Loading...
04-21-26 PC Agenda and Packet A.6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER B.PUBLIC HEARINGS B.1 Consider Proposed Ordinance XXX: Amending Chapter 20 to Add Brew Pubs as a Permitted Use in the IOP Zoning District C.GENERAL BUSINESS D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES D.1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated April 7, 2026 E.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS F.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS G.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION H.OPEN DISCUSSION I.ADJOURNMENT AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 2026 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 9:00 p.m. as outlined in the official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or be made part of the public record. Under State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part of the public input process. 1 Planning Commission Item April 21, 2026 Item Consider Proposed Ordinance XXX: Amending Chapter 20 to Add Brew Pubs as a Permitted Use in the IOP Zoning District File No.26-07 Item No: B.1 Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Prepared By Rachel Jeske, Planner Applicant David Norris Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations Chapter 20, Article II, Division 2 Amendments Chapter 20, Article XXII, Section 812 Permitted Uses in the "IOP" Zoning District Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 2, Section 968 Brew Pub SUGGESTED ACTION Proposed Motion: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached Ordinance amending the permitted uses in the industrial office park zoning district to include brew pubs as presented." SUMMARY Brew pubs are currently a permitted use in the Highway Business (BH), General Business (BG), and Central Business District (CBD) zoning districts. Breweries are currently permitted uses in the Highway Business (BH), General Business (BG), Central Business District (CBD), and the Industrial Office Park (IOP) zoning districts. The applicant is requesting that brew pubs are added as a permitted use in the 2 IOP zoning district to align with other zoning districts. The difference between a brewery and a brew pub is that brew pubs have a full liquor license and therefore can serve hard liquor in addition to beer. Staff find this to be a reasonable request, as the uses operate in a very similar manner and the amendment creates consistency throughout the code. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend that Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested zoning ordinance amendment as written. ATTACHMENTS Development Review Application Proposed Ordinance - Brew Pubs in IOP Staff Report 3 4 5 6 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 20-812 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec 20-812 Permitted Uses The following uses are permitted in an "IOP" District: (a) Adult day care, subject to the requirements of section 20-966. (b) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (c) Automotive repair shops. (d) Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom producing less than 3,500 barrels per year, subject to the requirements of section 20-969. (e) Cannabis Businesses: cultivator (including medical), manufacturer (including medical and lower potency Hemp edible), mezzobusiness, testing facility, and wholesaler meeting the performance standards in Chapter 20, Section 973. (f) Cannabis Businesses: microbusiness, medical combined transporter and delivery service, transporter and delivery service meeting the performance standards in Chapter 20, Section 973. (g) Conference/convention centers. (h) Health services. (i) Indoor health and recreation clubs. (j) Light industrial. (k) Lower-potency hemp edible retailer associated with a Brewery or Distillery meeting performance standards of Chapter 20, Section 973. 7 (l) Microdistillery operated in conjunction with a cocktail room, subject to the requirements of section 20-967. (m) Offices. (n) Off-premises parking lots. (o) Print shops. (p) Recording studios. (q) Utility services. (r) Vocational school. (s) Warehouses. (t) Brew Pubs, subject to the requirements of Section 20-968. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___day of _______, 2026, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota ______________________________ ________________________________ Jenny Potter, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor (Published in the ______________________________ on ______________________________) 8 PH (952) 227-1100 • ChanhassenMN.gov 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD • PO BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN • MINNESOTA • 55317 Project: Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Planning Case 2026-07) Applicant: David Norris, The Savage Tap Planning Commission: April 21, 2026 60 Day Action Deadline: May 19, 2026 Drafted By: Rachel Jeske, Planner Eric Maass, Community Development Director Staff Report Date: April 15, 2026 SUMMARY OF REQUEST Applicant is requesting a zoning ordinance amendment to allow brew pubs as a permitted use in the Industrial Office Park Zoning District. PROPOSED MOTION “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached Ordinance amending the permitted uses in the Industrial Office Park zoning district to include brew pubs as presented.” LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city has full discretion in approving or denying Zoning Ordinance Amendments, as long as the proposal meets the intent of the zoning district and the intent of the land use in the comprehensive plan. This is a legislative decision. Notice of this public hearing was posted in the Sun Sailor on April 9, 2026. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Article II, Division 2 AMENDMENTS Article XXII, Section 20-812 PERMITTED USES IN THE “IOP” ZONING DISTRICT Article 20-XXIII, Division 2, Section 968 BREW PUB 9 ZONING OVERVIEW City Code defines a brewery as “a location where malt liquor is manufactured for sale.” Breweries are currently a permitted use in the Highway Business (BH), General Business (BG), Central Business District (CBD), and the Industrial Office Park (IOP) zoning districts. City Code defines a brew pub as: “a brewer who also holds one or more retail on-sale licenses and who manufactures fewer than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a year, at any one licensed premises, the entire production of which is solely for consumption on tap on any licensed premises owned by the brewer, or for off- sale from those licensed premises as permitted in M.S. § 340A.24, subd. 2.” Brew pubs are currently a permitted use in the Highway Business (BH), General Business (BG), and Central Business District (CBD) zoning districts, but not the Industrial Office Park (IOP) zoning district. All brew pubs must abide by the following performance standards listed in Section 20 -986 of City Code. (a) The brew pub shall not produce more than 3,500 barrels per year. (b) An outdoor seating area is permitted provided it has an enclosure and the enclosure is not interrupted; access to the seating area must be through the principle building; its hours of operation shall be no later than 10:00 p.m. Sunday—Thursday and 12:00 a.m. Friday - Saturday; and the outdoor seating area must be located and designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian and vehicular circulation. (c) Shipping and receiving areas shall be located behind the facility or otherwise screened from view. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting that brew pubs are added as a permitted use in the Industrial Office Park (IOP) zoning district. The difference between a brewery and a brew pub is that a brew pub has a full liquor license and can therefore serve hard liquor in addition to beer. Brew pubs also have additional manufacturing and off-sale restrictions. Staff finds this to be a reasonable request, as the uses operate in a very similar manner and the amendment creates a consistency of uses between similar zoning districts. ANALYSISThe applicant is requesting that brew pubs are added as a permitted use in the Industrial Office Park (IOP) zoning district. The difference between a brewery and a brew pub is that a brew pub has a full liquor license and can therefore serve hard liquor in addition to beer. Brew pubs also have additional manufacturing and off-sale restrictions. Staff finds this to be a reasonable request, as the uses operate in a very similar manner and the amendment creates a consistency of uses between similar zoning districts. All code amendments must align with the intent of the city code and the comprehensive plan. City code section 20 -811 states that “The intent of the ‘IOP’ District is to provide an area identified for large-scale light industrial and commercial planned development.” Staff find that the proposed amendment aligns with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as it does not alter the intent of the zoning district and aligns with the underlying Office/Industrial land use. The proposed ordinance amendment alters the permitted uses for all properties zoned Industrial Office Park. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend that Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested zoning ordinance amendment as written. 10 All code amendments must align with the intent of the city code and the comprehensive plan. City Code section 20-811 states that “The intent of the ‘IOP’ District is to provide an area identified for large-scale light industrial and commercial planned development.” Staff find that the proposed amendment aligns with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as it doe s not alter the intent of the zoning district and aligns with the underlying Office/Industrial land use. The proposed ordinance amendment alters the permitted uses for all properties zoned Industrial Office Park. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend that Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested zoning ordinance amendment as written. 11 Planning Commission Item April 21, 2026 Item Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated April 7, 2026 File No.Item No: D.1 Agenda Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Prepared By Amy Weidman, Senior Admin Support Specialist Applicant Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves its April 7, 2026 meeting minutes." SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION 12 "The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves its April 7, 2026 meeting minutes." ATTACHMENTS April 7, 2026 Planning Commission meeting minutes 13 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES APRIL 7, 2026 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Eric Noyes, Steve Jobe, Jeremy Rosengren, Ryan Soller, and Dave Grover. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Olmstead and Katie Trevena. STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner; Jenny Potter, City Clerk; and Eric Maass, Community Development Director. PUBLIC PRESENT: Steve and Wendy Buresh 6651 Galpin Boulevard Nolan Lepel 123 2nd Ave Northwest Al Steinhagen 8815 Tiller Avenue Jason Kleinprintz MGM Vernelle Clayton Market Square ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: 1. PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT & OATH OF OFFICE City Clerk Jenny Potter administered the oath of office for Eric Noyes and Steve Jobe for a three-year term ending March 31, 2029. 2. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR Commissioner Soller moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission motions to elect Eric Noyes as Chair and Steve Jobe as Vice Chair. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0 3. ADOPTION OF BYLAWS Community Development Director Eric Maass gave a summary of the revision to the bylaws to modify the meeting curfew from 10:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Jobe moved, Commissioner Grover seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission adopts the 2026 City of Chanhassen Planning Commission bylaws. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 14 Planning Commission Minutes – April 7, 2026 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CONSIDER A REQUEST TO REZONE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6651 GALPIN BOULEVARD FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Associate Planner Rachel Arsenault reviewed the rezoning request for 6651 Galpin Boulevard. She noted that the present zoning was rural residential, and the lot was 2.5 acres and heavily wooded. She said that the rezoning request was to move from rural residential to single-family residential. She noted that the single-family residential district (RSF rezoning request matched the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. She said that the staff reviews the rezoning request according to six different criteria and this proposal met the requirements of City Code. Chair Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chair Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Grover moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve rezoning the property located at 6651 Galpin Boulevard from Rural Residential to Single-Family Residential. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 2. CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR’S YARD AT 1480 PARK ROAD Mrs. Arsenault reviewed the proposed site plan from the applicant for a contractor’s yard at 1480 Park Road. She said a new fence and landscaping screening were required to meet the F4 and buffer yard D requirements. She explained that the fence should be placed behind the curb, should be 8 feet tall and 95% opaque. She said that the applicant proposed a new sumped catch basin to capture sediment prior to discharging off-site, which would require O&M approval. She noted the additional pavement improvements, curb, gutter, and new stripping, and said that five trees would be removed and replaced on site. She explained that the staff reviewed the City Code Section 20-289 contracting yard requirements, this proposal met the requirements of City Code. Commissioner Rosengren asked about lighting requirements from a previous project at 2100 Stoughton and if the same would apply in this instance. Mrs. Arsenault responded that the City of Chaska bordered 2100 Stoughton on three sides, so as a condition it was required to align with their City Code as well as Chanhassen City Code. Chair Noyes asked if there were inspections of storage yards to make sure that the requirements are being met. Mrs. Arsenault answered that a conditional use permit requires a yearly inspection, completed by city staff. Commissioner Jobe asked about the six-foot high fence at a different property and what the standard fence size was for a contractor yard. Mr. Maass responded that the other property also had an 8-foot-tall fence requirement. 15 Planning Commission Minutes – April 7, 2026 3 Chair Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chair Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Soller asked if there was a diversity requirement for the trees that would be planted. Mrs. Arsenault answered that diversity requirements apply to this project. Commissioner Soller asked if that would be a part of the conditions. Mrs. Arsenault confirmed this information. Commissioner Rosengren moved, Commissioner Grover seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for a contractor’s yard at 1480 Park Road, subject to staff conditions. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 3. ORDINANCE XXX: AMENDING CHAPTERS 1 AND 20, UPDATING SIGN DEFINITIONS AND REGULATIONS Mrs. Arsenault reviewed the sign code change proposals and noted that the first four proposed changes were reviewed on March 3. She stated that the next three proposed changes were identified and addressed after the meeting. She said that the expanded signage opportunities would expand the ability to add awnings, canopies, and projecting signs to all commercial zoning districts. She clarified the definitions for window sign and window covering. She provided example photos of a window sign, a window covering, and a combination of the two for future application. She provided an overview of the proposed code for both. Chair Noyes asked if the changes addressed the issues discussed at the March 3 meeting. Commissioner Jobe responded that the changes addressed the issues. Commissioner Jobe asked for clarification on the 30% for non-window cover and if it was for the total window space. Mrs. Arsenault answered that 30% was the windowpane in which the sign was located. Commissioner Grover asked if the window sign shown in the example would be allowed. Mrs. Arsenault responded that if it were replaced, it would have to be decreased to 30%, but it could continue currently as lawfully non-conforming. Commissioner Grover asked if someone only had one window and how the rules applied. Chair Noyes clarified the amount for the square footage of larger and smaller windows. Mr. Maass said that if a business only had one window, they would round up based on code, allowing a sign on the window. Chair Noyes clarified that the Med Box Grill photo was one window, the Total Wine was one window, and the combination photo was three windows. Mr. Maass confirmed this information. 16 Planning Commission Minutes – April 7, 2026 4 Mrs. Arsenault said a company could still have window coverings to screen certain items or uses. Chair Noyes said that if the retailer or designer was brought into conversation to clarify window amounts, it would be adequate. He thought there was a lack of clarity about the definitions of a window. Commissioner Grover asked if there was a mechanism for a variance. Mr. Maass responded that a variance would not be applicable because there would likely not be a practical difficulty. If they had a unique situation, an applicant could apply for a zoning code amendment. Commissioner Jobe asked if they could clarify what would constitute a window by including language about an inner-pane divider. Mr. Maass explained what they determined made a window for staff. Commissioner Jobe asked about how the process would play out to determine what would constitute a window. Mr. Maass answered that they would use building permit records. Commissioner Soller discussed allowing non-conformities to remain, and if there was a final decision for a safe harbor line. He noted that he did not want to impact current businesses that have already designed items for the window, especially if they just needed to make a small change. Mrs. Arsenault responded that if a business did anything beyond repair, face change, or maintenance, the window would have to come into compliance with city standards. Commissioner Soller stated he did not want businesses to be put under any hardships. Commissioner Grover asked if it was maintenance to replace signage that was like-for-like. Mrs. Arsenault answered that maintenance would be replacing a small portion of the sign. She said that the window cling would be determined if it were a smaller, minuscule replacement like a missing letter. Commissioner Soller proposed allowing like-for-like replacement for businesses with existing signage, unless it is not used for over a year. Mrs. Arsenault noted that the lawful non-conforming code that applies to the rest of Section 20 would allow a sign to be changed out and the square footage to be the same. She said that the content could change but would be allowed to utilize the size. Commissioner Soller asked if that was a separate piece. Mrs. Arsenault answered that it was the lawful non-conforming code. She said that the current sign-code carves out its own lawful non- conforming code. Commissioner Soller asked for clarification. Mrs. Arsenault responded that the code that regulates the Moe’s sign was under the sign article, which had its own lawful non-conforming replacement code. 17 Planning Commission Minutes – April 7, 2026 5 Mr. Maass responded that they had to determine if they would want to be less restrictive than what was currently written. Commissioner Soller asked if they could just rely on the Section 20 non-conforming language. Mrs. Arsenault answered that any square footage that was currently held would be allowed to be used moving forward if they changed the language. Mr. Maass stated that signs were more often to turn over, instead of buildings. He suggested including the carve-out in the code because of the longevity differences. Chair Noyes opened the public hearing. Jason Kleinprintz, owner of MGM, said he was not sure how many windows he had, and what was considered a window. He stated they rely on signs to go across multiple windows to share that they are locally owned and operated, and when they have deals. He asked about the purpose of the change. He stated that the window signs block the back of the shelves he has in his store. He voiced opposition to making changes and expressed a desire to continue to use the windows as he does. Vernelle Clayton, manager of Market Square, said she wanted to protect the businesses and tenants that moved into the buildings. She said that signs were a huge need for businesses. She stated that the second example that they provided was not actually a window, and it was requested by the city because the city did not like that they had no windows. She stated that a lot of progress had been made since the last meeting. She asked about the lumen requirements for lights at night and how much it would cost for business owners. She asked if it was necessary unless the business was facing a residential area. She suggested allowing for signage on the awning or a projecting sign. Mr. Maass clarified that they included the ability for projecting and awning signs to be in all districts. He stated that the reduction of wall signs was only applicable to the downtown zoning district. Chair Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Soller asked about the event of a subjective concern, and the staff would defer. He asked if this was the case and if it was acceptable since there is no appeals process. Mrs. Arsenault answered that the Planning staff and director make the determination, but if the property owners did not agree on the interpretation, they could bring the information before the City Council for appeal. Chair Noyes suggested taking the three examples and clarifying how many windows were present in each photo, so business owners could have a better understanding. Commissioner Soller discussed the window covering definition and the MGM example, which required screening to meet regulatory requirements. He said that window coverings could be used for screening or privacy and should comply with design standards. He asked if there was 18 Planning Commission Minutes – April 7, 2026 6 anything that prevented the content in the ordinance, such as what MGM had to do with the window coverings. The window coverings were used for more than just coverings, but were descriptive. He thought this was acceptable, since the windows were required to be covered anyway. He asked if there were restrictions for other business owners when it was not a requirement for screening or privacy. He asked how much advertising and design could go into a covering that would give an unfair advantage. Chair Noyes suggested they might need another paragraph that provided details about combinations between window signs and window coverings. Mrs. Arsenault answered that the white box in the combination example is what split the difference between a window sign and window covering due to the definition of window sign as the extreme limits of the message. Commissioner Jobe asked if they put an image, it would be a window covering rather than a window sign. Mrs. Arsenault responded that if there were images, they would be window coverings. Commissioner Soller asked why they would restrict content on coverings. Mr. Maass responded that they should detach the two. He said a window covering was a window covering and a window sign was a window sign. He asked if 50% of the windows and the 30% area would be something that the Planning Commission would support. Commissioner Rosengren responded that he supported the percentage-based language. He said it may need to be adjusted in the future based on feedback from the residents or business owners. He mentioned that they would need to think about unfairness, as the liquor store with the requirement to have screening would be allowed to have more signage. Chair Noyes clarified that the signage percentage would be restricted in the same way, even if they were not using a covering for their windows. He said that some of the coverings might transmit a message to a user even if they were not a sign. Commissioner Jobe asked if portable signs that could sit on the sidewalk could be allowed and what the criteria would be. Mrs. Arsenault answered that they were allowed and had requirements for sizing. She said they would have to adhere to the City Code for temporary signage. Commissioner Grover said he struggled with the percentage limitations for signs, as larger windows would allow for larger advertisements. He encouraged flexibility to ensure it would be fair so that it could work for all businesses. Mr. Maass responded that they were trying to adjust for those who had larger windows. He stated that businesses had the choice to pick out their space when renting facilities. Commissioner Jobe asked if other cities had percentage base. Mr. Maass responded that percentages ranged from 30-50% in other communities, but some allow for square footage. Commissioner Soller asked if the definition of sign in the code would mean that a window covering is anything but blank; it would be defined as a sign. Mrs. Arsenault answered that she 19 Planning Commission Minutes – April 7, 2026 7 would discourage specific requirements, since the sign definition is connected to First Amendment concerns. They must focus on the construction of the sign rather than the content of the sign. Commissioner Soller clarified that the item in the middle was a window covering. Mrs. Arsenault answered that the item in the middle was a window covering for screening purposes. Commissioner Grover asked if it could be considered a window covering if it was not a window. Mr. Maass responded that the city staff would consider the example a window, although it was not traditional. He said the architectural standards were to look and act like a window, although it does not function as one. Commissioner Rosengren asked if they were trying to make a definition of a symbol or an image on the covering. He asked about the transition. Commissioner Soller provided an example of window coverings that had a logo for beer. He asked if that would be an example of a non-conforming window covering. Commissioner Jobe said that they were getting into the weeds, since there is a process for review. He stated that there would be one-offs that would occur, and they cannot write rules to address every situation. They needed to get 95% of it right, and the 5% could go before the City Council. Commissioner Soller stated that unless there was a clear interpretation, for example, like Top Ten Liquor or MGM. He asked if those would be non-conforming. Mr. Maass responded that Top Ten Liquor would likely be non-conforming because what was shown in the window would constitute a sign. He said if the sign ordinance were written to rely on the non-conforming standards from general Chapter 20 rather than the nonconforming sign code, they would remain and could be replaced as-is. Commissioner Soller clarified that if Top Ten Liquor wanted to get rid of one logo on a window, they could not replace it with another logo sign. Mr. Maass confirmed this information. Commissioner Jobe suggested hitting right in the middle of the 30-50% size for the signage. Mr. Maass answered that they were trying to strike a balance between windows serving as windows versus another surface as a sign. They wanted to strike a balance between how many signs were on a building façade, but they were open to increasing the amount to 40%. Commissioner Jobe clarified that the 40% was a maximum. Mr. Maass responded that they typically see people go to the maximum amount. Commissioner Soller said he was not repulsed by the non-conforming sign options. Chair Noyes asked if he thought there would be a hardship on these businesses that would have non-conforming signs. He stated that a good percentage of advertisements have a lifespan. 20 Planning Commission Minutes – April 7, 2026 8 Commissioner Soller said if people normally utilize their maximum, it sounds like that was what the public was asking for. Chair Noyes asked where Commissioner Soller was leaning. Commissioner Soller responded that he was leaning toward striking the percentage language completely, and what that would look like, or if they were twice as large. He asked if it was better for consumers, because signage and advertising help consumers. Chair Noyes stated that 50% had been suggested for coverage as well, but there was a question of how many windows could have signs. He asked if they wanted to move both numbers. Commissioner Soller responded that he would move both numbers. He said there was no detriment to how Top Ten Liquor currently looked. He did not know how many non-conforming situations they would create overnight. Commissioner Rosengren asked if the City Council struggled with the same conversations. Mr. Maass responded that it took multiple conversations with the City Council, so they did struggle. He said that the City Council did not have a strong opinion about lawful non-conforming, and they were looking to the Planning Commission for feedback. Commissioner Rosengren said that the Planning Commission did not have a clear answer. Commissioner Jobe stated that if they force a change, they will see different types of advertising. He commented that they had an intended purpose of making the city look similar. They needed to decide something by the end of the day. Mr. Maass responded that currently businesses could not have projecting signage or canopy signage, but they could have these signs with this change. He stated he did not want them to miss the additional signage opportunities with the ordinance. Commissioner Jobe suggested additional conversations about the percentage. He said that 50% would be the most lenient they could get, and if the City Council did not agree with it, they could change it. Commissioner Soller stated that everything was passive enforcement. He thought that 50% seemed more straightforward. Mr. Maass responded that the city is on a complaint basis for enforcement, but signage requires permits, so there would be a check at that stage. He clarified that window signs would not require a permit. Mrs. Arsenault answered that window signage would be allowed without a permit in this proposed ordinance. Commissioner Grover said that he wanted to support 50% to allow for more flexibility for businesses. Commissioner Rosengren said that he was comfortable with the 50% number, and the City Council could review the minutes to see the feedback and concerns. 21 Planning Commission Minutes – April 7, 2026 9 Commissioner Jobe stated he was comfortable with the 50%, and if it was not a desired feature, businesses would not utilize the signs. Commissioner Soller said that today, it was square footage across all the windows. Mrs. Arsenault confirmed this information. Commissioner Soller stated he was trying to determine if it would be more or less restrictive. Chair Noyes reminded that they were only considering the downtown, and he guessed that they were trying to protect the aesthetics of downtown. Commissioner Soller asked about the future state of the code for electronic messaging signs. He said that the electronic messaging signs would give more rights to public signs and gas station signs. He asked if that was based on content and if there would be any risks associated with the restrictions. Mrs. Arsenault responded that EMC signs were allowed for governmental property, but they were banned everywhere else in the city. She said that motor fuel signs were written out of the definition of EMC signs, but they had to reinstate them due to their construction being EMC signs. They would no longer be called motor fuel signs, as it would be judging them based on the content they were showing. They were regulated by what property was installing the signs, which would be gas stations. She said it would go off the property uses rather than the content of the signs. Commissioner Jobe asked if a liquor store could put an EMC sign up in front of its store. Mrs. Arsenault answered that it was limited to motor fuel stations and government property. The application was the same as the prior code. Commissioner Soller voiced concerns about identifying what signs could be used by business type, because it still seemed connected to the content. He did not know why the government could do different things with its signs than anyone else. Chair Noyes said that the carveouts were likely done in other cities, so it did not seem extraordinary. Commissioner Grover stated that he could see the justification for the electronic messaging signs for gas stations because gas prices change frequently, and consumers want to easily see the gas prices. Commissioner Soller said it did not specify what gas stations could put up on the sign, but they cannot regulate it because then it becomes content. He thought it was a challenge. He expressed a desire to move forward. Commissioner Jobe asked if the size of the sign only allowed them to display certain items. Mr. Maass responded that they were allowing EMCs by use and not by store type. He said they could regulate the size of the area that could have a message, but they could not regulate what the sign would say. 22 Planning Commission Minutes – April 7, 2026 10 Commissioner Grover asked if electronic signs with images were considered EMCs, such as Culver's. Mrs. Arsenault answered that they were EMCs and if they were to ever to reconstruct, they would have to get rid of the EMC sign. Mr. Maass provided an example of a popular sign of an EMC at the American Legion. It was grandfathered in and is a lawful non-conforming. He clarified that he did not see an EMC sign for Culver’s. Chair Noyes asked about the modified language for window sign updates and if it would say that window signs were limited to up to 50% of the window. He requested a motion based on the change. Commissioner Rosengren moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend that the Chanhassen City Council adopt the proposed sign ordinance as presented, with the modification that window signs be limited to 50% of the window rather than 30% of the window. The motion was approved with a vote of 4 to 1. Commissioner Soller voted Nay. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED MARCH 17, 2026 Commissioner Soller moved, Commissioner Grover seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated March 17, 2026, as presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: OPEN DISCUSSION: Mr. Maass said that they received a PUD Amendment and a Preliminary Plat for Avienda within the retail portion, specifically outlining their grocery area. It was anticipated to go before the Planning Commission in May and to the City Council in June but that those months were only estimates. Chair Noyes asked if that meant a retailer had been proposed for that site. Mr. Maass responded that the application did not name a specific grocery retailer. Commissioner Soller said that bids for the comprehensive plan request for proposal would close in a few days. He asked what they could look forward to in the coming months. Mr. Maass responded that the city had not received any submissions to date, but staff were not concerned, as they had received questions from various firms. They expected to receive a handful of responses, 23 Planning Commission Minutes – April 7, 2026 11 but they would discuss with consulting partners if they did not receive bids and adjust as necessary. Commissioner Soller asked about what role the Planning Commission would play in the process. Mr. Maass responded that each commission would provide feedback on the chapter that was related to their commission. He said that the Planning Commission, as the zoning body for the city, would look at the whole plan prior to it going to City Council. They did not have any specific multi-commission working sessions, but the Planning Commission could form a subcommittee if desired. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Grover moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Submitted by Eric Maass Community Development Director 24