Loading...
09.15.2026 PC MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Eric Noyes, Jeremy Rosengren, Ryan Soller, Mike Olmstead, Dave Grover, and Katie Trevena. MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chair Steve Jobe. STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Arsenault, Planner II; and Eric Maass, Community Development Director. PUBLIC PRESENT: Carly MacGowan 845 Ponderosa Drive Rick McKelvey Hempel Real Estate John Gilbert 1641 Jeurissen Lane Bill Hamilton 1540 Avienda Lane Valerie Agnew 9164 Mills Drive Wendy Sullivan 9044 Mills Lane PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CONSIDER A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DECK AT 6871 NEZ PERCE DRIVE Rachel Arsenault, Planner II, reviewed the setback variance request for 6871 Nez Perce Drive. She stated that the proposed deck was to be placed 17 feet from the property line due to the angle of the house. She said it met the requirement on Nez Perce Drive but needed a variance request from Ponderosa Drive. It would be an 8-foot variance from the required setback. She summarized the variance criteria and said that the staff supported the request. Commissioner Rosengren said that they were expanding the level of non-conformity. He asked what allowed the expanded non-conformity. Mrs. Arsenault answered that the lawful non- conformity was the front yard setback. The deck was a reasonable request, as the property owner did not construct the original house. The plight was not created by the landowner, and the request was reasonable. Commissioner Rosengren said that they were moving the non-conformity from 18 feet to 17 feet. Community Development Director Eric Maass responded that the variance request allowed the Commission to consider the option. Planning Commission Minutes – September 15, 2026 2 Commissioner Rosengren clarified that this was not a variance on top of a variance. Mr. Maass explained that the lawful non-conforming clause would be applied to anything existing today. To expand lawful non-conformity requires a variance. Chair Noyes said that, given the age of the property, it seemed like a reasonable request. Chair Noyes opened the public hearing. Carly MacGowan, 845 Ponderosa Drive, stated she had no issue with her neighbor building a deck. She thought it would look great. Chair Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trevena moved, Commissioner Grover seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the request for a front yard setback variance for the property located at 6871 Nez Perce Drive. All voted in favor and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 0. 2. AVIENDA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Mr. Maass said that the purpose of today’s hearing is to make a recommendation to City Council. It was a request to amend the Avienda PUD. He summarized the request and site context. The Commission’s role is to review 11 requested amendments, hear public testimony, and recommend action to the City Council. Mr. Maass provided an overview of the site and said that there were 11 amendment requests. The first requests were related to the commercial program and included an accessory fuel island to the grocery store, a sporting-goods or entertainment co-anchor up to 60,000 square feet, broadening the entertainment definition, and expanding the eastern stormwater pond. The land use amendment request included revising district boundaries. The land use proposed amendment includes allowing a vertical mixed-use building in District 1 with up to 200 apartment units and a minimum of 7,500 square feet of leasable commercial space in the northeast corner. The site design and public realm amendments included a 15-foot Building D setback for internal green space and space for pedestrian connections. The developer would relocate some buffer plantings to the interior while meeting landscape expectations. The wayfinding requests included adjusting the signage to include 8 panels with 64 square feet. The staff did not support the request for a large off-premises Highway 212 Directory Sign. Mr. Maass stated that they were at the PUD ordinance level, but they wanted to provide a good sense of what the future site plans would look like. He reviewed the Avienda PUD Central Entertainment and different renderings of the site plan. He stated that the staff supported most requests, excluding the 30-foot off-premises sign. He invited the applicant to come up and provide information. Planning Commission Minutes – September 15, 2026 3 Rick McKelvey, Hempel Real Estate, said that the Avienda project had been in the works for a long time. He said it was a neat project for the city, and they have put a lot of work into it. They hoped that the community had seen a difference in management in the last two months since Hempel Real Estate began to partner with Level 7 Development. They held a community meeting recently, and he received a round of applause, which showed that the community is ready for the development. They are looking at a grocery-anchored shopping center, which is hard to create. They were trying to see how they could make the project happen today, so they were seeking to secure a lease with Coborn’s. He said that the grocery traffic was dependable, so stores liked to be a part of this traffic generation. He stated that the building depths were sized to tenants, so they are confident in filling the shopping center with viable uses. There are three items in the PUD amendment requests that are critical to the project moving forward, including the fuel station. They need to design things to be cost-effective so that the rents are viable. The stormwater ponding was another needed amendment, as the Riley Creek Watershed regulations are very intense. The final necessary item was signage, because the public needs to know the retail tenants located in the Planned Unit Development. He thought that the sign requested in the southeast corner is necessary for the community, since otherwise people would not know the retail spaces were there. They would seek city approval for the designs of the signs, and they wanted them to look classy and modern. The applicant felt confident delivering a great product to the city. Commissioner Rosengren asked about the water feature and whether it would have an additional feature, such as fishing or skating. Mr. McKelvey answered that it was a stormwater pond, so the levels would bounce. This would raise concerns about the stability of an ice sheet. They did not have any other intended uses currently. Commissioner Olmstead asked how the 768 units were arrived at. Mr. Maass answered that it was based on the townhomes and rowhomes and presumed apartment buildings. Commissioner Olmstead questioned if the missing 204 units were always going to be senior units, or if there was flexibility. Mr. Maass responded that at least one of the units was anticipated to be for senior living. Commissioner Olmstead asked if the 410 housing units being built with the Avienda Apartments project currently under construction would fill in five years. Mr. Maass answered that it was unknown if there would be demand, but in the event another commercial anchor can’t be secured and there is demand, they are asking for it to be put in the ordinance. Commissioner Olmstead clarified that they were giving the developer flexibility. He asked if Coborn’s would be built by itself. Mr. Maass said that the staff understanding was for a preliminary plat and site plan to be submitted for the Coborn’s project, and any additional building construction timing would be based on market demand. Mr. McKelvey answered that they were going to submit a site plan in 2027. It was a scenario that Coborn’s could be built stand-alone, but they intended to build two smaller boxes to the east and west to build the anchor retail space. Planning Commission Minutes – September 15, 2026 4 Commissioner Olmstead asked about underground parking if there would be an apartment. Mr. Maass said that the apartment was currently drafted as a conditional use and that such a condition could be placed on that aspect if developed in the future. Commissioner Rosengren asked for clarification about where the apartment building flexibility would be added. Mr. Maass answered that it was intended to be in the northwest corner of District 1, but they did not have any drawings to that effect. Chair Noyes opened the public hearing. John Gilbert, 1641 Jeurissen Lane, said he was okay with the fuel island. He asked if the stormwater pond was considered entertainment or a nice place to look at. Entertainment was described as walkways and bike paths. He did not know if the gathering areas would be private. He asked if they could take some recommendations out and give them to them later down the road. He discussed the hotel numbers, which were included in the housing. He was watching the housing morph again, and they added additional homes. He said that they had to be careful how flexibility could morph into something else that would be less beneficial for more people. He asked if the stormwater pond plan would solve the issue, or if they would kick water back to the city. He requested that the decision not be short-sighted. Bill Hamilton, 1540 Avienda Lane, said that they invested heavily in Avienda. He requested that there be a lateral berm with landscaping. He thought that the whole essence of the pond was to provide walkability. The berm would provide some privacy so that you were not just looking at a parking lot. He thought that Coburn’s would be a good fit for the development. Valerie Agnew, 9164 Mills Drive, said that it was not shared that the northeast corner would potentially become apartments. The community was concerned, and there was a lot of discussion about retail use. It would take away from the attraction if they put in more apartments rather than retail space. Wendy Sullivan, 9044 Mills Lane, said she was concerned since there was no green space, which she was looking forward to. She asked whether adding more apartments would require more stormwater retention. She was concerned about the northwest corner because it was supposed to be a bank but now was to be more housing. Chair Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trevena clarified what they were approving tonight. She asked if they were approving individual site plans. She wanted to make sure they were mindful of pedestrian access throughout the planned unit development. Mr. Maass answered that they were approving the zoning ordinance and setting up the rules for future development and not individual site plans. The planned unit development considered the public realm, which includes restaurants, sidewalks, and more, to set the stage for future development and future site plan approvals. He Planning Commission Minutes – September 15, 2026 5 said that the planned unit development had a concept for future development. The staff report outlined several adjustments to the plan, like adding the trail to the north side of Lyman Boulevard. The planned unit development did not allow residential use within the proposed district near the community center. Commissioner Trevena said that the applicant would retain more flexibility if the retail concept did not move forward. She asked about the benefit of approving the residential option now instead of in the future. Mr. Maass answered that they were asking for feedback and that part of the request was received with the application. He said that the proposed apartment in District 1 was different than the current apartment that was being constructed. He said that there was flexibility and opportunity, but they did not need to approve the request at this time. Commissioner Trevena asked who would maintain the stormwater pond. Mr. Maass responded that it is to be privately maintained. He said that the stormwater ponds are set up as regional stormwater ponds, which was appropriate for a development like Avienda. Commissioner Soller asked about the residential units. He said that the 7,500 square feet of commercial space had to be there first, and the apartments had to be above it. Mr. Maass confirmed this information. He said that the second large box was 60,000 square feet of retail space. He noted that the 60,000-square-foot roof would be impervious, and they did not anticipate the apartment project creating additional stormwater. Commissioner Soller confirmed that the junior boxes were 1,200 square feet. He was trying to understand what the footprint would be, and it seemed smaller than what they were looking at. He asked if the parking requirements were already carved out in the planned unit development, or if they followed the standard parking requirements. Mr. Maass answered that the planned unit called out the city’s parking standards but allowed for flexibility based on the complementary uses for the site. Commissioner Soller said that the cap of the whole planned unit development for housing is 768 units, and the current number approved to be built is 504 units. He asked if this was designed with the firm cap of 768 units in mind. He said that residents often voice concerns about traffic. Mr. Maass answered that the intent of the cap is based on the ordinance. The 504 units are already approved for construction. The drafted planned unit development would reduce the cap from 768 to 704. The northwest corner of District 1 is anticipated to be a bank. Commissioner Soller said that there are no other places in the development to build residential units. Mr. Maass confirmed it was the only other place currently offered as potentially being developed with a residential component in the future. Chair Noyes said that there is less retail shown than he anticipated. He wanted to be cautious, as it seemed to be leaning less toward a balance between retail and housing. He thought it would change the dynamic. Commissioner Grover asked about the sign on Highway 212, since it does not look like a billboard. He was sympathetic to the developer, as brick-and-mortar is struggling. He was Planning Commission Minutes – September 15, 2026 6 interested in the rationale for not supporting the proposal. Mr. Maass said that they do not allow for off-premises signs. The staff are not opposed to the option and would take direction from the Planning Commission if they thought it should be included. Chair Noyes said that they need to not be shortsighted about signage as it relates to the community center. He suggested thinking of a strategy for the two developments that are right next to each other. Commissioner Soller asked if the signage fell within the boundary of the planned unit development. Mr. Maass answered that it was not specifically planned out, but it would be as far southeast as possible. They did not have the exact survey for the location. Commissioner Soller asked if it would be two-sided and visible to traffic on Highway 212. Mr. Maass responded that they did not have a conceptual image of what the sign would look like. The ordinance would call for uniformity in the signage, so he thought it would look similar to the directory tenant panels. Commissioner Soller said that they want people who did not live in Chanhassen to come into the development and utilize the retail. They don’t want billboards lining Highway 212, but he asked if they could do additional research or receive additional information on other suburbs that already have developments like Avienda. He thought other developments might have signage. They did not want it to be billboard-like. Mr. Maass responded that the applicant was proposing a sign with 8 tenant panels on the directory sign. That would set up the framework for the size of the sign, and the aesthetics would be based on the rest of the signage in the development. The specific information could be handled in the site plan approval. Commissioner Soller asked what degree of latitude the city has in mandating the materials. Mr. Maass answered that it was based on the standards outlined in the planned unit development ordinance. Commissioner Soller said it was not in the proposed red lines, as the staff did not recommend a sign amendment. Mr. Maass answered that the staff could add the information back into the plan. Commissioner Rosengren said that they would consider if there was a way to better advertise the new development and draw people in. He was not in favor of recommending approval of something that the staff does not support. Commissioner Trevena suggested further exploration of the topic. She was surprised at how much they were shifting away from retail, but there were ten or eleven potential retail spaces in addition to the grocery store and the bank. She did not think it was skewing toward residential. Mr. Maass said that the applicant would like to address the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes – September 15, 2026 7 The applicant said that the proposed plan reflected 220,000 square feet of retail, so even if they reduced Building C from 60,000 square feet to 7,500 square feet, it would still exceed the current retail in the planned unit development. He said that the apartment building in the center had two more years of construction and another year of leasing. They were talking about that corner being a mixed-use residential building in three to four years down the road if that lot was vacant. They would not build another apartment building if they had not leased the existing apartments. Chair Noyes said he would hope that they were looking for a 60,000 square foot retailer in the northeast corner. He asked about the number one priority toward the development of the corner. The applicant answered that they wanted it to be a retail aspect, but they wanted to future-proof it in case that ideal use did not materialize. He thought an apartment building was speculative that they could control, and they could build it with a 7,500-square-foot commercial space. It was more critical to have the sign and visibility on Highway 212, as every retail tenant that they spoke to would ask about signage. Commissioner Trevena said she works in real estate. She said that Avienda had been on the radar for many retail options. She said retail users want to be attracted to the market, and the signage was a question that was brought up. Commissioner Rosengren asked for more research to be completed about the signage. He did not think the Planning Commission was the right time to decide the signage. He wanted to reconsider the request once they had additional information. Mr. Maass said it would be helpful for the staff to know what information would be helpful to know. Commissioner Rosengren said that they were being told that the signage is critical for attracting commercial tenants to the project. The code does not allow for the sign, so how would they rationalize that approval. He wanted to know how they could adjust the code without being strong-armed by one planned unit development. Commissioner Grover suggested a rendering showing the view from Highway 212 with a proposed sign and what you can see of the development from Highway 212 would help make the decision. He thought it would be helpful to advertise the grocery store and restaurants that are available in Avienda. Chair Noyes said that there was another development coming in right next to it, so they had to consider the signage for both options. They needed to think about what would be expandable and cover the needs of the other development. Mr. Maass said that the planned unit development allowed the city to deviate from the City Code. They could write the rules for how the signage would be regulated in Avienda. He stated that the 30-foot height was something proposed by the applicant, but they did not have information about the proposed height. He stated that they could do additional engineering around the sign, since he was not hearing strict opposition to the sign. Commissioner Rosengren said he would vote against the sign if he had to vote for or against it tonight. He was not opposed to the sign, but he needs more information. Planning Commission Minutes – September 15, 2026 8 Commissioner Olmstead asked if they approve of the recommendations tonight, whether or not the City Council would know that the Commission has misgivings about the rejection of the sign. Mr. Maass answered that the Planning Commission minutes are taken and included in the packet, and the City Council would receive a summary of the discussion. The information would be relayed to the City Council. He said that they could gather additional information from the applicant to provide to the City Council for their meeting. Chair Noyes discussed the walkability. He said that when they have between 500 and 700 units, there would be a lot of people walking around. He wants to make sure that what you see while walking makes sense. It doesn’t make sense to look into a parking lot. He thought that there are thoughtful processes that needed to be considered when thinking about how it would tie into neighborhoods to the west and the Community Center. Commissioner Rosengren said that the 200 units were not a critical ask from the developer, and they would not even be considered for another three to four years. He asked whether there was a reason it needs to be included in today’s requests. Commissioner Rosengren suggested tabling that item until they know how the development progresses. Mr. Maass answered that the city was not required to approve any aspect of the request. The applicant wants some semblance of authorization for a backup plan. It would be allowed as a conditional use, but the preliminary plat, site plan, and conditional use permit would still have to be approved by the city. It is not often that a conditional use permit would be denied, but it is possible. Commissioner Rosengren asked if there was any reason to pass the amendment today rather than in the future when it becomes clearer if the applicant needs to go in a different direction than planned. Mr. Maass answered that it was a policy decision by the city. He said that the Planning Commission was a recommending body and the City Council was the acting body for such a policy. The staff were looking to the policymakers for direction. They were trying to understand if they were comfortable including it today or if they would like to see it in a future planned unit development amendment. Commissioner Soller asked why the staff included it in the amendment request now. Mr. Maass answered that it was not the staff’s position, but the developer’s request. It had not been previously discussed in City Council work sessions. The staff’s position is to provide data and information, such as the current ordinance, and provide the information to the policymakers for a recommendation. Commissioner Soller said it was written into the redlined ordinance, so if they adopted the ordinance as it was written in the packet, it would include the option. Mr. Maass answered that it was included so the Planning Commission could see how it would be listed if approved. The staff specifically listed it as a conditional use in the district rather than a permitted use. Chair Noyes asked if there was a reasonable date that could be identified that would say that the applicant made all reasonable efforts to find a commercial tenant for the 60,000 square feet space Planning Commission Minutes – September 15, 2026 9 and after that time, the 7,500 square foot and 200-unit apartment was an option. He believes the number one priority should be to find retail. He thought that they were giving them a license to say they made an effort and move to residential. He did not want them to give up on the dream too early in the process. Mr. Maass answered that they could put a timeline for such a use. The city would have the authority to place a timeline on it, but he would have to ask the attorney for more information. They have the condition to build a sit-down restaurant by the central pond before they seek approval to build an accessory drive-through or fast casual. This was one example of a phasing requirement. The city attorney does not take issue with this option. They would look to the Planning Commission for a date, but the term reasonable was difficult. Chair Noyes said that his feedback to the City Council would be to figure out a date with a trigger point that would allow for a change in strategy in the northeast corner. Commissioner Rosengren believes the Commission should table that portion of the amendment for future discussion. Commissioner Soller asked if they could do a map of District 1. He said that the ordinance did not specifically dictate where in District 1 it would go, but it likely fit in the northeast corner. The policy decision they were making today did not specify where it would go. He asked if there was flexibility in the design where it was not mutually exclusive and they both fit. He asked if it was either/or for the 60,000-square-foot retail or the mixed-use space, or another option in the future. Mr. Maass clarified that it is drafted to be in the northeast corner of District 1. An apartment could not pop up in the southwest corner. If it is not drafted that way, it could be in terms of the specific location and impact on the site plan. Commissioner Soller asked if it was addressed somewhere else. He said it doesn’t specify the northeast corner on page six. Mr. Maass answered that it was noted, and if it was something that a majority of the Planning Commission was in favor of including to restrict it geographically, they could give direction to the staff to amend the option. Commissioner Soller asked if the space limited it to one option because of parking, or if there is a version where multiple options could be put into the plan. The applicant answered that the only location that they would consider a mixed-use residential development is in the northeast corner. It was the largest unknown use. Commissioner Soller asked if the ship sails on one and they go in the direction of the mixed-use residential, this site could not have retail in the future. He asked if retail was an option at a smaller square footage. The applicant answered that there would be no more room for any use in the quadrant if they built the mixed-use option. Commissioner Soller wants to understand the reality of the site. The site is better off in the flexible hands of the development team, and with fewer regulatory hands they had to be under in Planning Commission Minutes – September 15, 2026 10 the next five years. Both options fall under the concept and the vision for what they are trying to achieve at this location. He thought that Plan A holds a greater incentive to the development team. He did not think they had to hold back. Commissioner Rosengren said he disagreed with that statement. He thought that by making the decision now, the city would cede any control over what would happen to the development. They were taking the word that their interests were aligned. He did not think they were being forced to make the decision right now. He suggested tabling the amendment to some time down the road when it is clearer how the development is being used. He did not think it made sense to make the decision today, as the city would lose the option to have an opinion down the road. The applicant said that there is already a sign intended for the location. He said that there is a large Avienda sign. He liked the idea of a shared sign for the community center and the Avienda development. He put together a rough drawing for Mr. Maass a few weeks ago. He said that the site was unique, but it was not visible from the primary roadway alongside the site. He did not know of any other grocery store that was either not visible from the road or had a sign. It would be a concern for potential retailers. He provided an example of the Central Park Commons in Eagan that has an extraordinary amount of signage, including one sign at the main intersection listing all the major tenants in the building. It is an important sign. Chair Noyes asked for help understanding where the private enterprise ends and the public use begins related to the public space, such as whether the tables could be used by people. He said he noticed there were a couple of different colors of the concrete. He wanted to know what the public and private space was like. Mr. Maass answered that there were a few fenced patio spaces, which would be the private patio seating areas. The unfenced seating areas are largely public. The staff’s intention is for the space to be for people to come and spend time. They hoped that people would shop at the businesses but also come and enjoy the gathering space. Commissioner Olmstead said that they were not giving up any leverage if something changes. The mixed-use facility would have to go before the Planning Commission again since it is a conditional use. It would give the flexibility to the developer in the future and the Planning Commission the final say in the future. Chair Noyes said he would like to see one more gate they would have to go through, such as timing or how they show effort. He would like to see the focus on retail for some point in time. It was a much easier and more controllable process for the housing units. He is assuming that the other apartments would be leased, but he would like that to happen eventually after they went through the process of putting a cool retail feature in the place. Commissioner Soller asked if it was a deal breaker for members of the commission, and it did not feel like a hill that he wanted to stand on. The developer could wait them out. It would not matter if they passed it tonight. The developer could return to the Planning Commission. He liked to give deference to future planning so it would keep moving forward, but he was wary of regulatory overhead at this point. He often hears about the need to keep the project moving. The project was high-quality. He asked if they would like to make it a formal proposal. Planning Commission Minutes – September 15, 2026 11 Chair Noyes asked if they could pull up the eleven points, see what they would have a split vote on, and talk them out. Mr. Maass pulled up the eleven amendment points. He said that the first request regards allowing a grocery fuel island as an accessory use of the grocery store, which would include four double- sided fuel pumps. Commissioner Soller said it seemed different than a gas station. He asked about electric charging stations and if they needed to be considered a separate element or were put under the umbrella of a gas station. Mr. Maass answered that the difference between an EV Charger and gas pumps is the real estate they require. If a future tenant wanted to put in EV stalls, they could propose that in their site plan. It did not need to be considered as a policy decision at the current stage, but if the city wants to take the position that they need to have a set amount of EV chargers, they could put that in the requirements. He would not recommend a required set number of EV chargers. Mr. Maass said that the second amendment was the second primary regional stormwater pond and to increase the size of the eastern pond. Chair Noyes clarified that the ponds were a math issue and how much volume they needed from a stormwater perspective. Mr. Maass confirmed this and said it was not just a pond but also had the amenities around it. Mr. Maass said that amendment number three adjusts the definition of entertainment to read as amusement, recreation, hospitality, food service, and outdoor public gallery space. It also removes car wash from Section B design standards and as a permitted use in Section C. Chair Noyes said that there were no issues with that option. Mr. Maass stated that amendment number four amends the retail sale standard to add a sporting goods store or entertainment use up to 60,000 square feet of any single store. Chair Noyes said it did not bring the housing part into it, so that amendment is good. Mr. Maass said that amendment five gets into the potential use of the mixed-use in District 1, with no more than 200 dwelling units and no less than 7,500 square feet that would be leasable and open to the public and would be allowed as a conditional use. Commissioner Trevena agreed with Commissioner Soller and Commissioner Olmstead to let the market dictate it, knowing that they had potential future backstops. Chair Noyes noted the potential differences. Mr. Maass said that request number six aligns with number five, to read as apartment buildings with mixed-use buildings. They would not like number six to move forward if number five does not go forward since they were linked. Planning Commission Minutes – September 15, 2026 12 He stated that amendment number seven allows for the wayfinding signs to allow for up to eight tenant panels with a maximum combined tenant panel of 64 square feet. Chair Noyes clarified that no one had issues with this option. Mr. Maass reviewed proposed amendment eight, which would allow for a large, off-premises directory sign to be visible from Highway 212. Chair Noyes said that they agreed that something should happen, but they needed a strategic approach with the development coming from the community center. He said that the Planning Commission would need more information. Commissioner Rosengren clarified that the city staff were not in agreement with that option. Mr. Maass responded that they were not, but they would take direction from the policymakers, and they would not lose any sleep over such a direction. Commissioner Soller asked if it was currently in the red-line change. Mr. Maass answered that they could fine-tune that draft motion based on the discussion. Commissioner Soller asked how challenging it would be to bring the option up as its own ordinance amendment and how challenging that process would be. He wants to solve it as quickly as possible if it hampers tenants. Mr. Maass said that it seemed there was support for the sign, and he would recommend directing the city staff to work with the applicant before going to the City Council. Mr. Maass said that it was a singular land use application, so he would recommend a singular motion and vote. If there was a split recommendation by the Planning Commission on the request, it would be a split vote on the amendments themselves. Chair Noyes wants to make sure that his position is directed to the City Council so that when they reviewed the information, they would understand that they had mixed thoughts on the items. Mr. Maass responded that the Planning Commission’s discussion on the mixed-use apartment and the sign with visibility to Highway 212 could be a condition of the staff report. They could recommend approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report, as well as additional renderings or information specific to the off-premises directory sign and fill in the blanks of the mixed-use development. That would capture the general concern with the discussion. Chair Noyes clarified that Mr. Maass could help draft the motion. Mr. Maass said that amendment number nine reduces the setback to 15 feet, which would give more breathing room for sidewalks and landscaping, and shared that staff supports that item. The amendment number ten relates to the required buffering and landscaping along Lyman and Powers Boulevard. The calculations would be the same, but they could relocate some of the plantings in the center of the development to benefit the residents and protect the views to Powers and Lyman. Planning Commission Minutes – September 15, 2026 13 The eleventh and final amendment authorizes shared parking within the development. Mr. Maass summarized that there was general agreement for numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 11. There was additional discussion and concern on amendments 5, 6, and 8. Commissioner Soller asked if everyone agreed that something should happen for the large off premise directory sign, but they had not determined what. They were down to items 5 and 6. Commissioner Rosengren said he did not want to vote in favor of amendments 5 and 6. It was not that he did not support the idea by the applicant, but that it is being requested prematurely. He leaned in that direction to provide flexibility, but it was not a requirement or urgent. It did not need to happen for everyone to feel good about the option. He said given that statement, he wanted to wait until they had more information in front of them to make a better decision about the proposal. Chair Noyes asked for Mr. Maass’ guidance on the mechanics. He asked if not voting on it was the same as voting no on the entire item. Mr. Maass answered that an item within the request could be pulled out and not acted upon. It was a part of the land use application, which they are statutorily required to act upon within 60 or 120 days. If the Planning Commission doesn’t want to act on the decision, they could either provide no recommendation, a recommendation of denial, or a split recommendation of approval and denial. The City Council needs to act on the portion of the land use application within that timeline. He worked on the draft motion and displayed the option to the Planning Commission. Chair Noyes asked if the conditions stated by the Planning Commission would be accurate. Mr. Maass said he has a clear understanding of number 8 for the signage and what the Planning Commission wanted, but there was a mixture of opinions for amendment numbers 5 and 6. He thought it was included, but whether it should be a conditional use or permitted use, and the timing of when it would have to be constructed. He would like more specific feedback, which would be captured as the conditions outlined by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Soller said that it seems the best option to pass on to the City Council is a split- motion. He wants to get it passed as a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Chair Noyes said it is important to get information to the City Council about what they agreed with, that they needed more information on number 8, and that there was disagreement on numbers 5 and 6. He did not want to have a split vote, as it sends the wrong message. Commissioner Grover asked if the concern was the timing. Chair Noyes said that he wanted to go through a set period to work through the process. Commissioner Grover clarified that anything like a timeline would have to go to the attorney. Mr. Maass confirmed this information and said that a tool the Planning Commission could choose to recommend approval for items 1 through 4 and 7 through 11 and direct staff to carry forward the ideas generated this evening on items 5 and 6. Planning Commission Minutes – September 15, 2026 14 Chair Noyes said that they were in general agreement on number 8, but more information is needed. He asked how the Planning Commission felt about the word-smithed motion. Mr. Maass said that the recommendation would move forward at the October 12 City Council meeting. Commissioner Rosengren moved, Commissioner Trevena seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments motion to adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation recommending approval of the requested Planned Unit Development Ordinance Amendment, subject to the conditions included in the staff report dated September 9, 2026, and conditions stated by the Planning Commission with respect to Request Number 8 for signage, but does not provide a formal recommendation for Requests 5 and 6 for mixed-use apartment and directs staff to summarize the Planning Commission’s discussion for City Council’s consideration. All voted in favor and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JULY 7, 2026 Commissioner Grover moved, Commissioner Olmstead seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated July 7, 2026, as presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE: Eric Maass highlighted the new City Center Park, which is now open for use. They were waiting for a final state electrical inspection for the splash pad. Projects continued at the Harlow and the Bennett, with Harlow anticipating leasing late this year or early 2027. A vast majority of the Harlow exterior materials have been constructed. It was exciting to see these two items move forward. June 15, 2027 is the target date to open the first of two phases for the Avienda Apartments project. They had the formal groundbreaking for the Chanhassen Community Center at Avienda, and they are excited to get the project underway. They had several community engagement events, and there is a survey available for community members to help mold the Comprehensive Plan. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Trevena moved, Commissioner Soller seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m. Submitted by Eric Maass Community Development Director