The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Flug. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The Chair announced that the Heilig item of old business had been withdrawn by the applicant, in the event anyone in the audience was in attendance regarding that matter. The minutes of the April 3^rd meeting had been distributed and reviewed by members. Tim O’Keefe moved to approve the minutes as drafted, seconded it and the motion was carried.

No tour had been made as there were no new planning applications received.

Chairman Flug then called attention to a memorandum which had been sent to the Planning Commission members by Zoning Director Mary Schmitz. Mary pointed out that some changes to recent past practices might be in order, such as allowing a full presentation by the applicant, prior to review of possible conditions of approval that had been drafted by staff. Mary suggested that the staff would now present discussion points for use in the formulation of conditions by the Planning Commission members themselves. The memo also sought to remind the members that meetings were to be operated under the Planning Commission’s adopted Rules of Conduct. Mary pointed out that while a little levity is sometimes welcome, these are serious matters under consideration and applicants are owed respectful consideration. Chairman Flug acknowledged Mary’s excellent points, and thanked her for the reminder.

Zoning Ordinance Revisions Section 8 - Planner Patrick Hollister then presented possible revisions to Section 8 as drafted by staff, along with copies of MN Statute 394, and an updated Ordinance Revision Timeline. The draft revisions to Section 8 are available for review in the Zoning Office, and were adopted into the record of proceedings for purposes of consideration in this work session. Section 8 concerns administration and enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance, including formation of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, the Planning Commission, as well as the duties and responsibilities of both bodies. It also contains the Appeal, Variance, Conditional Use Permit and Amendment requirements. The revised section contained strike-throughs on sections considered for elimination, and underlined sections for possible text additions. In addition, Patrick included some examples of ordinance language from other counties to discuss with the Planning Commission, in particular criteria to evaluate conditional Use Permit applications. He then led an overview of the section as proposed for revision, and sought comments from the Planning Commission. Tim O’Keefe had submitted a number of questions

for consideration, which Patrick had distributed to the other members. Mary Schmitz invited Commissioner O’Keefe to present his questions for discussion, but he deferred to Patrick to summarize the list. These questions involved definitions, possible language amendments, suggested procedural and application processes, and questions on the enabling authority given to the various appointed bodies. Patrick responded to the questions, and offered clarification on points of misunderstanding. He then invited the other Planning Commission members to review the questions and suggested changes, and add them to the body of proposed revisions which have been submitted, for further consideration as the Planning Commission draws nearer to concluding the entire ordinance revision. He added that as always, Planning Commission members were invited to e-mail him or phone him with additional thoughts as they continue the deliberation process.

Green Corridor Discussion Patrick then explained that he and Mary had met with the Trust for Public Land, the Minnesota Land Trust, and the DNR to discuss land preservation options. The group also suggested changes to the Metro Conservation Corridor in Chisago County. Patrickpresented a map of the Metro Conservation Corridors for the Twin Cities area as well as a zoomed-in version for Chisago County. Like the County’s own Green Corridor, the Metro Conservation Corridor is intended to identify areas of importance for preservation. The DNR, the Trust for Public Land, and the Minnesota Land Trust all refer to the Metro Conservation Corridor map when identifying preservation priorities. Patrick explained that when County planning staff attended a recent meeting of the Township Board Association,staff heard from some Township Officers that they felt that the boundaries ofthe Green Corridor should be changed. In particular, some officers felt that the map had too much “green” and not enough “white”. Patrick suggested that the Metro Conservation Corridor may be worth considering as a guide for amendingthe Green Corridor for two reasons: Most importantly, the Metro Conservation Corridor represents more recent rigorous analysis by the State as to which areas of our County warrant the most natural preservation effort. Secondarily, the Metro Conservation Corridor is smaller than our current Green Corridor, and therefore should represent a step in the right direction according to some township officers. Patrick concluded by saying that he intended to present a more detailed analysis of what the impact on each township and the County as a whole would be if the Green Corridor were modified to conform to the shape and size of the Metro Conservation Corridor atthe next Planning Commission meeting.

Patrick had also revised the matrix he had created depicting the differences between the TDR program as conceived by the Landowners Coalition, and the program as it presently exists, to showcase the contrast between the two. He asked the Planning Commission to include the matrix in their ongoing consideration of the ordinance revisions.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.