Loading...
03.03.2026 PC MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 3, 2026 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Eric Noyes, Vice Chair Steve Jobe, Jeremy Rosengren, Ryan Soller, Mike Olmstead, Dave Grover, and Katie Trevena. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Jeske, Planner; Eric Maass, Planning Director. PUBLIC PRESENT: Vernelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Circle Cole Buttenhoff Outdoor Storage Jack Buttenhoff Outdoor Storage Gregg Geiger 3603 Red Cedar Point Maria Knight 3605 Red Cedar Point Phil Johnson Outdoor Storage PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 3603 Red Cedar Point Front Setback Variance Request Planner Rachel Jeske reviewed the front setback variance request for 3603 Red Cedar Point. She summarized the location and noted that it was residential, single-family, and low-density residential. The lot was 0.71 acres and was bisected by a driveway easement. She reviewed the lot line adjustment, which would make the proposed setback 7 feet and five inches. She noted that the lot line adjustment was required to solve a court-ordered dispute. She noted that the variance met all of the necessary criteria. Chair Noyes stated that the variance request seemed straightforward since it was tied to a court order. Chair Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chair Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Jobe moved, Commissioner Olmstead seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the requested front yard setback and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Planning Commission Minutes – March 3, 2026 2 2. Consider a Conditional Use Permit Request for Screened Outdoor Storage at 2100 Stoughton Avenue Community Development Director Eric Maass reviewed the conditional use permit request for screened outdoor storage at 2100 Stoughton Avenue. He noted that the city’s discretion in approving or denying a conditional use permit was based on whether or not the proposal met the conditional use permit standards. He stated that the property was zoned industrial office park and was just over 21 acres at the southwest corner of Chanhassen. He described the existing conditions, including the overhead power transmission towers with an easement, existing industrial buildings on site, the existing entrances and exits, and the pickle vats. He noted that the pickle vats would be removed if approved. He reviewed the proposed site plan, including the additional stormwater ponds. He described the landscaping plan and said that it was making progress. He stated that a buffer yard was required since the adjacent roads were collectors. He said that the planting schedule would require updates to meet the species diversification requirements. He summarized the grading plan. He noted that the City Code requires screened outdoor storage. He reviewed the outside agency comments from the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District and the City of Chaska. He noted that as long as the five proposed conditions were met, the conditional use permit would stay in place. He said that the applicant does not have a tenant lined up to use the outdoor storage. Commissioner Jobe asked if the sewer was hooked up on the Chaska side of the road and how it would work. Mr. Maass responded that they would hook up with the storm sewer with the City of Chaska, but if the City of Chanhassen would extend utilities, they would require the property owner to hook up to those utilities. Commissioner Trevena asked for clarification about a contractor yard versus other outdoor storage. Mr. Maass answered that contractor yards are their own category of conditional use permits, and since they did not have an identified user, contractor yards required additional oversight. He said if the property yard owner wanted to add a contractor to use it as a contractor yard, they could request a conditional use permit amendment. Commissioner Trevena asked about the process for the city to go through from an administrative standpoint when a tenant is identified. Mr. Maass responded that as long as a tenant could abide by the conditions in the conditional use, there would be no additional oversight. Chair Noyes invited the applicant up. Cole Buttenhoff, Outdoor Storage, provided an overview of the property. He said that this portion, being outdoor storage, was the last area that could be redeveloped after the last tenant vacated the property. Chair Noyes asked if he had a set of tenants he was focusing on while he marketed the property. Mr. Buttenhoff answered that they could market the outdoor storage with 40,000 square feet of Planning Commission Minutes – March 3, 2026 3 space in the building. He stated the tenant was dependent on the market, and noted that the space available was primarily warehouse. Chair Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Commissioner Soller asked if the 8-foot screening was in the City Code. Mr. Maass answered that screened outdoor storage up to 8 feet was a requirement. Chair Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trevena moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for screened outdoor storage at 2100 Stoughton Avenue, subject to staff conditions. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. 3. Ordinance XXX: Amending Chapters 1 and 20, Updating Sign Definitions and Regulations Mr. Maass stated that the sign code had been in the community development workplan and it was a lengthy process. He noted that the proposed sign code would add opportunity for awning signs, projecting signs, and canopy signs. He provided an overview of the community engagement, including an email sent to businesses within the central business district on December 19 and a follow-up email sent on January 5. He said that a Microsoft Teams open house was held on January 9 between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. He reviewed the feedback from community engagement and said that more signage options were appreciated. Businesses may choose not to purchase awnings or projecting signs because of the associated costs. He said that businesses shared that sign bands along buildings are a limiting factor as that is where signage is located. He summarized the sign code change proposal and said they wanted to right-size wall signs in the downtown area and prevent future outliers. He stated they also wanted to expand sign options within the downtown area while removing regulations specific to content because it was a First Amendment violation. They want to improve implementation and permitting for signage. He explained the existing wall area and the maximum percentage of wall area for signage downtown, and the proposed wall sign regulations. He stated that two signs would be impacted by the proposed signage regulations. He discussed the canopy signage and said a canopy sign, as shown, could not be installed in addition to a wall sign. Mr. Maass said that they wanted to allow temporary signs without a permit since they would still have enforcement if temporary signs became a nuisance. He stated that businesses approach window signs in different ways. He said that there were unique situations when there was a building reuse and liquor license requirements. He summarized the window sign implementation to update from an unclear percentage of window space to not exceeding six square feet per business occupant or owner. He requested feedback on this change and said they could change it to six square feet per window or an exception for window coverings required by city, state, or Planning Commission Minutes – March 3, 2026 4 federal regulations. He explained the requirements for temporary commercial signs and non- commercial signs and said that it would not regulate the content, but the use. He shared that the City Council was split on the nonconforming sign code and requested feedback from the Planning Commission. He said that they wanted to allow electronic message center signs only for public or community signs, except for specific requirements for gas stations. Commissioner Jobe said that the wall signs had a percentage of building space, but the canopy signs and projecting signs did not have a percentage of building space. He asked if this would be changed. Mr. Maass explained that they did not propose to tie together the wall sign requirements but to allow each option to have its own standards. Chair Noyes asked about the definition of a window. Mr. Maass provided example photographs of windows. He said he was interested in hearing any direction from the Planning Commission. He said he would follow up with the building staff to better understand what was considered a window. Commissioner Jobe asked if a door was considered a window. Mr. Maass answered that it would not be a window. Chair Noyes asked if the approval of the window was tied to the original owner. Mr. Maass responded that it would depend on whether the new owner changed the name or changed the signage. Commissioner Jobe asked about additional examples. Mr. Maass answered that they see signage swaps when a new business starts or there is a rebranding, but there are no signage updates for the larger signs. Chair Noyes asked about the calculation of the area of an awning and whether it was based on the vertical face of the awning. Mr. Maass responded that an arching awning was more difficult to manage. The rectangular awnings are more common. From a staffing perspective, they would imagine if the awning was pressed flat and what the area of the space would be. Commissioner Grover asked about the six square feet. He said that six square feet was not very large. He stated that if they had small windows, it would be different than having one large window. He suggested a percentage would be more appropriate. Mr. Maass responded that they were looking at other downtown sign ordinances and noted that the window sign was meant to be pedestrian-scale. He said if it were a specific square footage, it would be clear what space they had to work with. Commissioner Grover asked about the signs on the doors. Mr. Maass answered that they typically saw hours of operation on doors rather than sticker signs. He could investigate this information further and provide additional information. He stated that if they wanted to see doors treated similarly to windows, they could do so. Planning Commission Minutes – March 3, 2026 5 Commissioner Rosengren asked if no new gas stations could put up illuminating signs. Mr. Maass answered that if the business were opened, they could have the signs illuminated. Chair Noyes asked if they needed to have a definition of a sign versus a sticker. Mr. Maass answered that the staff did not intend to regulate small stickers for other businesses like Uber Eats or the Chamber of Commerce. He said he could review the defini tion for sign to make sure it excludes those stickers. Chair Noyes asked if the stickers count toward the six-square-foot requirement. Mr. Maass responded that it would not be the staff’s intent. Commissioner Jobe asked if a person could pull a permit and fully cover the windows for a period of time, such as a sale. Mr. Maass responded that there would still be opportunities for temporary signs to be utilized in and around downtown. Commissioner Rosengren asked what the city would say to Von Hansen’s inquiry regarding their desire to continue using their existing full-window signs to cover equipment. Mr. Maass answered that they proposed a carve-out for unique situations when window coverings were required by regulations. They did not get very specific. Chair Noyes asked if Von Hansen’s could apply for a variance. Mr. Maass answered that a conditional use permit might be a more appropriate route, but the staff can continue word - smithing a specific definition. Commissioner Rosengren asked if a compromise would be if the window covering was not fully a sign. Mr. Maass confirmed that this could be an option. Commissioner Grover asked if they were just decals over the window; it would not be subject to the ordinance. Mr. Maass affirmed this information. Commissioner Grover asked if there were any regulations for screening in the ordinance, if there were no signs. Mr. Maass responded that they did not want to proliferate window coverings, but they did not have the information in the regulations. Commissioner Rosengren said he understood why they were taking out the language regulating content because of First Amendment rights. He asked if there was another ordinance to cover obscene signs. Mr. Maass answered that it would be covered under the city’s public nuisance ordinance. Commissioner Soller stated that he thought that the sign definition was too broad. Mr. Maass said that the City Attorney reviewed the definition and did not have issues with how it was drafted, but if the Planning Commission would like to modify the defini tion, they could consider that. Commissioner Soller said that part of the definition is the intent of the object. He asked if that was correct to include in the definition and if it got into murky waters around content. He Planning Commission Minutes – March 3, 2026 6 suggested giving the definition a second look. Mr. Maass answered that they would reconsider the definition. Commissioner Trevena thought a lot of businesses would be non-confirming today based on the definition that is so broad. She does not think that is the intent of the ordinance Commissioner Grover asked about stores putting products in their window. Mr. Maass stated that one of the few things that did not have a track change was the definition, but they would review it additionally with the City Attorney. Commissioner Trevena questioned how often the signs are going through the permit process and if they go through permits for window signs. Mr. Maass responded that they are supposed to go through the permit process for a window sign. Commissioner Soller asked whether, if this passes through the City Council, it would impact non-conforming businesses. Mr. Maass responded that if a sign needed to be replaced, they would have to apply for a permit. He said if the sign never fell, it could continue. It would only be when the sign needs to be replaced that they would have to comply with the ordinance. He said a new business would have to meet the regulations. Commissioner Grover asked how many signs would be non-conforming. Mr. Maass answered that he did not have a specific number. Commissioner Soller asked where the other language existed in the City Code. Mr. Maass answered what lawful, nonconforming uses were discussed in the City Code. Ms. Jeske answered that a sign could fix minor things on a sign that was nonconforming, but if the sign fell, they could not install a full, new sign structure. Chair Noyes opened the public hearing. Vernelle Clayton, 422 Santa Fe Circle, stated that signs were important to their businesses and were an investment. She said she had great conversations with the city staff. She said all proposed actions by the city regarding the signs should be based on whether they could make businesses in the community more successful. She stated that canopy signs were limited to the core area. She thought that if it was a good idea for any business, they should not limit the location where canopy signs were permitted. She asked for clarification about window signage and said a larger sign would mean a lot more to the businesses than smaller signs. She asked who was being harmed by having larger signs in the window. She thought that when the government limited what free enterprise could do, it would run into problems. Chair Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Soller asked them to pull up the exemption for window coverings required by city, state, or federal regulations. He asked if they could regulate the content on the window coverings. Mr. Maass answered that they could not regulate the content. Planning Commission Minutes – March 3, 2026 7 Commissioner Soller said that they would be required to cover their windows. The ways they cover their windows today would be signage under the broad definition of a sign. He said this would still be permitted based on the exemption. Mr. Maass responded that it would be a point of policy for the city. Chair Noyes thought that the term sign was a subset under the definition of a window covering. Commissioner Grover said it seemed like a different scenario when it was a red film or a photo not related to the business. Commissioner Soller said that it would get into content and subjectivity, because the Total Wine window had photos of vineyards. He thought that the attractiveness of the art was subjective. Required window coverings should not be a loophole to get a larger sign than other businesses. He asked why the standard for the window covering needed to exist in the first place. Chair Noyes thought the vineyard window coverings were implying they were in the wine business, but not advertising a product. He did not think there should be a loophole to permit larger signs. Commissioner Soller stated that window coverings were signs. He asked if it was a bad thing if the window coverings were advertisements. Chair Noyes stated that Target sold liquor. If they wanted to put up a sign to advertise wine, it would have to conform to the sign size requirements. He did not want to create two sets of standards to follow. If a business wanted to cover its windows, that should be fine, but signs should conform to the ordinances. Commissioner Trevena said she was struggling with the six-foot signs. She thought that there was variation in architecture and windows. Mr. Maass answered that each tenant would have an opportunity for wall, projecting, and window signage. He asked if they would prefer for the signage to be aggregated or for the requirements to be per window. Commissioner Grover asked about the current language. Mr. Maass answered that it was sixty percent of the total window area. He said that the staff wished it were clearer, because it did not say all of the windows or each window. Commissioner Jobe asked how many cities they compared their sign ordinance to. Mr. Maass responded that they looked at three cities. The other cities allowed for a variety of signage types, which the city’s current ordinance does not allow. He said that the window sign was not as clear. Commissioner Rosengren said that everyone seemed to be in agreement that there needs to be more work completed. He did not know if the Planning Commission could come up with a better number. He thought that the six feet felt wrong. He said he was leaning towards the percentage Planning Commission Minutes – March 3, 2026 8 of the window and did not understand why it did not make sense to contractors. He thought they could not get to the point of recommending this to move forward. He did not know the procedure for the process. Chair Noyes asked if there was a motion tied to this or if they were gathering their feedback to bring before the City Council. Mr. Maass answered that the city was not under a statutory requirement for a 60-day review clock. He said that the Planning Commission could recommend denial, table the item, and direct staff to refine areas that were discussed, recommend approval but direct staff to update the ordinance based on Planning Commission feedback, or recommend approval as written. Commissioner Grover said that there was a lot that they did not have concerns about in the proposed ordinance as it is currently written. Mr. Maass said that the Supreme Court Ruling about signage came down in 2015. He said it had been a little over a decade. He did not think that the Planning Commission should feel pressure to get it down in the next 30 days to mitigate for exposure. Commissioner Soller voiced appreciation for the expanded options but said that there were a few areas that needed to be reconsidered. He asked if there was a version that they could move forward with while tabling the minority of the ordinance for additional discussion. Mr. Maass answered that it would be nice to complete the amended Chapters 1 and 20 in one sitting. Commissioner Rosengren asked if they recommended approval with exceptions, and if they would see it again. Mr. Maass responded that if the Planning Commission would like to see the ordinance again, they should table it. Commissioner Soller asked if there were any other items they should consider. He asked if a business owner might feel like the new language was more restrictive. Commissioner Trevena moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends tabling the sign ordinance discussion so City Staff could provide additional education information, due diligence related primarily to window sign information, sign definition, and potential exceptions, noting that much of the sign ordinance was acceptable but needed further clarification. All voted in favor, and the motion to table the ordinance carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Commissioner Soller asked if they came up with any other recommendations to steer it, if it was only appropriate to share this information with staff in an open meeting, or if there was a faster way to share feedback with the staff. Mr. Maass answered that the staff was able to share questions or comments with the staff, but they could not share the information with the whole Planning Commission via email. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED February 17, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes – March 3, 2026 9 Commissioner Grover requested a revision to page 4, noting that there was a comment he made about a running track and banked corners that was attributed to another commissioner. Commissioner Jobe moved, Commissioner Grover seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated February 17, 2026, as corrected above. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE: Mr. Maass noted that the City Council approved the site plan for the Chanhassen Community Center. They were on track and progressing towards the Civic Campus. He said the city posted for a planning intern for the summer. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Soller moved, Commissioner Trevena seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:51 p.m. Submitted by Eric Maass Planning Director