Loading...
12.02.2025 PC minutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 2025 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Eric Noyes, Steve Jobe, Jeremy Rosengren, Ryan Soller, Mike Olmstead, and Dave Grover. MEMBERS ABSENT: Katie Trevena. STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner; Eric Maass, Community Development Director; and Jamie Marsh, Environmental Resources Specialist. PUBLIC PRESENT: Erik Hallstrom 9150 Springfield Drive Jess Moeding Clint Bitting 1531 Camden Ridge Drive Dan Blake 16831 Cedarcrest EP PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CONSIDER A HARDCOVER VARIANCE FOR 1531 CAMDEN RIDGE (PLANNING CASE #25-18) Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner, reviewed the subject property and noted that the current zoning designation is planned unit development residential. She stated that the 2040 land use plan is residential medium density, and the lot size is 0.34 acres. She reviewed the Camden Ridge PUD and stated that the hard surface coverage required 35 percent, but lots within the shoreland district may not exceed 25 percent site coverage. She commented that the variance request was for 27.4 percent, and the maximum was 25 percent due to it being in the shoreland management district. She stated the variance request was for a garage addition and home expansion. She stated that the property has proximity to a tributary stream. She said that the staff reviewed the variance findings and that it lacked practical difficulties for conforming with the code, was not in line with the intent of the chapter and the comprehensive plan, and there was no circumstance unique to the property that required the variance. She invited the P lanning Commission to discuss the planning case. Commissioner Olmstead clarified that it was a part of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Mrs. Arsenault responded that it was a part of the Bluff Creek Overlay District in the northwest corner of the property. Planning Commission Minutes – December 2, 2025 2 Commissioner Olmstead asked if that brought in more requirements. Mrs. Arsenault answered that the overlay was aligned with the flora and fauna, and topography for the preservation of natural resources, and there is an associated setback from the boundary. Commissioner Soller asked about the water resources report, and although the staff did not recommend approval, if there was a version where a variance for lot cover was approved, the contingencies would have to be put in that would deal with the vegetative buffer along the creek. He asked if the only point of view was that an increase in lot cover would have a net negative environmental impact, or if there were tradeoffs to enhance the property so that the net impact to the environment was positive. Eric Maass, Community Development Director, responded that conditions were offered by the water resources engineer in the event of a variance approval but that those conditions were provided as a means to only mitigate the adverse impacts of additional impervious surface coverage within the shoreland overlay district. Commissioner Soller asked about the point of view of the Department of Natural Resources, and he asked about what level of jurisdiction or advising capacity for the lot cover variances. Mr. Maass responded that the DNR was only a commenting jurisdiction, and it does not have the authority to approve or deny a variance request. The city’s shoreland management ordinance was required to be reviewed and approved by the DNR. Any amendments to the shoreland ordinance itself must gain DNR approval. Commissioner Soller clarified that the Department of Natural Resources did not have oversight on the variance, but that the packet information was general guidance. Mr. Maass clarified that they were providing general guidance in this situation. Commissioner Olmstead asked about the proposed conditions that would have to be met. Mrs. Arsenault confirmed this information. Chairman Noyes invited the property owner up. Clint Bitting, 1531 Camden Ridge Drive, thanked them for their time and consideration. He stated that they had hard decisions. He stated that he and his family have lived in Chanhassen for ten years. He said that his family loves his neighbors and neighborhood, and they want to stay in the area. He thought that the variance was a small ask and that they needed a little more space to make things comfortable. He said other houses in the neighborhood were over the 25 percent variance, so they were hoping for flexibility. He stated that they were happy to add a buffer or to be as flexible as possible. He commented that some things are different on a survey and what happens on their property is different than what the water resource engineer considers. The side of the house is a hill, and the water rushes down the hill. He said that they were looking for flexibility so they could have more space on their property. Chairman Noyes asked about the contingency plan if they are not granted the variance. Mr. Bitting responded that the biggest reason for the variance is the need for a second home office since his wife works from home. They also wanted a garage that fit their vehicle. He said if they did not get the variance, they would punt on the project and figure out a different solution. Planning Commission Minutes – December 2, 2025 3 Commissioner Olmstead said the water ponds are in their backyard. Mr. Bitting responded that some of the water goes into the creek, but other water settles in certain areas. Commissioner Olmstead asked whether a buffer would be beneficial to the property. Mr. Bitting answered that it would help and offset the hardcover increase. He stated that there is a big buffer near the creek already. Chairman Noyes thanked the property owner for the time. He asked Mrs. Arsenault about a rundown of other properties in the area with the two-tiered hardscape percentage. Mrs. Arsenault reviewed nearby properties and responded that the shoreland overland code was approved January 1, 1976, and this property was platted in 2013. Anything platted before 1976 was allowed to go up to 30 percent. Chairman Noyes asked if all the properties complied. Mrs. Arsenault responded that there were no recent property permits, but she said that there are some properties that aren’t in compliance, and some properties are in compliance. Chairman Noyes asked about the staff error in 2016. Mrs. Arsenault answered that the reported hardcover on the surveys was over 25 percent. Chairman Noyes questioned whether other properties had variance requests. Commissioner Soller clarified that the entire PUD was platted in 2013. Commissioner Olmstead said that it did not show a setback to the 1541 building, and whether the addition would impact this. Mrs. Arsenault said that the side setback was currently met, but verification would be made during the permitting. She said that there was an additional 15-foot separation code. Commissioner Grover asked what would happen if someone had hard cover and did not get a permit. Mrs. Arsenault answered that code enforcement had to be reported, and the code enforcement issue would be addressed. Mr. Maass said that the code enforcement was completed based on a complaint basis. Commissioner Soller said that people would not have to dismantle the construction. Mr. Maass responded that the property owner would have to either get a permit and conform to City Code or modify to adhere to City Code, including potentially dismantling the hard cover component. Commissioner Rosengren asked how many homes were in the district. Mrs. Arsenault said that there were around fifteen of the forty-five homes in this area. Commissioner Roesngren asked if the examples were immediate neighbors. Mrs. Arsenault confirmed this information. Planning Commission Minutes – December 2, 2025 4 Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. Erik Hallstrom, 13727 Louisville Road, Shakopee, Minnesota, said he was the acting contractor. He thanked them for their time and noted that the property was not as black and white. He voiced appreciation for displaying the hard surfaces of the neighbors, and that nine of the nineteen parcels were over the variance requirements. He said that they would be over by a small am ount, and it is difficult to cut a few feet out of certain areas. He stated that the property owner received a letter of approval from the homeowners' association. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Chairman Noyes said it was difficult because there were several properties over the 25 percent mark. He asked if a number of the properties over 25 percent was due to the date of the platting. Mrs. Arsenault answered that all of the homes were built in 2016 after platting in 2013. She did not look beyond the seven nearest to the property. Chairman Noyes said he was not concerned about the opinion of the Homeowners’ Association, but he was concerned about the opinions of the Department of Natural Resources and the Water Resource Engineer. He understood that the homeowner did not want to build an addition that won’t meet the needs. He stated they would not be setting a precedent with additional non- compliance. Commissioner Soller asked if variances are evaluated independently and did not set a precedent. Mr. Maass confirmed this information and reviewed the variance findings of fact. He reviewed the definition of the practical difficulties and that the plight of the landowner was not due to the unique circumstances of the property to justify a variance. Commissioner Soller asked about the process for the variance findings of fact, and that they need to check all of the boxes. Mr. Maass confirmed this information, and they were identified by the standards set forth by the Minnesota State Statute. Commissioner Soller said that they normally look at misshapen lots that make things difficult for the property owner. He stated that if they deny a variance request, and if they were assenting to everything in the findings of fact, or if they could change the language of the motion before voting on it. Mr. Maass said that a motion to approve the findings of fact as presented would be a motion to deny. He said if there was an element of the findings of fact as drafted by the staff, the commissioner should make a notation in the motion or before the motion. Commissioner Soller said he agreed with subpoint d, but had a difficult time with subpoint e because it seemed subjective, so it was difficult to be factual. He stated that there were several non-conforming lots in the Planned Unit Development, so he found it difficult not to check the box. Commissioner Rosengren said he found difficulties because there are other properties that exceeded 25 percent, so they were saying to future applicants that the Planned Unit Development requirements would not matter. Planning Commission Minutes – December 2, 2025 5 Commissioner Olmstead said he liked that they were not widening the access off Camden Ridge. He asked how much of the driveway was a part of the increase that put them over the 25 percent. Mrs. Arsenault responded that she was not aware. Mr. Maass said it was approximately 275 square feet, which put it about the 25 percent threshold. He stated that the staff tried to look at ways to reduce the threshold. For example, the proposed sunroom was a certain amount of square footage, and the driveway would be lengthened. They were trying to look for ways not to go through a variance, and they were not able to do that in this case, but there are opportunities to reduce the percentage. Commissioner Olmstead said that most driveways drain towards the curve. He wished water resources were present to discuss where the driveway would drain. Mr. Maass responded that any stormwater from the front line of the home catches the curbed line and hits a storm basin, and would be routed by gravity to a stormwater basin. He said that the percentage was based on the overall lot and not on which direction the water flowed. Commissioner Soller noted that there was inequality with non-conforming lots, especially when it is potentially nine of nineteen lots. He said if they confirm this information, it would not set a legal precedent, but there would be less preventing the properties at the Shoreland Overlay District from going to the 35 percent. He stated it was difficult to solve the problem with a variance. Chairman Noyes stated that they did not know if there were variances on the other properties. Mrs. Arsenault responded that they did not see any variances in recent years. Chairman Noyes said that the non-conforming lots happened around the original platting and building. Mrs. Arsenault confirmed this information. Commissioner Soller commented that 25 percent was not unique to the planned unit development, but all shoreland overlay property. Mrs. Arsenault confirmed that it was in the shoreland overlay requirements in the City Code. Commissioner Soller said that the variance was not the answer, but changing the terms of the Planned Unit Development to adjust the requirement. Mr. Maass responded that a city could modify a Planned Unit Development ordinance if it chooses to do so. Commissioner Soller asked if they were exposing themselves to risk. He asked if the 25 percent requirement existed in other Planned Unit Developments. Mr. Maass confirmed that it was a requirement throughout the city for any and all properties in the Shoreland Overlay District. Chairman Noyes asked where they would draw the line if they were to change it. Commissioner Soller said that he sees inequality in this neighborhood, specifically. He stated that the City Code compelled him to say no, but it was challenging. Planning Commission Minutes – December 2, 2025 6 Commissioner Jobe stated that number four was his holding point. They were left with one box unchecked. If they were to think about rewriting the processes, he was not the expert. Commissioner Rosengren commented that it was hard to do the right thing or the fair thing. He referred to number eleven on the staff recommendations, and if they approve the variance, the staff recommended establishing a native buffer. He stated that if they approved the variance and required extra conditions, they would be addressing the unfairness that had been built up , but still requiring options to address the impacts. Chairman Noyes said he did not have proof of the other properties being over the 25 percent, other than the three that Mrs. Arsenault presented. He said that those three properties fell through the cracks. Commissioner Olmstead asked if the additional room qualified for an attached dwelling. Mrs. Arsenault confirmed that it did not because it was incorporated into the rest of the house. Commissioner Olmstead said it was an opportunity to keep good residents in the city and to allow them to take care of aging families. He said he liked the conditions that the water resources had put out. Commissioner Jobe asked about the net gain for the conditions of the secondary features. Mr. Maass responded that it was not sized or scaled; it would have to come after. He said that they were included just in case, not as a recommendation. Commissioner Grover said it was a situation where someone wanted a house rather than what was allowed by ordinance. He said he did not think the project met the criteria to receive a variance. He stated the project did not meet the criteria to get the variance. Chairman Noyes asked if someone had put forward a motion to deny the variance, and it was seconded, but it did not pass; it was equivalent to having the variance approved. Mr. Maass answered that it would just be a motion that failed to garner support, so the motion would fail. Chairman Noyes clarified that the only way to approve the variance was through a specific variance. Mr. Maass confirmed this information. Commissioner Soller asked if the Planning Commission was the last step or if it would move on to the City Council. Mr. Maass answered that any person aggrieved by a decision by the Planning Commission could appeal the decision to the City Council. Commissioner Rosengren said it was difficult to make the decision, so he wanted the elected officials of the Chanhassen City Council to make the decision and weigh whether they wanted to balance the fairness or the ordinance. Mr. Bitting stated that some of the lots were misshapen, which would lend itself to a setback variance. Other lots are way over the limit. Mr. Rosengren answered that they needed to apply the ordinances in the city fairly to everyone. He stated it was not about the specific situation, but Planning Commission Minutes – December 2, 2025 7 the rules that all residents must abide. He said he did not want to be tasked with the weight of deciding because it seems above the Planning Commission's responsibilities. Commissioner Soller said that they were bound by a procedural decision-making process. He stated that other lots could be non-conforming, but the variance procedure would not allow them to say yes because there is no uniqueness with the property. He asked about the city staff’s findings of fact for number four about what circumstances unique to the property would include, such as the property and slope. He asked if these characteristics were subjective or if they were found in State statute or City Code, or well-known best practice. Mr. Maass answered that the features were unique to the property and not man-made or prior to the existing zoning ordinance. Commissioner Soller stated that the unique circumstance was not that they were in the Shoreland District. Mr. Maass confirmed this information, because otherwise, any zoning district could be considered a practical difficulty. Commissioner Rosengren asked if the fairness happening around the property qualified as a unique circumstance. Commissioner Soller said he could not go outside of the purview of what the Planning Commission was allowed to do, although he had difficulties with the hard cover restrictions. Mr. Hallstrom said that the precedent was already set when none of the other properties had to submit a variance. Mr. Maass clarified that a vote nay to the motion, the motion to deny would fail. He said a motion to deny would need four votes in the affirmative. He stated that any person could file a motion of appeal with the City Council. Commissioner Soller offered a friendly amendment for the City Council to look at the findings of fact and the criteria that are not met. He said they should not accept the finding of fact for number five, so he would vote in favor of voting aye if they said the inverse on point number five. Commissioner Rosengren moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments deny the requested hardcover variance in the shoreland management district and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision, with the inverse on point number five. The motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Commissioner Olmstead voted nay. Chairman Noyes stated that this item could be appealed to the City Council. 2. ORDINANCE XXX: AMENDING CHAPTERS 1, 18, AND 20, DEFINING AND REGULATING HERITAGE TREES Mr. Maass reviewed the ordinance timeline. He stated that they were here to hold the Planning Commission Public Hearing, with an anticipation of going to the City Council in January 2026. Planning Commission Minutes – December 2, 2025 8 He provided a summary of the community engagement, including a Chan-Happenings Email, social media post, Chan Check In, and Publication of the Public Hearing in Sun Sailer. He stated that the staff received two written comments to date. Jamie Marsh, Environmental Resources Specialist, discussed the proposed modifications that include establishing a definition of heritage trees, modifying the definition of significant trees, and establishing a definition of critical root zone. She stated that the modified tree survey requirements would be for all trees over 5 inches in diameter at breast height. She said that the proposed ordinance amendment would include heritage trees as a priority for saving in addition to existing stands of trees when developments were proposed. She said that there was a criterion for trees considered to be removed, killed, or lost. She commented that if heritage trees were lost due to construction activity, the replacement penalty would be a rate of two DBH inches per 1 DBH removed, or the developer would be required to pay a fee twice the rate set for significant trees. She provided an overview of the modifications made since the October Planning Commission meeting, including the definition of the critical root zone; clarifying when trees shall be removed, killed, or lost; an incentive to avoid Heritage Tree Removal; and clarifying replacement tree value in the DBH inches and height, depending on the tree type. Mr. Maass said that the Environmental Commission asked about the impact on future applicants or developers. He responded that there would be an increased cost due to additional field work for tree inventories. He said that the City Code requires that a certified professional conduct any tree surveys, which includes the condition of the tree. The city maintains sole discretion to confirm survey information. He stated that the Planning Commission asked why some trees were not included as potential heritage trees. He responded that the Minnesota Department of Agriculture establishes tree species on the invasive or nuisance tree list, and the trees still count toward canopy coverage replacement requirements. He summarized a way to incentivize developers to save Heritage Trees, including intentional redesign of the site to avoid Heritage Tree Removals. Chairman Noyes asked about the proposed modification and the practicality level of using trees bigger than 2.5 inches DBH. Ms. Marsh answered that the existing requirement was 2.5 inches DBH, because if you go larger, the establishment period is longer. Chairman Noyes asked about the one foot equaling one inch in the critical zone. He said he would be surprised if a tree with a 25 DBH had such a small area to be undisturbed. He asked about the undisturbed zone, since it seemed smaller. Ms. Marsh clarified that if they had a 25- inch tree, the undisturbed zone would be 25 feet around all sides of the tree. Commissioner Jobe asked who watered the tree and completed the maintenance, and for how long. Ms. Marsh answered that the developer had to maintain the improvements for one year after the planting. She said that there were some requirements for tree protection in development contracts. Commissioner Grover asked if there were requirements for the type of trees. Ms. Marsh answered that there was a diversity standard in the City Code. There could be no more than ten Planning Commission Minutes – December 2, 2025 9 percent from the same species, twenty percent from the same genus, and thirty percent from the same family. They also included a list of acceptable species. Commissioner Grover asked if the individual could pick between the tree types. Ms. Marsh responded that the developers had some flexibility to pick the trees, but the diversity standards encouraged the use of different trees. Chairman Noyes clarified that the final plan was up to the jurisdiction of the city. Ms. Marsh confirmed this information. Commissioner Rosengren stated that there were only so many places on the lot where the heritage trees could exist within the critical root zone. He thought there were a lot of words to describe trees that would likely not be protected because they would not be in the right locations on the lot. They would have to be in the corner of the lot so that their critical root zone is not disturbed. He did not think there would be a lot of trees protected based on the development. Chairman Noyes said that they had received feedback that developers were clear-cutting all of the trees. He said they wanted to attempt to save some of the trees. Commissioner Rosengren said that the focus should be on the replacement aspect rather than saving the trees. Chairman Noyes said that there would not be a lot of room on the edges of a 15,000 square foot lot to save larger trees. He thought it would bring a higher level of conversation to consider both saving and replacing trees. Commissioner Soller commented that not all of the lots are equal. He stated that they wanted to make sure the replanting was happening on a larger scale. Commissioner Rosengren stated that if the norm was to knock down and replace the heritage trees, they would not need language about saving the trees. Commissioner Soller asked if this was passive code enforcement or active code enforcement to hold developers accountable. Mr. Maass responded that a development is bound by a development contract, which stipulates approved construction plans. The ordinance is trying to further bolster and strengthen the ordinance so developers know what the enforcement would be for developers related to trees. Ms. Marsh said that there was an allowance for the critical root zone. She said that another reason for placing the criteria is so that the tree removal or planting does not impact the homeowner later on. Commissioner Olmstead stated he had seen trees damaged by construction, so he asked if they had examined construction zones afterward. Ms. Marsh confirmed that she would look at this information after. Planning Commission Minutes – December 2, 2025 10 Commissioner Grover asked how they would determine if there was damage to the critical root zone. Ms. Marsh answered that they look at the circumference of the tree and all of the roots around it. She said that they could analyze the construction plans submitted and the grade change, and any other damage that happened to the trunk or the canopy. Commissioner Soller clarified that there was a 25 percent allowance for tree removal. He asked how they arrived at the 25 percent, and he wanted to know how they can ensure the ordinance has the teeth to enforce what they hope it does. Ms. Marsh responded that 25 percent was a fair and reasonable amount after researching other cities. Commissioner Soller asked about the species exception. He said if he had a plot of land covered in an aspen forest that was beautiful, and a developer flattened the entire forest, this ordinance would not impact them because aspens are classified as invasive. He asked if aspen trees were a net negative, as they contributed to the forest environment of the city. Ms. Marsh answered that aspen trees are susceptible to a canker. She said that the heritage ordinance was in addition to the canopy coverage requirements. She stated that their value would still be counted for, but in a different way than heritage trees. Commissioner Soller asked if city staff would have an objective formula for how many trees were saved based on the intervention of the developer. Mr. Maass answered that he was open to any modifications from the Planning Commission. He said they would look to the principles of conservation design to see if a proposed plant was going out of its way to avoid heritage trees. He provided an example of the developer changing the road direction to avoid heritage trees. Commissioner Soller said that the loophole problem would be based on the discretion of staff in the incentive award. Commissioner Soller stated that the heritage tree ordinance only applied to a whole subdivision, not to a single property owner. Mr. Maass confirmed that this would only apply to the subdivision ordinance and not the zoning ordinance. The City Council directed staff to review this policy. Chairman Noyes asked if the proposed ordinance would apply to one larger property looking to subdivide into two properties. Mr. Maass answered that any subdivision of land was a subdivision, even if one five-acre lot was divided into two two-and-a-half-acre lots. Commissioner Soller asked if the city was restricted by code to preserve heritage trees. Mr. Maass answered that the city was not often in the business of subdividing lands, but if the city were to subdivide land, it would be required to meet its own ordinance. Commissioner Soller asked if the city were to build a road, if they would consider the direction to preserve heritage roads. Mr. Maass answered that they likely would only see a new street with a subdivision, and most city roadwork was street reconstruction, so this would not be a subdivision. He stated that Ms. Marsh helps with street reconstruction during tree removals. Planning Commission Minutes – December 2, 2025 11 Ms. Marsh said that this ordinance would not apply to street reconstruction. She works with the engineering department to help provide tree replacement for residents when trees are lost during street reconstruction. Commissioner Rosengren asked about a previous property that was not a subdivision and whether it would be under the heritage tree ordinance. Mr. Maass answered that it needed site plan approvals, so the heritage tree ordinance would apply. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. Dan Blake, Eden Prairie, stated he was representing Tim Earhart at 9511 Meadowlark Drive. He stated it was difficult to preserve trees and write into words how to preserve trees. He expressed concerns that this would just generate fees for the city. He stated that developers would preserve a tree if they could, but if it cannot be preserved, it will raise the cost of development, which would in turn raise the cost of the house. He said that new houses in Chanhassen are very expensive. He talked about the development of Earhart Farms, which is a heavily wooded property. He thought that they saved more trees than most during the development process. The developer was frustrated with the builders for damaging the trees. He said that home building takes up more space than they consider. He did not know why the houses had to be so big, but that development is expensive. He said that they developed 18 lots, and they had to plant 300 trees. He stated it was difficult to plant 16 trees per home. They saved more trees than normal on this particular site. He stated that they do not meander streets in Chanhassen, so it ends up being 80 feet of clear space. He said when they did this development, they had a dead end at a wetland. Wetlands get protected at all costs, which makes tree preservation and road designs difficult. He stated it did not matter what the zoning or land use would be, but it is different to preserve trees in residential than in commercial. Developers do not save big trees in office developments. He requested that the definition of heritage trees exclude trees planted as part of a tree nursery. He did not think these should be counted in future development. They were planted as a crop, and most trees did not have branches because they were planted in straight rows. He provided examples of trees that got saved. Some were healthy, and some should not have been saved. He said that developers would save trees if they could. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Soller asked for feedback from Ms. Marsh on the nursery tree comment. He asked if there were exceptions for nursery trees for other cities. Ms. Marsh answered that she did not see exceptions in other cities. She said that a tree in a tree nursery would still be providing benefits to the city. Mr. Maass answered that heritage trees were 25 inches a tree. He said he was not an arborist, but he did not expect a tree nursery to have such large trees. Planning Commission Minutes – December 2, 2025 12 Commissioner Soller moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments recommend City Council adoption of the Heritage Tree Ordinance as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. GENERAL BUSINESS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED NOVEMBER 18, 2025 Commissioner Olmstead moved, Commissioner Grover seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated November 18, 2025, as presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: Mr. Maass updated the Commissioners, noting this was the last regular meeting for the Planning Commission in 2025. He highlighted that the Chanhassen Bluffs Community Center would need to come forward for city approval, so it would likely come before the Planning Commission in February. He stated that the next City Council workshop meeting would discuss the 2050 Comprehensive Plan, which is updated every ten years. OPEN DISCUSSION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Soller moved, Commissioner Olmstead seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Submitted by Eric Maass Community Development Director