Loading...
03.03.2026 PC Minutes excerptCHANHASSEN 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