entry
1 Lane 25 cars

Am

Gate 2

Gate 3
High Density Entry
3 Lanes 180+ cars

number and location
as determined by event

Exhibit E: Buildings Map

LEGEND

Am
en
d
Ju ed
ly A
30 pp
, 2 lic
02 at
6 ion

Permanent Structures

St. Croix Trail

Temporary Structure

Fenced Property Line

Unfenced Property Line

Open Field

Pavilion 11’ x 16’

Open Field

Booth 32’ x 16’

Booth 10’ x 8’

Pavilion

Pavilion

Booth 16’ x 8’

52’ x 30’

14’ Circumfrence

Booth 10’ x

Building 50’ x 48’

Building 38’ x 150’

Booth 12’ x

10’

Booth 10’ x 8’

canopy 28’ x 30’

Booth 12’ x

16’

Pavilion
64’ x 49’

Booth 10’ x 8’

Pavilion
37’ x 51’

Pavilion

48’ x 48’

Booth 10’ x 8’

Booth 10’ x 8’

Booth 10’ x 12’

Oriole Ave

Open Field

8’

Booth 10’ x 8’

Staging Area

Booth 8’ x 16’

Booth 10’ x 8’

Sno-Baron’s Snowmobile Club, Inc.
Request for Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Recreation Area
Permit No. 2026-0010-LU
Planning Commissioner Questions / Comments / Suggested Conditions
Following July 2, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting
Planning Commissioner #1
Suggested Conditions:
•

Event Safety Planning shall consist of Sno-Baron’s staff, Chisago County Sheriff’s Office staff,
and the Almelund Fire and Rescue staff.

•

There shall be no fireworks (without proper permits or similar historic wording).

•

There shall be no shooting of guns. The DNR events shall be limited to ATV and snowmobile
training only and no firearm training.

•

There shall be no more than 3 events annually with greater attendance than 2,000.

Planning Commissioner #2
Questions and Comments:
•

How many of each event category are being requested?

•

Provide more details about each category of events. Which ones have music, fireworks,
shooting etc., and which ones don’t ? Also, which ones have alcohol?

•

Break the motorsports racing into a different category. Hot air balloons are quiet, but racing is
not.

•

Which events would require fire and rescue?

Planning Commissioner #3
Suggested Conditions:
•

An Emergency Security and Traffic Plan must be approved 60 days prior to all Community,
Cultural & Festival Events by Environmental Services, the Sheriff's Office & Fire Departments.

•

All costs required to implement each Emergency Security and Traffic Plan staffed by Chisago
County employees or township volunteers must be reimbursed by Sno-Baron's Snowmobile
Club, Inc. to Chisago County and/or the local units of government.

•

Allowed Events: Based on the revised request dated June 22, 2026:
o

Event Category: Educational, Youth & Community Programs
▪

o

Event Category: Social Gatherings
▪

o

Events listed but Movie Night indoors only
Events listed

Event Category: Cultural & Festival Gatherings
▪

Events listed except Small Model Aircraft Expo (Drones) and Hot Air Balloons if
they leave the property. Such events can be considered an invasion of neighbors'
property. Permissible if events stay within the property.

▪

Heavy Equipment Expo needs a definition to determine what is envisioned by the
applicants.

Page 1 of 2

•

NOT ALLOWED Events or Activities: Sno-cross races; Go-cart racing; All types of drag racing; Dog
Sledding; Quad or ATV Racing or similar events; Outdoor Concerts; Gun Firing; Fireworks;
motorized skijoring; outdoor amplified music; parked vehicles on roads or in neighboring
property; event activities that leave the Sno-Baron property;

•

Maximum Number of Events & Attendance by Category:
Maximum attendance means maximum # of people attending the event; for two day events,
the maximum attendance is a total for both days.
o

o

o

Educational, Youth & Community Events:
▪

Max Attendance: 500

▪

Maximum events per year: 5

Social Gathering Events:
▪

Max Attendance: 2,000

▪

Maximum number of events per year: 2

Cultural & Festival Gatherings:
▪

Max Attendance: 3,500

▪

Maximum number of events per year: 1

•

Two events each year may be two days in length.

•

Social & Cultural/Festival Events may have an additional day for setup and an additional day
for tear down.

•

NO Cultural or Festival Events on the weekend of the Almelund Apple Festival or Almelund
Threshing Show.

•

The County's Environmental Services Department, Sheriff’s Office, Fire Department and each
township must receive written notice of an upcoming Cultural or Festival Event 60 days prior to
the event.

•

Event names, dates and attendance will be verified and reported to the County by December
31st of each year.

•

At the end of each year, Environmental Services, County Sheriff, and representatives from the
Sno-Baron's organization will meet to discuss the years events; if complaints were received,
how best to minimize/eliminate them. If complaints persist and serious conditions violated, staff
may recommend that the CUP be amended or revoked by the County Board of Commissioners.

Planning Commission #4
Comments:
•

15 events, regardless of the proposed schedule, is too many.

•

I am concerned about the proposed use going with the property in the event that Sno-Baron’s
sells.

Page 2 of 2

RESOLUTION NO. PC2026-0901

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHISAGO COUNTY, MINNESOTA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING
COMMERCIAL RECREATION AREA ACTIVITIES ON PARCELS IDENTIFIED
AS PIDS 09.00269.00 AND 09.00271.00 IN SUNRISE TOWNSHIP

WHEREAS, property owner Sno-Baron’s Snowmobile Club, Inc. submitted an application dated

received April 30, 2026 and considered complete June 3, 2026 for a Conditional Use Permit allowing
Commercial Recreation Area activities on three parcels identified as PIDs 09.00269.00, 09.00271.00,
and 01.00274.00 in Sunrise and Amador Townships; and

WHEREAS, the property owner submitted an amended application dated July 30, 2026 with, among
other changes, a reduction of the subject site from three parcels to two parcels identified as PIDs
09.00269.00 and 09.00271.00 in Sunrise Township; and

WHEREAS, the subject site is located in the Agricultural (AG) District; and
WHEREAS, the combined area of the subject site is 140± acres and legally described as:
PID 09.00269.00 and 09.00271.00

Chisago County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the Amador Town Board considered the original request on June 16, 2026 and
recommended denial; and

WHEREAS, the Sunrise Town Board considered the original request on June 18, 2026 and
recommended denial; and

WHEREAS, notice was provided and on July 2, 2026 the Planning Commission opened a public

hearing regarding the original application at which it heard from the Land Services Coordinator
and the property owner’s representatives, and invited members of the public to comment; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission motioned to continue the public hearing to September 3, 2026
and extend the State mandated 60-day review period by an additional 60 days. Written notice of

the Planning Commission’s actions was provided to the property owner via written correspondence
dated July 10, 2026; and

Page 1 of 7

WHEREAS, in response to comments received from the Amador Town Board, Sunrise Town Board,

Chisago County Planning Commission, and public testimony received on July 2, 2026, the property
owner submitted an amended application dated July 30, 2026; and

WHEREAS, the Sunrise Town Board considered the July 30, 2026 amended application on August 20,
2026 and recommended denial; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the July 30, 2026 amended application, heard

from the Land Services Coordinator and the property owner’s representatives, invited members of
the public to comment, and closed the public hearing on September 3, 2026; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered several factors for granting Conditional Use
Permits and made the following findings per Zoning Ordinance Section 8.04, C.:
Factor #1

The [proposed action is consistent with the] Comprehensive Plan and development

Finding #1

The Chisago County Comprehensive Plan outlines a number of goals and policies

policies of the County;

which are meant to support and encourage types of activity which emphasize

Chisago County’s rural atmosphere as a draw for visitors. Among these identified
goals and policies are the following:

Economic Development Goal: Provide for a range of economic diversity and

development opportunities to maintain and strengthen the County’s economy.
Policies:
1.

Promote natural amenities in the County as assets to economic development

2.

Acknowledge tourism’s economic value and the contribution of this industry to

3.

Promote tourism and commercial recreation as expanding opportunities for

and business opportunity.

both the diversity of the County economic base and the potential for growth.
employment and tax base.

Land Use / Growth Management Goal: Plan for the orderly, efficient growth of
commercial and industrial development in the County.
Policy:

12. Commercial Recreation, Home Occupations, and Rural Retail Tourism
opportunities should be allowed in the Agricultural District as long as
performance standards are established and met.

Based on the above listed goals and policies, the County finds that the proposed
use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Factor #2

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

Finding #2

The subject site and proposed Commercial Recreation Area activities are self-

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

contained and self-sustained, relying upon no public facilities or utilities to operate.
Page 2 of 7

The proposed use will rely on public roads for access to the property; however, the

subject site gains access from the well-established and well-maintained MN 95 and

Oriole Avenue / CR 70. The proposed use will require auxiliary law enforcement and

emergency response services, likely through the form of traffic control, security, and
first responders. Though not a public facility or utility, these public service officers

may be called upon to provide a higher than normal level of service at the subject
site during events. Such services would not be construed to be an excessive

demand upon public resources, as any extraordinary costs would be borne by the
permit holder. Therefore, the County finds that the proposed use will not create an
excessive demand on public facilities or utilities which serve the area.
Factor #3

The use shall be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from

Finding #3

The subject site consists of two parcels which total 140± acres in size, a sizable tract

adjacent development or land so that existing development does not suffer undue

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

of land which could reasonably be said to provide a fair amount of distance buffer
from neighboring properties. Further, the subject site is bordered by St. Croix Trail /

MN 95 to the north and Oriole Avenue / CR 70 to the east, and bordered by vacant
agricultural land to the south, west, and north which aids in mitigating potential

negative impacts to surrounding properties. The application indicates that many of

the proposed events will take place on the eastern portion of the subject site, which
will aid in mitigating potential negative impacts to developed properties northwest
of the subject site.
Factor #4

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

Finding #4

The proposed Commercial Recreation Area activities will be conducted outdoors

effect upon adjacent properties;

and within existing structures. Many of these existing structures are quite customary
within the Agricultural District and will therefore not have an adverse impact upon

adjacent properties. Further, the County is not aware of any evidence which would
indicate that the appearance of the site has had or will have any lasting adverse
effect upon adjacent properties.
Factor #5

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

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

Finding #5

applicant intends to locate the proposed use;

The proposed Amendment is in keeping with the goals of the Chisago County

Comprehensive Plan as described in Finding #1. The stated purpose of the Chisago

County Zoning Ordinance is to provide for and protect the public health, safety, and
general welfare through nine specific objectives. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance

identifies the purpose of the Agricultural District as providing areas to be utilized for
agriculture and agricultural related uses and low-density residential areas, while
also identifying several allowable uses within the district, including Commercial

Recreation Areas. Through close evaluation of the request and the establishment of
Page 3 of 7

conditions of approval, the County finds that the proposed use complies with the
goals established within the Comprehensive Plan, the purposes and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance and, more specifically, with the purposes and intent of the
Agricultural District.
Factor #6

Finding #6

The use shall not cause traffic hazard or congestion; and

With the majority of proposed annual events (13 of 15) having a maximum

attendance of 600 and 1,500 individuals and only two annual events having a

maximum attendance of 3,000 individuals, the County finds that there will be an

occasional increase in local traffic during the proposed Commercial Recreation

Area activities as attendees enter and exit the subject site. The two annual events
with higher attendance could potentially result in periods of higher than normal

levels of minor traffic congestion on local roads for short periods of time. Therefore,
to address the potential of traffic hazards or congestion during these two larger

events, the County proposes to implement a condition requiring submission of a
detailed traffic plan provided at least 60 days in advance to the Department of

Environmental Services, Chisago County Sheriff’s Office, and Chisago County Public
Works Department. Further, the County will require that the permit holder comply
with any recommendations provided by or conditions imposed by these

departments / offices following their review of the detailed traffic plan.
Factor #7

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

Finding #7

Through implementation of conditions pertaining to noise, refuse collection, and

or general unsightliness.

prohibition of certain types of events which have the ability to generate excessive

noise, the County finds that the proposed Commercial Recreation Area activities will
not adversely impact nearby properties by way of noise or general unsightliness.
Further, the County finds no evidence to suggest that the proposed use would

cause levels of glare which would cause adverse impacts to nearby properties.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of Chisago County, Minnesota

hereby recommends approval of the request for Conditional Use Permit, subject to the following

conditions:
1.

This Conditional Use Permit grants approval for Commercial Recreation Area activities and
events on parcels identified as PIDs 09.00269.00 and 09.00271.00 in accordance with the

application materials dated July 30, 2026 and kept on file with the Chisago County Department

of Environmental Services and as conditioned herein. No Commercial Recreation Area activities
allowed by this Conditional Use Permit shall be allowed on the parcel identified as PID

01.00274.00. For the purposes of this approval, the terms “activities” and “events” shall have the
same meaning and shall be interchangeable.
2.

Number and Duration of Events and Attendance:

a. There shall be no more than 15 annual events, in addition to the annual Hay Days event

which is authorized through separate Conditional Use Permit approval. Only those events

Page 4 of 7

listed in the July 30, 2026 application shall be allowed (refer to 2.d. below for list of permitted

events).

b. There shall be a maximum number of events allowed per quarter as follows; however, there

shall be no events allowed during the annual Almelund Threshing Show or annual Almelund

Apple Festival:
•
•
•
•

January 1 through March 31 – three (3)
April 1 through June 30 – six (6)

July 1 through September 30 – two (2)

October 1 through December 31 – four (4)

c. No more than two (2) of the permitted 15 events shall be multi-day events, and multi-day
events shall not exceed two (2) days in duration.

d. All events shall be categorized and permitted as follows:
•

Educational, Youth, and Community Programs
o

Maximum attendance of 600 individuals

o

Permitted events include: MN DNR Field Days Safety Training (limited to ATVs/UTVs

o

Maximum of six (6) events per calendar year

and snowmobiles); school sponsored events; Boy Scout, Girl Scout, and 4-H

activities; “family friendly events” such as movie night, roller skating, or similar; and,
community athletic events such as 5K or 10K races.
•

Social Gatherings
o

Maximum attendance of 1,500 individuals

o

Permitted events include: vehicle expos such as car, bike, boat, or vintage sled shows

o

Maximum of six (6) events per calendar year

(no racing allowed); animal expos such as dog or horse shows; arts and crafts
shows; flea markets; and, winery or brewery expos.

•

Cultural and Festival Gatherings

o

Maximum attendance of 3,000 individuals

o

Permitted events include: small model aircraft expos; kite and hot air balloon expos;

o

o

Maximum of three (3) events per calendar year

horse skijoring events; outdoor trade shows; business job fairs; and, heavy
equipment expos.

Written notice of each event shall be provided at least 60 days in advance to the
Department of Environmental Services, Chisago County Sheriff’s Office, Sunrise

Township, and Almelund Fire Department. At a minimum, the notice shall include the
o

name of the event, dates and hours of the event, and anticipated event attendance.
A detailed traffic plan shall be provided at least 60 days in advance to the

Department of Environmental Services, Chisago County Sheriff’s Office, and Chisago
County Public Works Department. Accordingly, the permit holder shall comply with

any recommendations provided by or conditions imposed by these departments /
offices.

e. The following events shall be prohibited: sno-cross, go-cart, ATV, and similar racing; drag

racing; dog sledding; motorized skijoring; outdoor amplified music and concerts; fireworks;

Page 5 of 7

discharge of firearms and/or firearms training; off-site parking; and, events which take
place beyond the boundaries of the subject site.
f.

At least one (1) property owner representative must be on site for the full duration of any
event.

g. Annual Reporting of All Events – The permit holder shall prepare an annual report and

submit said report to the Department of Environmental Services no later than December 31st.

The report shall, at a minimum, include the names, dates, and attendance at all events

which occurred throughout that calendar year. Further, the report shall specify the category
of each event (refer to 2.d. above for list of permitted categories).

3.

Hours of Operation and Pre-Event / Post-Event Activities:

a. No event shall commence earlier than 7:00 am and all events shall cease by 10:00 pm.
b. Event set-up and tear-down may occur no more than 24 hours prior to a scheduled event
and no more than 24 hours following an event.

4. Noise – The permit holder shall ensure that all noise generated by the events comply with MPCA
rules.

5. Law Enforcement, Security, and Other Emergency Services:

a. Each event will require a security plan approved by the Chisago County Sheriff’s Office.
b. The permit holder is responsible for any extraordinary law enforcement costs related to the
events, as deemed necessary by the Chisago County Sheriff.

c. If requested by the Chisago County Sheriff’s Office, the permit holder shall provide a
command post for law enforcement and emergency services’ needs.

6. Parking – All event parking shall be accommodated on-site, and no parking shall be allowed on
adjacent public roadways.

7.

Access to Site – All event attendees shall access the site from Oriole Avenue / CR 70. The St.
Croix Trail / MN 95 access(es) shall only be available to and used by law enforcement,
emergency vehicles, and government vehicles.

8. Sanitation Facilities – Portable restrooms with hand-washing stations shall be provided by the
permit holder for all events. Further, the permit holder shall comply with any and all Minnesota
Department of Health regulations pertaining to sanitation facilities.

9. Refuse – The permit holder shall be responsible for providing refuse containers at each event

and securely containing refuse generated during each event. All refuse shall be removed from
the subject site by a hauler licensed by Chisago County.

10. Food and Alcohol:

a. All food vendors shall obtain and display food service permits issued by the State of
Minnesota and meet all applicable State requirements.

b. All liquor shall be served in compliance with all applicable Minnesota Department of

Public Safety regulations, Minnesota statutes pertaining to liquor licensing, and Chisago

County liquor licensing requirements / liquor license ordinance, all as may be amended
from time to time. Law enforcement must be on site during all times of alcohol sales

Page 6 of 7

and/or during any event focused on or featuring alcohol.
11. Lighting – Lighting shall be maintained in such a way that light cannot spill onto or otherwise
impact neighboring properties.

12. Hold Harmless Clause – The permit holder must hold harmless, defend, and indemnify Chisago
County, its officers and employees, for and against any and all liability and claims for property
damage, economic loss, personal injury, and death, including but not limited to the costs of
defense of any claims and attorney’s fees, alleged to have been incurred as a result of or in
connection wit the activities or events, irrespective of whether such damage, loss, injury, or
death is alleged to have occurred on or off the subject site.

13. Any expansion or intensification of the approved use – including, but not limited to additional
events (type, number, or frequency), increased attendance, or other expansion or

intensification as determined by the Chisago County Department of Environmental Services –

shall only be allowed upon further review by the Planning Commission and approval by the
Board of Commissioners by way of a Conditional Use Permit Amendment.

14. 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.

Adopted by the Planning Commission of Chisago County, Minnesota,
this 3rd day of September, 2026.

Chris DuBose

____________

Eric Leivian

____________

John Sutcliffe

____________

Jim McCarthy

____________

____________________________________
Jolene Wille
Chair

Dave Whitney

____________

Chip Yeager

____________

Jolene Wille

____________

ATTEST: ___________________________________
Beth Gervais

Land Services Coordinator

Page 7 of 7

RESOLUTION NO. PC2026-0901

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHISAGO COUNTY, MINNESOTA,
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING
COMMERCIAL RECREATION AREA ACTIVITIES ON PARCELS IDENTIFIED
AS PIDS 09.00269.00 AND 09.00271.00 IN SUNRISE TOWNSHIP

WHEREAS, property owner Sno-Baron’s Snowmobile Club, Inc. submitted an application dated received

April 30, 2026 and considered complete June 3, 2026 for a Conditional Use Permit allowing Commercial

Recreation Area activities on three parcels identified as PIDs 09.00269.00, 09.00271.00, and 01.00274.00 in
Sunrise and Amador Townships; and

WHEREAS, the property owner submitted an amended application dated July 30, 2026 with, among other
changes, a reduction of the subject site from three parcels to two parcels identified as PIDs 09.00269.00
and 09.00271.00 in Sunrise Township; and

WHEREAS, the subject site is located in the Agricultural (AG) District; and
WHEREAS, the combined area of the subject site is 140± acres and legally described as:
PID 09.00269.00 and 09.00271.00

Chisago County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the Amador Town Board considered the original request on June 16, 2026 and recommended
denial; and

WHEREAS, the Sunrise Town Board considered the original request on June 18, 2026 and recommended

denial; and

WHEREAS, notice was provided and on July 2, 2026 the Planning Commission opened a public hearing
regarding the original application at which it heard from the Land Services Coordinator and the property
owner’s representatives, and invited members of the public to comment; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission motioned to continue the public hearing to September 3, 2026 and
extend the State mandated 60-day review period by an additional 60 days. Written notice of the
Planning Commission’s actions was provided to the property owner via written correspondence dated
July 10, 2026; and

WHEREAS, in response to comments received from the Amador Town Board, Sunrise Town Board,

Chisago County Planning Commission, and public testimony received on July 2, 2026, the property
owner submitted an amended application dated July 30, 2026; and

Page 1 of 5

WHEREAS, the Sunrise Town Board considered the July 30, 2026 amended application on August 20, 2026
and recommended denial; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the July 30, 2026 amended application, heard from the
Land Services Coordinator and the property owner’s representatives, invited members of the public to
comment, and closed the public hearing on September 3, 2026; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered several factors for granting Conditional Use Permits and

made the following findings per Zoning Ordinance Section 8.04, C.:
Factor #1

The [proposed action is consistent with the] Comprehensive Plan and development

Finding #1

The Chisago County Comprehensive Plan outlines a number of goals and policies which

policies of the County;

are meant to support and encourage agriculture. The County finds that the proposed
Commercial Recreation Area activity is of such a frequency, intensity, and scale that it

will create an incompatible land use in the agricultural area. Specific goals and policies

to support this finding include:

Agricultural Goal (page 5-18): Prevent incompatible land use in agricultural areas and

encourage urban land uses in or near incorporated areas to help maintain the ability of
owners to operate farms economically in Chisago County.
Policies:
1.

Hobby farms should be encouraged and specialized farming provided opportunities

2.

Provide standards to protect new and existing agricultural land uses in agricultural
areas from incompatible land uses.

to maintain and grow.

Discussion on the above Agricultural Goal and Policies: Providing Commercial Recreation

Area opportunity to small acreage farms is an opportunity intended to enhance the
agricultural opportunities while staying compatible with the core agricultural land use of
the area. The scale and impacts of the proposed commercial activity in this instance,

with the addition of up to 15 more events on the subject site throughout the year, pre-

event site preparation and post-event site clean-up days associated with each event,
and increased traffic to and from the site’s Oriole Avenue / CR 70 accesses, creates an
incompatible commercial environment in this otherwise low-density residential and

agricultural neighborhood located miles away from the closest urban incorporated area
or rural center.

Economic Development Goal (page 6-22): Provide for a range of economic diversity and

development opportunities to maintain and strengthen the County’s economy.

Policy:
5. Encourage new commercial and industrial development within existing communities
where adequate infrastructure is available.

Discussion on the above Economic Development Goal and Policy: The proposed
Commercial Recreation Area use includes up to 15 annual events on the property, in
Page 2 of 5

addition to the annual event known as Hay Days which is authorized by separate

Conditional Use Permit approval. The County finds that this request indicates a large
scale commercial use of the agriculturally zoned land and represents commercial
growth which should be located where urban sewer, water, and safety services are

readily available.

Land Use/Growth Management Goal (page 9-9): Plan for the orderly, efficient growth of

commercial and industrial development in the County.

Policies:
2. Encourage limited commercial developments that do not need public sewer and
7.

water to locate in areas with adequate road service within rural village centers.

Consider the I-35 corridor as a location for commercial / industrial land uses.

Discussion on the above Land Use/Growth Management Goal and Policies: The

agricultural areas of the County are intended for agriculture and other resource uses,

with limited other uses. The scale and impacts of the proposed commercial activity in

this instance, with the addition of up to 15 more events on the subject site throughout the
year, pre-event site preparation and post-event site clean-up days associated with
each event, creates an impactful year-round commercial environment in this

agriculturally zoned area. The cumulative events impact of this commercial expansion of
the use of the site is no longer small scale or limited with this proposal.
Factor #2

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

Finding #2

The County finds no evidence to suggest that the proposed Commercial Recreation
Area activities will create an excessive demand on existing parks, schools, or public

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

utilities as the activities are contained on the subject site and served by private utilities.
However, the Chisago County Planning Commission received a significant amount of

public testimony on July 2, 2026 and September 3, 2026 which indicates that there is
great concern with potential impact to surrounding public roadways. Members of the
public, as documented in the applicable Planning Commission meeting minutes,

primarily spoke about traffic impacts resulting from the larger annual Hay Days event

which takes place on the same site. While this request for Commercial Recreation Area
is separate from the Conditional Use Permit which allows the Hay Days event and the

proposed events are of smaller scale, the Hay Days event is a strong factual indicator of
traffic and roadway concerns and increased negative impacts to neighboring property
owners.
Factor #3

The use shall be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from

Finding #3

negative impact and there will be no significant deterrence to future development;
The County finds that the presence and disturbance of excessive noise and glare

adjacent development or land so that existing development does not suffer undue

resulting from 15 Commercial Recreation Area events does impact adjacent land and

homes. While the subject site is 140± acres in size, the July 30, 2026 application materials
provide site plans indicating that certain events, including, but not necessarily limited to,
hot air balloon expos, high school track meets, and winery and brewery expos will be in

Page 3 of 5

close proximity and, in some case, immediately adjacent to property boundaries with no
proposed setbacks from adjacent properties or additional screening provided. The
County finds that the lack of distance and screening and/or the inability to screen

certain types of event features, such as kites, hot air balloons, small model aircraft, and
drones, will cause negative impacts, including loss of privacy, and will be incompatible

with existing adjacent residential and agricultural uses and will deter future
development in the immediate area unless a commercial zoning designation is sought
in which surrounding properties also take on a dominant commercial appearance and
use.
Factor #4

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

Finding #4

The County finds that the randomness of 15 events throughout the year, in addition to

upon adjacent properties;

the previously approved annual Hay Days event, and varying event types in addition to
the pre-event site preparation and post-event site clean-up days associated with each
event, site changes, and ongoing activities will create a continual appearance of a

commercial district that will adversely affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent rural
agricultural properties.
Factor #5

Finding #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 applicant intends to locate
the proposed use;

The property is not commercially zoned; it is agriculturally zoned. The Chisago County

Zoning Ordinance states that the purpose of the Agricultural (AG) District is to provide
areas to be utilized for agriculture and agriculture related uses and low-density
residential areas. Conditionally permitted Commercial Recreation Area activities are

allowed within the AG District; however, the scale of this proposal is not contemplated in
the Zoning Ordinance or reasonably acceptable in a non-commercial area of the

County. The County finds that 15 annual events, which, per the July 30, 2026 application,
has the potential to attract 21,600 individuals to the subject site over the course of a year
in addition to the previously approved annual Hay Days event, taking place on a 140±

acre commercial recreation event area contradicts the stated purpose of the AG District.
Further, the County finds that the scale and random variety of events causes too
frequent and too onerous of a disruption to the surrounding agriculturally occupied and

zoned properties; and, the frequency and scale of Commercial Recreation Area activities

requested are too broad and too extensive for an agriculturally zoned property; and, the

level of Commercial Recreation Area activity being requested of the site is simply an
excessive impact that cannot be adequately mitigated and should instead be located in
a commercial district.

Factor #6
Finding #6

The use shall not cause traffic hazard or congestion; and
The County finds that the allowance of 15 events, along with pre-event site preparation

and post-event site clean-up days for each event and in addition to the previously

permitted annual Hay Days event, will indeed create traffic hazard and congestion. This
finding is supported by public testimony received by the Chisago County Planning
Commission on July 2, 2026 and September 3, 2026 and as described in Finding #2

Page 4 of 5

above. Traffic associated with the proposed events will converge on the limited number
of Oriole Avenue / CR 70 site entrances, with home and property owners on the traffic
and site entrance route subjected to compounding levels of traffic. The frequency and
repetition of traffic to and from the site for 15 events will create an undue commercial

atmosphere in this otherwise low-density residential and agricultural neighborhood. The
principal agricultural designation of the property itself will be lost to that of a
commercial event center venue that is not properly located near an urban center or
rural village center.

Factor #7
Finding #7

Existing nearby properties shall not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or
general unsightliness.

The County finds that the additional event frequency and the potential scale of events

will exponentially multiply the previously permitted annual Hay Days event beyond what
is acceptable for the Agricultural (AG) District which is primarily intended to support
agriculture, agriculture related uses, and low-density residential areas. The County finds

that the increased duration and frequency of noise and light glare into homes and

properties resulting from up to 15 additional events will cross a reasonable threshold

adversely affecting the rural agricultural area and its inhabitants. This finding is
supported by the significant public testimony received by the Chisago County Planning
Commission on July 2, 2026 and September 3, 2026 which described negative impacts
specifically related to noise resulting from traffic, music, and event attendees, and the

loss of quiet enjoyment of their properties. The County believes that the proposed
Commercial Recreation Area activities will result in ongoing unsightliness and repetitive

adverse impacts, such as noise and glare, to a non-commercial area. If the subject site
were commercially zoned, this type of ongoing activity would be expected and more

justifiable; however, in an agriculturally zoned area, the County finds that the scale of the
request is simply an excessive impact that cannot be adequately mitigated.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of Chisago County, Minnesota hereby
recommends denial of the request for Conditional Use Permit based on the findings above.
Adopted by the Planning Commission of Chisago County, Minnesota,
this 3rd day of September, 2026.

Chris DuBose

Eric Leivian

Jim McCarthy

John Sutcliffe

____________
____________
____________
____________

_________________________________
Jolene Wille

Chair

Dave Whitney

Jolene Wille

Chip Yeager

ATTEST:

____________
____________
____________

___________________________________
Beth Gervais
Land Services Coordinator

Page 5 of 5

Item No. 7b

Staff Report
TO:

Planning Commission

FROM:

Kurt Schneider, Environmental Services Director

SUBJECT:

Floodplain Management Ordinance Amendment

DATE:

September 3, 2026

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

Receive any public testimony into the record; and

2.

Motion to continue the public hearing to October 1, 2026.

CHISAGO COUNTY ORDINANCES: ISSUE IDENTIFICATION TRACKING MATRIX
September 3, 2026
No.

ISSUE TOPIC / SUMMARY

DATE
IDENTIFIED

SECTION
LOCATION(s)

PAGE(s)

ISSUE NARRATIVE / DETAIL

ALTERNATIVES / SOLUTIONS

COMMISSION / BOARD
CONSENSUS & DIRECTION

CONSENSUS
DATE

ACTION PRIORITY
High / Annual Update / Other

STATUS

1

Rural Retail Tourism Wedding/Gathering Venues

12/18/24

5.06
4.17

119
104

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

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

County Board Directed

CB 12/18/24

High

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

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

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

High

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

2

Major Home Occupation Horse / Equine

01/03/25

5.06 B & C
4.04
3

118
66
9

3

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

01/07/25

5.02

116

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

Board Directed Public Hearing

CB 01/07/25

High

Completed 02/19/25

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

Commission Consensus
Requested for County Board
Endorsement and Direction

PC 05/01/25

Other - Ongoing Effort

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

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

Board Direction to Proceed

CB 03/19/25

Other

In Progress - Staff Review

Other

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

High

In progress - County Baord adopted a
1-year moratorium ordinance on
08/05/2026.

Other

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

Other - Over the Course of the
Next Year

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

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

4

Zoning Map Amendment
Work Plan

02/06/25

5.02

116

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

5

SSTS Ordinance 10-1

03/19/25

Full Ordinance

All

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

All

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

NA

Board enacted a moratorium on
data centers to provide County
staff, the Planning Commission,
Proposed by Commissioner McCarthy on 10/02/25 to consider potential sizes and
and the County Board with a
impacts of data centers. Proposed by Commissioner DuBose on 07/02/2026 to consider Enact a moratorium on data centers for the study and development of
meaningful opportunity to study
recommending a moratorium on data centers to allow for study and development of
zoning regulations specific to data centers.
whether and how the County
zoning regulations.
should amend its official
controls to effectively regulate
data centers moving forward

6

7

8

9

Short-Term Rental Licensing
Ordinance 060320-1

Data Centers

Water-Related Regulations
within Zoning Ordinance

Temporary Storage and
Shipping Containers

06/18/25

10/2/2025
07/02/2026

11/06/25

11/12/25

Full Ordinance

NA

3
7.13-7.18

4.19

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

Board Direction to Proceed

CB 06/18/25

The Lower St. Croix Watershed Partnership (LSCWP) extended an offer to review the
County's water-related regulations / ordinances to identify possible updates which
Preliminary discussion at
9-58
Consider suggested ordinance amendment(s) based on feedback from
provide clear, effective, and consistent standards with the intent of protecting the
11/06/25 Planning Commission PC 02/05/26
179-182
the Lower St. Croix Watershed Partnership and its consultant.
County's lakes, rivers, and wetlands. The LSCWP has engaged a counsultant to carry out
meeting
the review.

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

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

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

10

Floodplain Management
Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 12-1)

11

SSTS Ordinance 10-1

12

Buffer Ordinance
Ord. No. 17/1018-1

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

03/18/26

Full Ordinance

06/03/26

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

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

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

Full Ordinance

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

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

07/28/26

All

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

All

Board Direction to Proceed

Board Direction to Proceed

CB 03/18/26

CB 06/03/26

High

In-Progress - Public Hearing
scheduled for 05/07/26; continued to
06/04/26; continued to 07/02/26;
continued to 08/06/2026; continued
to 09/03/26.

High

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

High - Amendment Must be
Complete by July 31, 2027

In-Progress - County staff is
scheduled to meet with BWSR on
08/31/26 to discuss the Ordinance
Amendment