Loading...
1985 01 21 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 21, 1985 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened the meeting with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson Councilwoman Swenson, Councilman Geving Staff Present Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Bill Monk, Roger Knutson APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the with the addition of discussion on Council Goals and the Fire seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Motion carried. agenda as presented Department. Motion Mayor Hamilton, No negative votes. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the consent agenda pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Allowing Bed and Breakfast Inns as Conditional Uses in the R-IA District, Final Reading. b. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Allowing Commercial Wholesale Nurseries as Conditional Uses in the R-IA District, Final Reading. c. Approve Extension of Dypwick Grading Permit. d. Resolution Regarding Banking Procedures. RESOLUTION 085-02 Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. SIGNS, D.J. AUCTION: Mr. Duane Harder appeared before the Council seeking approval to install signs at his place of business at 571 West 78th Street. He was instructed to see the City Planner and fill out the appropriate sign permit applica- tion. PUBLIC HEARING TRI-PROPERTIES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order. John Przymus was present. Councilman Gevinq - I was looking for the DNR letter dated October 25, 1982, that was referred to three or four times in the correspondence. I don't recall that letter specifically but I understand it was the basis from which we made one very important condition to this property. I would like to have the letter included with our packet because I think it tells us exactly what not to do with that wetland area. It was my understanding that we had to stay back from that approximately ten feet or so, so that we would not disturb that wetland. I remember that and I know it was built into the conditions in many different places and forms and now I see that has been violated apparently. Bill Monk - The condition concerning the ten foot from the creekbed that runs along the north side of the property, that portion of the condition has not been violated but the condition that the wetland itself, the lowlands, down in the northwest corner of the property be nothing more than mowed and seeded, which was found to be acceptable by DNR in that letter, is the condition that's in question. Council Meeting January 21, 1985 -2- Councilman Gevinq - When did you notice this? Bill Monk - It was last fall. The reason that it took so long is because of the condition for a public hearing which is a little bit unusual in these types of instances and I guess with it being wintertime there was no rush because no grading was going to take place during the wintertime. I John Przymus - That property there is not a wetlands. When I talked with Bill he had thought that all that tall grass down there was not going to be disturbed at all and I never intended to fill that whole area up. What I did was I took a farmer out there and I wanted him to get it down so we could seed it and the grass was so tall that you just couldn't do anything. A disk would go over the top and a plow would fill up. All I wanted to do was just put a layer to cover the grass so we could disk it down and seed it. I am not trying to fill up the low land. When we met with the DNR, it is not considered wetlands. He says it was a farm field. It used to be plowed. I told the guys to stay away at least 50 feet from the creek. It's not my intention to fill up anything. All we are trying to do is just cover up the grass so that we can seed it. Councilwoman Swenson - Whether it is or isn't is rather a moot point because it is subject to the provisions of the Shoreland Management Ordinance over which we don't have any control anyway. It's the general development water of Bluff Creek which gives you a definite restriction on how close you can get to it. John Przymus - We stayed away from the creek. Mayor Hamilton - Has everybody had an opportunity to read the letter? bottom of the letter written October 25: "We would further recommend cal dimensions of the wetland basin be left in a natural condition". planning on conforming to that John? It says at the that the physi- Were you I John Przymus - If you say I am filling it in then I am filling it in, but I am not. All I am doing is covering the grass a couple of inches so we can disk it. I couldn't afford to fill it in. Basically, all I am going to do is mow grass. I am not doing anything else. Like I said earlier, we stayed more than ten feet away. That's why I didn't assume that I was doing anything in violation of the conditional use permit because I have to get it so I can mow grass and I have to get it level. I am not trying to harm anything. Councilman Horn moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. TRI-PROPERTIES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Councilman Geving moved to table this item to to a Saturday session in the Spring to visit the site. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Councilwoman Watson moved to note the December Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, No negative votes. Motion carried. 12, 1984, Planning The following voted in Councilmen Horn and Geving. BEACHLOT ORDINANCE, ATTORNEY RESPONSE: No action was taken. I I I I Council Meeting January 21, 1985 -3- BILLS: Councilman Geving moved to approve the bills as presented: checks 8022125 through 8022226 in the amount of $500,767.64 and checks 8024509 through 8024666 in the amount of $1,475,664.84. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION QI ~ FIVE ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS, 9201 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. Mayor Hamilton moved to approve a metes and bounds subdivision dividing a five acre tract into two parcels, Planning Case 84-25, Subdivision. The two parcels to be approximately of equal size with the eastern most parcel having access to Highway 101 on the north side. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION DIVIDING 1.45 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS, 7550 GREAT PLAINS BLVD. Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the subdivision dividing a 1.45 acre parcel into two parcels, Planning Case 84-26, Subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the subdivision be put into a plat format. 2. Building plans and specifications for construction on the newly created lot be certified by an engineer as per the letter from the City Engineer to the Planning Commission dated January 4, 1985, Drainage and Slope. 3. Sewer and water benefit for the newly created lot will be handled under provi- sions of the City's connection charge policy at time of building permit applica- tion. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CHES-MAR FARM SKETCH PLAN REVIEW: Councilman Horn - I guess I got caught off-guard on this. I was not under the impression when we allowed Herman home to be moved that we were allowing permission for substandard lot sizes. Bill Monk - Nobody at that time knew that we were going to be asked to do anything like this. At least I wasn't aware of it. When we looked at it, it was 12 acres with four structures and you could put each one on 2i acres but it's just not working out that way. They are trying to subdivide. Barbara Dacy - Ches-Mar Farms has been there for years and what is going on now is that the buildings are being rented and the amount of income that is being gained from the rental of these structures is not going to be enough for the proper upkeep and maintenance so the property owner wanted to find some way that he could create a lot to fit individual structures so he can sell each lot and, therefore, be under single ownership. As you can see on the layout, the whole site totals 12 acres and it has an unusual' shape to it that really prevents it from getting the standard 2i acre subdivision. Another point why we recommended the applicant to process a PUD is that these are multiple structures in an R-lA District. The reason why they have Lot 1 as Ii acres is because it is ideally identifiable, it is pretty well self- contained as is. It has the access drive along the south. You have got the regional park along the north and Highway 41 on the east. There is enough acreage there to get that 2i acre minimum but what would end up happening is that you would have to create little squares and tie them together. We wanted to keep the driveway going into the Lot 4 site all in one lot. Paul Prenevost - The object is that all the outbuildings have some value to them and we would like to keep them. Council Meeting January 21, 1985 -4- Councilwoman Watson - We have got one lot that's six acres and two lots that we can't make come up to 2;. I Paul Prenevost - The two lots that you are referring to would be one and three. Three is on top of a hill and this is all Carver County Park so there is going to be no building or anything in that area. This one is the same thing where you are sloping down away from the actual structure itself and it's frontage on the park. Councilwoman Watson - My problem with it is that we know have the ordinance that makes the lots a minimum of 2; acres regardless of whether they are on the park. The problem is the person that comes in after you who doesn't abut a park or anything else and still wants the same privilege of a lot less than 2; acres in the unsewered area. Mayor Hamilton - We look at each one on its own merits and just because you do that with this one doesn't mean that the next guy can come in and say, you did it here so now you have to do it for me. You look at each one on its own merits. I don't see how else they can divide this up without really making so many changes it would not fit the property. Councilman Horn - I think we can spell out exceptions. In this case we are dealing with pre-existing conditions that we really don't have a choice. I think I can feel comfortable with this one because of that. If we are creating something from scratch, that's one thing, but this already exists. Councilwoman Watson - That house isn't even in there yet and we could have solved one of those problems because the house is gone on Lot 4 and Lot 3 could have been I large enough that we wouldn't have had a substandard lot there because of something that hasn't even happened yet. Paul Prenevost - He already has approval to do it. Councilwoman Watson - I know he does but it hasn't happened yet and circumstances have changed. He, obviously hadn't planned to do this or made no mention of it at the time that he asked for approval of moving the Herman house and then we would have had at least one less substandard lot had he at least brought this up as a possibility at that point in time. Councilwoman Swenson - Certainly, had the idea come up that this was going to deve- lop, I am sure that you would not have been given a permit to move that house on there. Councilman Gevinq - I think you are constricted on Lot 1 but I do believe you could make some allowances out of Lot 2 to bring both Lots 3 and 4 more up to size. I you were to extend the western most line and bring it back to the east on Lot 2 then you could bring Lot 3's eastern most line over and I think you could pick up the 2; acres. Bring that line over to the road. Mayor Hamilton - The road that goes back in there, is that Ches-Mar Drive or what is it? Mayor Hamilton Is that a City street or is it private. I Paul Prenevost - It's Pine Circle. I I I Council Meeting January 21, 1985 -5- Barb Dacy - It is a private street. It is on here as an outlot because it would be maintained by the homeowners association and we did make a recommendation that cer- tain enlargements to the outlot be made to make it more of a standard 50 foot wide easement. Mayor Hamilton - lot 1 is okay and adjust the lines as you said for lots 3 and 4. Councilwoman Swenson - Why does this have to be a PUD? Barb Dacy - The "P" District will eliminate the non-conforming status on the use because multiple dwellings are a permitted use. Mayor Hamilton moved approval with the noted adjustments to the lot lines of the sketch plan and the City Engineer's recommendations in his letter dated December 5, 1984, Utilities and Streets. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, WHITE ~ RIDGE, NORTHEAST CORNER or lAKE lUCY ROAD AND GALPIN BLVD. Barb Dacy - Since the Planning Commission meeting we have made some recommendations in your report about the site plan. The applicant has revised the sketch plan to conform to those as far as the parking space alignment near the north lot line and he will submit a more detailed landscaping plan should we pursue the project. As far as the access from Galpin Blvd. is concerned, there was a letter from Carver County that stated that as much distance as possible should be maintained from lake lucy Road. Originally we had recommended that the access be aligned across the street from West 65th Street so we are going to try and make the best compromise to maximize the distance from lake lucy Road. What the applicant is proposing is eight townhouse units. Townhomes are a permitted use in a P-l District and by clustering the units to the most buildable area of the site, when you view this plan versus five single family lots and, therefore, five accesses onto lake lucy Road and then you would have the buildability question down in the southeast and southwest corners, what this really does is squish all the units together and consolidate the access into one driveway. Councilman Gevinq - I think it's a lot of density in a small area. Barbara Dacy - Eight units and the development density will be 2.9 units per gross acre. Mayor Hamilton - I think it makes sense. We will get the type of housing that we need in town and that's not the easiest location to work with. Councilman Gevinq - I have driven that area quite often and isn't that about where the hill starts? Aren't you about at the crest of that little hill just after you pass West 65th Street? Barbara Dacy - The townhomes are located right on the top of a hill. There is no question that we are going to have to work out an appropriate intersection of align- ment to Galpin Blvd. We have to maintain as much distance as we can from lake lucy Road according to the County. Councilwoman Swenson - Actually, you have got lake lucy Road coming in from the east and then a distance of probably 100 and some feet, you have got West 65th Street coming in from the left, and then you are going to go up another 75 feet and have another inlet from the east and as Dale points out, there is a rise in the hill there. Council Meeting January 21, 1985 -6- Bill Monk - One thing we should remember is that Lot 2 has what I refer to as a "chicken coop". It has got a seven-plex on it right now. Very close to where he is proposing the access out is where that access comes out right now. That will be moved next year and the seven-plex will go out onto the new street. The proposal is I to leave it pretty close to where that other one comes out. I am concerned also about the hill but I guess I wouldn't get too caught up in that because we can recom- mend to the county what be done but it is a county road. The county will issue the permit. We work with them quite well. Whatever comments you make will be sent to the county but they actually will decide where that access permit is issued. Paul Palmer - This road as it exists is the road that I would like to use for the development because it's a natural. For a good passive solar design you always want the garages on the north and you want your entrance on the north also. What I would like to do with this road is to widen it so that we have much more visibility both ways. The association would be responsible for the hedge and maintain it and main- tain the entrance both ways so now it becomes an aesthetically pleasing entrance and a more visible entrance to everybody. Councilwoman Watson - Have you talked at all to the neighbors? When we had the first proposal with duplexes and quads, the neighborhood was very opposed to them. Paul Palmer - I have shown it to some of them. I have not reached them all but what I have shown them they are much more happier with what they saw. I would like to gear the townhouses more toward the empty nester market. Councilwoman Swenson - Do you remember when we always used to see the architectural designs. I would sure like to go back to that. Councilman Horn - There is a concern about the density, what's the lot size of the seven unit structure right now? I Barbara Oacy - That lot is 2.2 acres. Bill Monk - I believe it is a non-conforming use right now. Barbara Oacy - Under the P-l District it will come into conformance. That density is 3.1. Councilman Horn moved to approve the sketch plan review, Planning Case 084-3, as reviewed this evening. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS: Barbara Oacy - Ladd Conrad was here initially this evening and had to leave. He wanted me to reiterate to you about retaining the three present members because of their initial review of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. All three of them indicated at the Planning Commission meeting that after the completion of that ordi- nance review they would consider resigning and Mr. Conrad wanted to let you know that there very well could be vacancies after the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is approved. Councilwoman Swenson moved to confirm the recommendation of the Planning Commission I and reappoint Thomas Merz, Howard Noziska, and James Thompson. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I I I Council Meeting January 21, 1985 -7- ~ Qf ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS: Councilman Horn moved to reappoint Dale Geving, Carol Watson, and Willard Johnson as members of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Tom Hamilton is reappointed alternate. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, FIRST READING: Councilwoman Swenson _ Recommendation HI of Barb's is great. The second one, I would like to make a clarification on because actually it's eliminating double frontage, not creating one. I think the terminology might be made to require houses on existing frontage roads to face the front of existing houses. I don't know how the verbage should be. Councilman Horn _ I think it's explained right here on page 2. I think what the idea here is that if you end up with a lot that too narrow that you can't put two struc- tures on, you make the frontage go to existing structures and put the back yard to the subdivision. Mayor Hamilton - That's the way I read that, too. Councilwoman Swenson _ On page 7, at the top of the page, with the item 5.2 (6), I would like some verbage in there to cross reference the, if you remember in our Wetland Ordinance we require the developer to determine the "A" and "B" wetlands and I believe we should have a cross reference to that here that says this is information that's required. Mayor Hamilton _ We aren't making the developer determine "A" and "B". Councilwoman Swenson - Sure we are. Mayor Hamilton _ There would never be any then. The City determines or the DNR determines "A" and "B". Councilwoman Swenson _ It seems to me that we determined that it was the developers responsibility and then it would be verified by the City Engineer. I am sure that's in there. Barbara Dacy _ "Determination of a wetland area. The applicant for development which may be in a wetland area, shall be obligated to bring this to the City's atten- tion." What the Wetland Ordinance is saying is you don't have to classify it, it's the developers responsibility to point that out. I think what you are getting at is not so much as classification of it, it's just to make sure that the City has enough information to determine the extent of that wetland. Councilwoman Swenson _ I think that requirement should be incorporated in this paragraph so that in the event, a developer is not likely to pick up the Wetland Ordinance and read it. Whereas, he will read this and I think then he knows this is required. Is there any agreement with this? Councilman Geving - I don't think you have got any agreement. Nobody even shook their head yes or no on that. I agree. Councilwoman Swenson - Do we add this or don't we? Don Ashworth _ Anything that you would like to take and see added or deleted should be brought out this evening. ouncil Meeting January 21, 1985 -8- Mayor Hamilton - I think your point is good but I am not because I had made a comment that it should be 4.5 (7). be a reference there to the Wetland Ordinance. sure where it should be It seems to me there should Councilwoman Swenson - Where it's put, I don't mind. incorporated somewhere in here. I just think it should be I Don Ashworth - We can easily make that change. Councilwoman Swenson - On page 12, 6.5 (8) Solar Orientation. Lot layouts should take into consideration the potential use of solar energy design features. Our Comprehensive Plan requires protection for adjacent landowners. Here the potential use, it sounds as if it's for the individual house that's being built as opposed to the adjacent property. I only bring that to your attention because I wonder since it is in the Comprehensive Plan do you still think it's important enough to include. Barbara Dacy - I would hope we would look designed structure, I think the intent of the City is encouraging such orientation. at, the potential affects of a solar that is to make the developer aware We would enforce the Comprehensive energy that Plan. Councilwoman Swenson - Page 15, 9.3, Financial Security. Prior to approval of the final plat the prior to the construction of any improvements, the developer shall provide the City with security that all improvements required by this Ordinance will be installed and paid for at no City expense. Here again, I believe it's mentioned down in (3), does three cover this because we don't want any bonds. We don't want performance bonds. Three takes care of the first paragraph, is that correct? Roqer Knutson - Performance bonds, I agree with you. Councilwoman Swenson - In an new development, provision should be made for a con- tinuation of street but then we are anticipating what a adjacent development might be so perhaps we should not get into that. I Councilman Horn - Page 4, f (5), the proposed subdivision will not cause environmen- tal damage which could feasibly be prevented by design changes. It seems to me we don't need the last part of that. We should just put a period after damage. It sounds like it's all right to have environmental damage if it can't be feasibly pre- vented. Councilman Gevinq - Page 11, item 14, Private Streets. bited. Private drives which provide access to not more allowed. I am thinking of the Hesse Farm situation and that could occur. How would you handle them? Private streets are prohi- than three lots may be any developments like that Barbara Dacy - Under the term of the ordinance if it serves more than three lots it must be a public street. Councilman Gevinq - Everybody agree with that? The next comment I have is having to do with easements on page 13. I understand when we put in the cable system we ran into some problems because we did not have easements in some sections of the City because of the way the lots were configured, no overhead poles. Have we built into this a provision where that will not happen again? I Bill Monk - Back in the old subdivisions, they never got easements and for many years they were required on every lot line all the way around whether they were needed or not. Now we are trying to always get them in the front and the rear because of the chance of utility lines going in there. We are not routinely requiring them I I I ouncil Meeting January 21, 1985 -9- everywhere but we are trying to be more selective in working with people in trying to select where we get them and where we don't. Whether every instance could have been covered that came up with this cable, I think that 90% or more could be handled by this provision but most of those came about because there were none. Councilman Gevinq - You are satisfied with 7.1 that's sufficient for us in the future to do whatever we want. Mayor Hamilton - In 6.2 you have in there about a "T" turnaround. that's defined and included. got all kinds of streets but I didn't see anything It seems like that should be a part of it too so 8ill Monk - The way I thought we would handle it, we would view a cul-de-sac as the standard turnaround but if special provisions came up and someone during design wanted to request a "T" turnaround they could come into the City. There is nothing in here that says they couldn't get it but I think the standard cul-de-sac will pro- bably handle 98% or more of your instances. Fox Chase is about the only one that I can think of. I would rather almost handle that as a special design feature and not be promoting because I don't think that we would want to get into a "T" turnaround on a routine basis. Councilman Gevinq - On the very last page, Al Klingelhutz made a statement here in the middle of the page, was that covered here in the proposed subdivision? That he objects toa simple subdivision in the unsewered area requiring a plat instead of metes and bounds. Barbara Dacy - The Planning Commission recommended it as you see here. They felt very strongly that all properties should be platted. As I referred to in my third paragraph and in the Subdivision Ordinance section 4.2, as it reads now all proper- ties must be platted except for division of a platted or an unplatted lot where you are adding a portion of one lot to another. You are right, Mr. Klingelhutz was there and he spoke against it, however, the Commission went ahead and passed it as presented. Councilman Gevinq - It the last month or so. is becoming the most common way of subdividing land here in It seems to me we need a provision here to do it. Don Ashworth - The problem is everyone in the last year has come in as metes and bounds. In fact I think we had one in this packet. The description was almost one page in length. If you are the person who has to try to find that piece, remember the physical piece of property is still there, how do you find that piece. You have got a description here and how do you reasonably find it? The chances of those every being further subdivided are almost nill. For the next 10,20,30 years we will look at those descriptions. It is a small cost, the difference between platting and putting it into a metes and bounds description, the survey portion isn't that much, $1,000. They will quote prices upwards of $2,500 but the $2,500 is for the whole shot. In other words if they wouldn't have started in a metes and bounds format and then switched and just gone directly into a plat format the additional cost of a plat would probably be $1,000. The value of that to the City and anyone who has to work with those descriptions for the next whatever number of years is a minor cost. Every one of them that we have had lately have been a five to 10 acre parcel that they have wanted to carve up in two, three or four lot subdivisions and they should be recor- dable so we know where they are. Councilman Gevinq - I think there are a lot of cases that we are a simple lot split. We are going to see a lot of that. there needs to be a provision to be able to do that. experience where they I, personnally think Council Meeting January 21, 1985 -10- Councilman Horn - Typically I think that the objective here is that if you have got a big enough land area to keep the lot sizes straight forward metes and bounds is not that difficult. However, what we are aeeing happen, they are getting down to such small portions it's just complying with the ordinance that then we start having to play games with lot lines and that's where it starts to get confusing. The whole intent of this thing is that we would have large areas and the areas would be so big that we could have straight lines and wouldn't be confusing. Don Ashworth - If you have the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 16, I can find it but I can't find, beginning at a point 222' etc. Councilman Gevinq - I think it's one of these decisions where each Councilmember is going to have to put their input into it and say, yes or no. Councilman Horn - I think we should have reference of the minutes when we bring it up. I don't know if I am ready to say for the first reading we should include it but I think there should be a notation made. Roqer Knutson - Do you want both changes suggested by the Planning Commission included in the second draft? Mayor Hamilton - Yes. Councilwoman Swenson moved to place on first reading the proposed Subdivision Ordinance along with the memorandum from Barbara Dacy and changes as discussed this evening. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. REVIEW OF PROPOSED REVISION lQ CONNECTION CHARGE POLICY: Councilman Geving moved to establish a policy for connection charges. Said charges will be assessed over a eight year term and include a 3% depreciation rate. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Geving. Councilman Horn voted no. Motion carried. 1985 COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE: Councilman Geving moved to change the February, March, April,and September Council meetings to February 11 and 25, March 11 and 25, April 8 and 22, September 9 and 23. Motion seconded by Councilman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY COMPENSATION PLAN: Councilwoman Swenson moved to adopt an Ordinance Establishing an Administrative Code for the City of Chanhassen, Establishing Department and Officers. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. COUNCIL GOALS: Councilman Horn suggested that the Council set goals for the coming year. FIRE DEPARTMENT: Councilwoman Swenson - I would like to make a recommendation and I would ask the Council to make this recommendation to the fire department. That our firemen should not risk their lives by attempting to enter an unoccupied building or in any way endangering themselves merely to save property. I I I I I I Council Meeting January 21, 1985 -11- Councilwoman Watson moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. The Don Ashworth City Manager