The URL can be used to link to this page

4. CUP Eckankar Church I . , CITYOF 4 I . ----- 1 :'- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 , „ 1 --, (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM Note: Please bring your 1 packet from the last meeting TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager If you cannot locate your copy, please contact City I FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner Hall. DATE: May 18 , 1989 Action by City AAministratol crticrs^ci i tA) I SUBJ: Eckankar Conditional Use Permit ;i4iried a'eilet?1t _ ' On April 24, 1989 , the City Council moved to table action onithe--� t I conditional use permit request for the construction of a chuff by Eckankar. The item was tabled until City staff researche ,thy_,._______._. idea of a referendum and the applicant submitted an evironmentai '= '''"' baseline study ( #1) . 45--2-2,-.1s IEnvironmental Baseline Study I The applicant has submitted an environmental report performed by the environmental consulting firm of Protox, Inc. Protox, Inc. investigated the two former farm sites and the area where the I church is proposed. The environmental assessment included site inspection, magnetometer survey and soil gas testing. The investigation found three wells, one underground storage tank, a potential second ust and magnetic anomaly on the southern farm I site. All of the items discovered as part of the environmental assessment are typical items found on former farm sites, and are easily corrected. As part of the report, Protox recommended that Ithe following actions be taken: 1. The three wells on the property be legally abandoned. 2 . The underground storage tank be removed. I3 . A potential second underground storage tank be investigated with excavating equipment and if necessary removed. 4 . A magnetic object identified west of the former house shall I be further investigated when excavating equipment is on the site. 1 The applicant has stated that these four actions are being per- formed by Protox and will be completed before the end of May. Staff has reviewed the report and is satisfied that construction I of the church as proposed by the conditional use permit will not result in any environmental contamination. Approval of the con- ditional use permit will be conditioned upon the applicant per- tforming the four tasks recommended by the Protox report. I ' 1 Mr. Don Ashworth May 18 , 1989 Page 2 Land Acquisition, Tax Exemption, Skylight In his letter, Peter Beck has also addressed other concerns raised by the City Council ( #2) . The first issue addresses the sale of the Eckankar property to the city for public use. Peter Skelskey, President of Eckankar, has submitted a letter addressing the acquisition by the city of a portion of the sub- ject property ( #4) . Mr. Skelskey has stated that Eckankar will negotiate with the city for the city' s acquisition of a reaso- nable portion of the Eckankar property for public purposes at fair market value subject to certain conditions. The conditions stated by Mr. Skelskey are reasonable and separate the issue of acquisition of Eckankar land from the proposed conditional use permit. The second issue was the status of the property as tax exempt ' land. The County Assessor will be responsible for addressing whether or not the property, in full or in part, will be tax ' exempt. A third issue was the skylight and whether there would be an excessive amount of light visible by the neighborhing areas. The applicant has stated that the design of the skylight allows it to be closed at night and that no more illumination will occur than what occurs with other Chanhassen churches . Referendum ' A final issue was the discussion of a referendum for which the city could sell bonds to acquire the Eckankar property. The City Council has the right to call a special election for a referendum on issuance of general obligation bonds for any public purpose. The applicant has stated that they are willing to negotiate with the city for the purchase of Eckankar land at fair market value for public purposes . The manager has prepared a separate memorandum (Attachment #1) regarding commission recommendations and referendum issues. RECOMMENDATION The applicant, as requested by the City Council, has provided an environmental assessment of the site which has proven that construction on the subject site would not result in environmen- tal contamination of the area. The environmental assessment did discuss common items such as wells and underground storage tanks which should be taken care of properly and the applicant has stated that the firm of Protox, Inc. has been contracted to complete the recommendations of the -environmental site assessment report. The other items brought up at the April 24 , 1989 , City Council meeting have also been addressed by the applicant. Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the following motion: I "The City Council finds that Conditional Use Permit Case #89-1 for Eckankar Church is consistent with the zoning standards of MO 1 . , Mr. Don Ashworth ' May 18 , 1989 Page 3 ' the City of Chanhassen and approves the request subject to the plans stamped "Received March 22 , 1989" and the matters of record in the Official City Planning File #89-1 Conditional Use Permit ' ( Eckankar Church) with the following conditions : 1 . Detailed lighting of the exterior of the building be sub- mitted for review by the city. At staff' s discretion, the lighting may be presented to the Planning Commission for review to determine if the lighting is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 2 . All detailed construction plans and specifications are to meet city standards . ' 3 . Watershed District permits required prior to construction. 4 . There shall be no outsiq d 6f10system on the site. 5 . The facility is fo he express use as a church and limited to normal operati s and activities associated with a church. In no case shall rallies, conferences, meetings or gatherings hP facility be allowed. ' 6 . No tents, mobile homes, trailers or similar temporary struc- tures shall be allowed on the property; , ,)& )'-L . ,,c02101 ' 7 . Parking shall only be allowed in the improved parking areas as designated on the site plan. 8 . No overnight stays shall be permitted including camping or lodging with the exception of the caretaker. 9 . No use other than that specified in the conditional use per- mit shall be permitted, unless the applicant applies for and receives approval of a new conditional use permit pursuant to the City Code requirements in affect at that time. ' 10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following will be performed: ' a. The three wells on the property as shown on Figures #1, #2 and #3 of the Environmental Assessment Report shall be legally abandoned. ' b. The underground storage tank as shown on Figure #2 of the environmental assessment report shall be removed. c. A potential second underground storage tank shall be ' investigated with excavating equipment and if necessary removed. d. The magnetic object identified west of the former house sh-a-1-1 be further investigated when excavating equipment is no on the site. " r,d (J // 1� mM Mr. -Don Ashworth May 18, 1989 , Page 4 ATTACHMENTS I 1. Memo from City Manager dated May 18 , 1989 (Attachments A-H) . 2 . City Council minutes dated April 24 , 1989. 3 . Final Report for Environmental Site Assessment at the Eckankar property dated May 16 , 1989. 4 . Letter from Peter Beck dated May 17 , 1989. 5 . Letter from Peter Skelskey dated May 17 , 1989 . CITYOF _A, CHANHASSEN �\ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council ' FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager DATE: May 22 , 1989 ' SUBJ: Park, School, Community Center Uses on the Eckankar Property ' The City Council, on April 24, 1989, asked that staff obtain input from commissions/committees regarding potential City needs for park/school/community center uses on the Eckankar property. ' In addition, referendum issues should be addressed. The following attempts to respond to the questions posed. - Public Schools : Attached please find a letter from Bob Ostlund, Director of Administrative Services for the Chaska School District (Attachment "A" ) . The School District created a Building Facilities Committee approximately two years ago and the work plan from that committee is currently being implemented. Most of the information con- tained in Mr. Ostlund' s letter has been previously shared ' with our Community Facility Task Force as that group has looked to potential sharing of school facilities with a community center. In summation, the School District' s building plan anticipates the following: ° Chanhassen Elementary: The current renovation of the Jonathan Village Center for kindergarten/special educa- tion needs will provide interim relief for Chanhassen Elementary. Within three years, an additional elementary is proposed to be built on lands recently acquired in the Jonathan area. At that time, Chanhassen Elementary will ' serve only Chanhassen residents and be at 60%% capa- city. Future growth projections do not anticipate an additional elementary .school being required in ' Chanhassen. ° High School : Any additions anticipated for high school needs would occur in Chaska. Cost considerations of a ' separate facility are extensive and difficult to justify in some other location. Population projections do not show an over capacity ever existing at the current ' facility. 1 Mayor and City Council May 22 , 1989 Page 2 ° Middle School: An additional middle school will be required during the next four to six years. This is a more optimistic schedule than developed through the popu- lation forecasts. That model would show an eight to ten year period. If the district continues it' s current goal of placing schools in close proximity to their pri- mary service areas, a Chanhassen location would be con- sidered. If the School District were purchasing the property, lower priced land in our future growth area (west of Lake Ann) would be chosen. If the City were purchasing the land and the Eckankar site was considered important to the community, the school would be interested in working with the City to further develop that concept. The school would also be interested in working with the City in developing a potential combined community center and middle school. Acreage needed for a middle school would be approximately 30 to 40 acres. A combined facility was estimated by Mr. Ostlund to require approximately 50 acres. - Community Center Task Force: Staff did not anticipate that a singular recommendation could be achieved recognizing that the Task Force is still considering alternatives and was just starting to take proposals back into the com- munity for community input. Accordingly, staff prepared three different positions and asked committee members to determine if they favored any or all three of the alter- natives. They were encouraged to modify the basic tenets ( reasons for supporting) that alternative. The attached memorandum from Lori Sietsema (Attachment "B" ) includes a summary of their positions as well as individual comments. ' - Park and Recreation Commission : Lori Sietsema has sum- marized the positions of the Park and Recreation Commission (Attachment "C" ) . - Planning Commission: Similar to above, a summary of the Planning Commission ' s position has been prepared by Jo Ann ' Olsen (Attachment "D" ) . - Referendum Issues : I am attaching a copy of the survey sent to our citizens by the City (Attachment "E" ) . The cost implications in that brochure have been re-verified by our financial adviser. The figures shown are correct. They do make the assumption that total acquisition of the Eckankar property was being considered. I have also attached a copy of the legal debt margin sheet from the 1988 audit report (Attachment "F" ) . The $5 . 5 million in debt capacity does not include the $800, 000 which has been authorized by voters, but not sold. , Mayor and City Council ' May 22, 1989 Page 3 Accordingly, the City has an existing legal debt margin of ' $4 . 7 million. I would caution the City Council in regards to the debt limitation shown above. The numerous formulas which were changed this past year in moving from market value/ assessed value to tax capacities establish such on the "gross" market value instead of the "net" value which had been used in the formula for the past 20 years. This change literally provides a new or increased debt levy of almost two times that which would be arrived at if the tra- ditional formula would have been used in the conversion ' process. (Attachments "G" and "H" ) . This office believes that there is a strong possibility that the legislature will correct this error and that the City could be looking ' to a true debt limitation of approximately $2 . 5 to $3 million dollars when the legislature convenes this next fall. /(":2 (1y) Qld's) IN I PENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 112 Serving the communities of: Robert J. Ostlund CARVER • CHANHASSEN • CHASKA • EAST UNION • VICTORIA Director of Administrative Services May 11, 1989 ' City of Chanhassen Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Don: You have asked that I respond to school building plans as they relate to ' the City of Chanhassen. First let me state that not all of the following statements have been reviewed by the School Board. Instead, they represent input which has been received from our Facilities Task Force, I statements by Board members, and generally the position of both myself and Superintendent Carol Ericson, i.e. : - Chanhassen Elementary: Chanhassen Elementary is currently at capacity. The School Board action to acquire the Jonathan Center for kindergarten and pre-school classes will produce relief for both Chaska and Chanhassen Elementary. That relief will only be short term, i.e. two years. The School District is developing plans for a new elementary school to be completed in the fall of 1991 . The site for the new elementary school is McKnight Park, located at the north end of the Jonathan development. It is the position of the School Board that this site best meets criteria for attempting to locate a school as close as possible to the population base it serves. Once the new elementary is constructed, the Chanhassen Elementary student population will be reduced by about 40%. The space in Chanhassen "freed" by this move will accommodate the growth needs for several years, i.e. , 10% growth for seven years would be necessary to return to full capacity. 1700 CHESTNUT (HIGHWAY 41 NO.) CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 (612)448-8602 Equal Opportunity for Education and Employment , ATTpirN v) :,r ME , , II - Middle School: It is projected that a new middle school will be necessary in the next four to six years. From the current demographics of the school district and using our projected populations by community, a new middle school in Chanhassen is a distinct possibility. This statement is made in light of the fact that, again, the School Board does desire to see school facilities ' placed in proximity to the greatest population that that school will be serving. The Chanhassen area would appear to meet this criteria based upon current household/population projections. The approximate ' land area needed for a middle school is 40 acres. Last summer I received from Larry Bodahl, Victoria City Administrator; Dave Pokorney, Chaska City Administrator; and yourself maps of the ' current open areas within your communities. One purpose of gathering this information was to start the planning process for a new middle school. One thought conveyed by all three administrators was the ' possibility of considering lands currently outside of the MUSA Line, but which would be expected to be within the MUSA Line within the next few years. It was believed that this type of acquisition could be made at a relatively low cost, i.e. $6, 000 to $8,000 per acre while ' still assuring the school district of sewer facilities in the future. In your own case, you had mentioned Planning Commission concerns that the corridor along Highway 5 between Lake Ann and Highway 41 could ' come under heavy pressure for commercialization. They had forwarded to the City Council a recommendation that this type of land use not be considered and that the Council continue to consider this area only for residential development. It was my belief that you would be ' encouraging the school district to look to locating the middle school on a parcel adjacent to Highway 5 lying between Lake Ann and Highway 41 . The rationale presented by yourself and your planners was that development of the school in this area would act as a catalyst for residential development while simultaneously acting as a deterrent to potential commercialization, i.e. truck/tractor sales, car dealerships, etc. If this position has changed, please contact me. - Community Center: Your Community Center Task Force has asked for our thoughts on whether the new middle school could be expanded in include traditional community center activities, i.e. adult changing rooms, larger than normal gym space, racquetball courts, senior facilities, sauna, etc. Assuming that the City were in a position to fund these ' types of uses and assuming that hurdles such as usage times and maintenance could be overcome, I believe that this concept is very logical. I am assuming that the concept would be for this facility to be located adjacent to Lake Ann Park. As this area is outside of ' your current tax increment district, it is questionable whether the joint funding, previously considered for the elementary school, would be a permitted concept. We would be more than willing to work with ' the City/it's Commissions in pursuing any of these ideas. The concept of a combined facility would increase the needed acres, but recognizing certain efficiencies, doubling would not be required. It would be the belief of this office that the acreage needed for such a combined facility would be approximately 40 to 50 acres. • a MO • - High School: Our population projections do not anticipate an additional high school in the foreseeable future. There are major cost commitments which must be considered in designing and carrying out high school educational requirements. During the next several years we may see the numbers of grades increased in our elementary while the new middle school is being planned and built (reduce the number of grades in the middle school to 7th and 8th). Similarly, when the new middle school does come on line and if population crowding started to occur at the high school, we potentially could change to having that facility for 10th, 11th and 12th grades. Hopefully the above letter has addressed each of the areas you had asked me to touch upon. In summary, the school district will be looking to a site for a new middle school to be constructed within the next four to six years. If Chanhassen were to consider purchasing all or a portion of the Eckankar property with the thought that a portion of that property could then be used for either a traditional middle school or a combined middle school/community center, we would not be in disagreement with such. This statement is solely my own position as only the School Board can make that type of commitment. However, again, we would stand ready to meet and work with the City in pursuing any of these alternatives. Sincerely, f • ,� �� ' �`�—/ice. Robert/J. Ostlund Director of Administrative Services RJO/neb cc: Carol J. Ericson, Superintendent • . 1 1 CITY OF 690 COULTER DRIVE • P O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ' FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator /j DATE: May 16 , 1989 ' SUBJ: Community Center Task Force Meeting The Community Center Task Force met last night in response to the City Council' s request to determine if the Eckankar site should be used for a community center. Ten members were present. ' Attached please find the list of questions presented. Each Task Force member was asked to sign his/her name by the statement that they would endorse. The results were: 7 members in favor of the ' Chanhassen Elementary School site and 3 in favor of 20 acres on the Eckankar (or other) site. I t ��i TriGE4;Afetv1 CITY OF . . 1 ,,,,\ CHANHASSEN ', 1,,,„ I . . . . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 -moo (612) 937-1900 II 1 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Community Center Task Force FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator / 1 DATE: May 10, 1989 ST.JBJ: Site Selection II The Council has asked the Community Center Task Force (CCn') for their input as II to potential uses of the Eckankar property. They would like to get a clearer picture of what the Task Force's feelings are regarding location of a community center and the number of acres needed. Subsequently, three questions are posed to the CCPF. Members may endorse one or II more of the statements below and please feel free to alter, add or delete any of the listed reasons. II 1. The following members of the CCrr' support the construction of a community center on 20 acres of the Eckankar property for the following reasons: II * parking can be accommodated; * site is centrally located; * maintains pleasant, open atmosphere; 1 * acreage available to ensure future expansion; * ensures land is available for community center construction in future; First Choice: 1 Chuck Dimler - (Eckankar or other site) , 8-12 years is too long for the city II to own property before use. Colleen Klinqelhutz - The entire Eckankar site should not be purchased. Jeanne Burke II 1 1 1 1 Community Center Task Force May 10, 1989 Page 2 2. The following members of the CCTF support the construction of a community center/middle school campus on 40 acres of the Eckankar property for the following reasons: * land purchase now ensures the future construction of a middle school in Chanhassen; * community center is not immediately needed, but will be needed by the time the school is built (10 years); * saves taxpayer dollars as it can be built cheaper as a combination facility (shared construction and maintenance costs) ; 3. The following members of the CCTF support the construction of a community center in combination with Chanhassen Elementary School expansion for the following reasons: * saves tax payers dollars as construction and maintenance costs can be saved * centrally located within the bulk of the population; * shared facilities with school allows more efficientuse of space; * costs savings due to shared parking areas with city hall and school during peak hours; * no land costs; * water and sewer in place and readily available; * needed facilities could be built right away; ' * excess tax levy available reducing land costs by approximately $1,000,000 First Choice: ' Bob Robinett Jim Mady ' Brad Johnson - Because we can build now and because of lower costs, availa- bility of land, and proximity to current population. We should also purchase Hansen property. It is important to prove parking needs can be met. Jeff Bros - We should also purchase the land north of the school (Hansen property) for park needs, i.e. hockey rinks, open skate, baseball, soccer, ' etc. Mike Niemeyer - Reasons include: shared parking, can be built right away, does not take land off tax roles, pedestrian accessability (trailway, kids) . We should buy the land to the north (Hansen property) . ' Tom Eastman - Assuming parking could be provided and the ball fields will be relocated. Jean Robbins - There is an immediate need in this community for this faci- ' lity, not 4-6 years from now. Consider the cost savings, the purchase of the Hansen property, and enough parking facilities. I _• r . • : -ii.!kj,, CHYCF F _4. , 1 ti:1:: 1 1 21. t-.4 ,■`-' -A ''' S S : Era \\ I]: i • II �'7 ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 II MEMORANDUM II TO: Community Center Task Force FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator ( I DATE: May 10 , 1989 J SUBJ: Site Selection II II The Council has asked the Community Center Task Force (CCTF) for their input as to potential uses of the Eckankar property. They would like to get a clearer picture of what the Task Force ' s II feelings are regarding location of a community center and the number of acres needed. Subsequently, three questions are posed to the CCTF. Members may II endorse one or more of the statements below and please feel free to alter, add or delete any of the listed reasons . 1 . The following members of the CCTF support the construction of II a community center on 20 acres of the Eckankar property for the following reasons : �` _.--7 II * parking can be accommodated; * site is centrally located; * maintains pleasant, open atmosphere; II * acreage available to ensure future expansion; * ensures land is available for community center constructioni futu e; II I /----_____- _7/ I /' is l V j,�-4/ i .„;_ji, I I 1 Community Center Task Force • " May 10 , 1989 Page 2 1 1 2 . The following members of the CCTF support the construction of a community center/middle school campus on 40 acres of the Eckankar property for the following reasons : c=r)--,j 1 * land purchase now ensures the future construction of a middle school in Chanhassen; * community center is not immediately needed, but will 1 be needed by the time the school is built ( 6 years) ; * saves taxpayer dollars as it can be built cheaper as a combination facility ( shared construction and maintenance costs) ; 1 1 1 3 . The following members of the CCTF support the construction of a community center in combination with Chanhassen Elementary School expansion for the following reasons : ' * saves tax payers dollars as construction and maintenance costs can be shared; * centrally located within the bulk of the population; ' * shared facilities with school allows more efficient use of space; * costs savings due to shared parking areas with city hall and school during peak hours ; ' * no land costs; * water and sewer in place and readily available; * needed facilities could be built right away; 1 * excess tax levy available reducing land costs by approximately $1, 000 , 000; i 1 i 1 AIM [i CITYOF . . it, ,,::,, 1 cE : : r-,. ssEN 1 ...L.s,:ipo _\.= _;4_ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 •— (612) 937-1900 I MEMORANDUM I TO: Community Center Task Force FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator (, I DATE: May 10 , 1989 J SUBJ: Site Selection ' II The Council has asked the Community Center Task Force (CCTF) for their input as to potential uses of the Eckankar property. They would like to get a clearer picture of what the Task Force' s II feelings are regarding location of a community center and the number of acres needed. Subsequently, three questions are posed to the CCTF. Members may II endorse one or more of the statements below and please feel free to alter, add or delete any of the listed reasons. II 1. The following members of the CCTF support the construction of a community center on 20 acres of the Eckankar property for the following reasons : 1 * parking can be accommodated; * site is centrally located; II * maintains pleasant, open atmosphere; * acreage available to ensure future expansion; * ensures land is available for community center II construction in future; II ( ..."14...173.-AA.'11■40:+t-, II II II • • ' Community Center Task Force May 10, 1989 Page 2 2. The following members of the CCTF support the construction of a community center/middle school campus on 40 acres of the Eckankar property for the following reasons : * land purchase now ensures the future construction of a middle school in Chanhassen; * community center is not immediately needed, but will be needed by the time the school is built ( 6 years) ; * saves taxpayer dollars as it can be built cheaper as a combination facility (shared construction and maintenance costs) ; 1 I 1 111 3 . The following members of the CCTF support the construction of a --- community center in combination with Chanhassen Elementary School expansion for the following reasons : ' * saves tax payers dollars as construction and maintenance costs can be shared; * centrally located within the bulk of the population; ' * shared facilities with school allows more efficient use of space; * costs savings due to shared parking areas with city ' hall and school during peak hours ; * no land costs ; * water and sewer in place and readily available; * needed facilities could be built right away; ' * excess tax levy available reducing land costs by approximately $1, 000 , 000; 1 NI 1l 1 111 t. C ` 1 AssEN jil I —� t. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 "4..--- (61 2) 937-1900 1 i V/ MORANDUM I d TO: Community Center Task Force k FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator 1 DATE: May 10 , 1989 SUBJ: Site Selection II II The Council has asked the Community Center Task Force (CCTF) for their input as to potential uses of the Eckankar property. They would like to get a clearer picture of what the Task Force' s II feelings are regarding location of a community center and the number of acres needed. Subsequently, three questions are posed to the CCTF. Members may 1 endorse one or more of the statements below and please feel free to alter, add or delete any of the listed reasons . 1. The following members of the CCTF support the construction of II a community center on 20 acres of the Eckankar property for the following reasons : 1 * barking can be accommodated; * site is centrally located; * maintains pleasant, open atmosphere; II * acreage available to ensure future expansion; * ensures land is available for community center construction in future; 1 I 1 I II l / ' Community Center Task Force May 10 , 1989 Page 2 1 2.. The following members of the CCTF support the construction of ' a community center/middle school campus on 40 acres of the r "° Eckankar property for the following reasons : ' * land purchase now ensures the future construction of a middle school in Chanhassen; * community center is not immediately needed, but will be needed by the time the school is built ( 6 years) ; * saves taxpayer dollars as it can be built cheaper as a combination facility ( shared construction and maintenance costs) ; at - C,(./� •% (e .t., <.. �i�s G c.ti?G :t ,J ` , / 3 .) The following members of the CCTF support the construction of a ' `-✓ community center in combination with Chanhassen Elementary School expansion for the following reasons : ' * saves tax payers dollars as construction and maintenance costs can be shared; * centrally located within the bulk of the population; ' * shared facilities with school allows more efficient use of space; * costs savings due to shared parking areas with city hall and school during peak hours ; ' * no land costs ; * writer and s! wer in 2l ;;ce and r tidily available * needed facilities could be built right away; * excess tax levy available reducing land costs by approximately $1, 000 , 000; I r ftt CITYOF ANEAssEN, • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM I TO: Community Center Task Force FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator 1,3 ' DATE: May 10 , 1989 SUBJ: Site Selection The Council has asked the Community Center Task Force (CCTF) for their input as to potential uses of the Eckankar property. They would like to get a clearer picture of what the Task Force ' s feelings are regarding location of a community center and the number of acres needed. Subsequently, three questions are posed to the CCTF. Members may , endorse one or more of the statements below and please feel free to alter, add or delete any of the listed reasons. ' 1. The following members of the CCTF support the construction of a community center on 20 acres of the Eckankar property for the following reasons : ' * parking can be accommodated; * site is centrally located; * maintains pleasant, open atmosphere; * acreage available to ensure future expansion; * ensures land is available for community center construction in future; I I ' Community Center Task Force May 10, 1989 Page 2 I/ 2. The following members of the CCTF support the construction of a community center/middle school campus on 40 acres of the Eckankar property for the following reasons : * land purchase now ensures the future construction of a middle school in Chanhassen; * community center is not immediately needed, but will ' be needed by the time the school is built ( 6 years) ; * saves taxpayer dollars as it can be built cheaper as a combination facility ( shared construction and maintenance costs) ; 1 i 3 . The following members of the CCTF support the construction of a community center in combination with Chanhassen Elementary School expansion for the following reasons : * saves tax payers dollars as construction and maintenance costs can be shared; * centrally located within the bulk of the population; ' * shared facilities with school allows more efficient use of space; * costs savings due to shared parking areas with city ' hall and school during peak hours ; * no land costs ; * water and sewer in place and readily available; * needed facilities could be built right away; ' * excess tax levy available reducing land costs by approximately $1, 000, 000 ; 1 1 1 1 1 so CITYOF I .1 cli‘. ....is.‘, , `\ I , ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 II MEMORANDUM II TO: Community Center Task Force FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator /:5 I DATE: May 10 , 1989 SUBJ: Site Selection I The Council has asked the Community Center Task Force (CCTF) for II their input as to potential uses of the Eckankar property. They would like to get a clearer picture of what the Task Force' s II feelings are regarding location of a community center and the number of acres needed. Subsequently, three questions are posed to the CCTF. Members may II endorse one or more of the statements below and please feel free to alter, add or delete any of the listed reasons. y-, 1 . The following members of the CCTF support the construction of II 7 a community center on 20 acres of the Eckankar property for the following reasons : I * parking can be accommodated; * site is centrally located; II * maintains pleasant, open atmosphere; * acreage available to ensure future expansion; * ensures land is available for community center construction in future; II II 'RANK K ! i1 s t S' J 4-e a rJs c 18 TIN d A u ►-o-,, T -43 — -I S Less C' �Qn� ) re_ I /o , is'vfa� P- /g� ;s /i'�o,�7�/kg f /A-r, I 1 I • I Community Center Task Force May 10 , 1989 Page 2 1 2 . The following members of the CCTF support the construction of 1 a community center/middle school campus on 40 acres of the Eckankar property for the following reasons : 1 * land purchase now ensures the future construction of a middle school in Chanhassen; * community center is not immediately needed, but will 1 be needed by the time the school is built ( 6 years) ; * saves taxpayer dollars as it can be built cheaper as a combination facility ( shared construction and maintenance costs) ; s 4su (Y) clo /_:kl(A. c-L 1 1 r ' • S,_ G,3 1 chi s�,ti cc, I IC> 3 .. The following members of the CCTF support the construction of a community center in combination with Chanhassen Elementary School expansion for the following reasons : 1 * saves tax payers dollars as construction and maintenance costs can be shared; * centrally located within the bulk of the population; 1 * shared facilities with school allows more efficient use of space; * costs savings due to shared parking areas with city hall and school during peak hours ; 1 * no land costs; * water and sewer in place and readily available; * needed facilities could be built right away; 1 * excess tax levy available reducing land costs by approximately $1, 000 , 000 ; i -,\»( 6,6„ c L A.13 u,*-1 • ___ 7///■.49 c1,-7 . 1 (A ifc11 a irk/ 0,J a s2cc l • CIiYOF I. ASSE1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Community Center Task Force FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: May 10 , 1989 SUBJ: Site Selection The Council has asked the Community Center Task Force (CCTF) for their input as to potential uses of the Eckankar property. They would like to get a clearer picture of what the Task Force' s feelings are regarding location of a community center and the number of acres needed. Subsequently, three questions are posed to the CCTF. Members may endorse one or more of the statements below and please feel free to alter, add or delete any of the listed reasons. ' 1. The following members of the CCTF support the construction of a community center on 20 acres of the Eckankar property for the following reasons : ' * parking can be accommodated; * site is centrally located; * maintains pleasant, open atmosphere; * acreage available to ensure future expansion; * ensures land is available for community center construction in future; 1 ' Community Center Task Force May 10 , 1989 Page 2 ' 2 . The following members of the CCTF support the construction of a community center/middle school campus on 40 acres of the Eckankar property for the following reasons: * land purchase now ensures the future construction of a middle school in Chanhassen; * community center is not immediately needed, but will be needed by the time the school is built ( 6 years) ; * saves taxpayer dollars as it can be built cheaper as a combination facility (shared construction and maintenance costs) ; ' 3 . The following members of the CCTF support the construction of a community center in combination with Chanhassen Elementary School expansion for the following reasons : * saves tax payers dollars as construction and maintenance costs can be shared; * centrally located within the bulk of the population; ' * shared facilities with school. allows more efficient use of space; * costs savings due to shared parking areas with city ' hall and school during peak hours ; * no land costs ; * water and sewer in place and readily available; * needed facilities could be built right away; ' * excess tax levy available reducing land costs by approximately $1, 000 , 000 ; )0,N-a 7,�r� 1, ,J4 f , ' s h, 0o- k 2l.5 K; n! r is t i �, { SJLL�, , � .� /' 1 1 11 CiTy OF ,7', .-_70 / ,,,,i , ., v. r ' ' ASSEN .L, 1,., `` - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 -. (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM I TO: Community Center Task Force FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator (, I DATE: May 10 , 1989 J SUBJ: Site Selection I The Council has asked the Community Center Task Force (CCTF) for II their input as to potential uses of the Eckankar property. They would like to get a clearer picture of what the Task Force ' s II feelings are regarding location of a community center and the number of acres needed. Subsequently, three questions are posed to the CCTF. Members may II endorse one or more of the statements below and please feel free to alter, add or delete any of the listed reasons . 1 . The following members of the CCTF support the construction of II a community center on 20 acres of the Eckankar property for the following reasons : 1 * parking can be accommodated; * site is centrally located; II * maintains pleasant, open atmosphere; * acreage available to ensure future expansion; * ensures land is available for community center construction in future; _ -7X 1 - SNhfl-kt I I I I I NM ' Community Center Task Force May '10, 1989 Page 2 ' 2 . The following members of the CCTF support the construction of a community center/middle school campus on 4k. acres of the Eckankar property for the following reasons : ' * land purchase now ensures the future construction of a middle school in Chanhassen; * community center is not immediately needed, but will ' be needed by the time the school is built ( 6 years) ; * saves taxpayer dollars as it can be built cheaper as a combination facility ( shared construction and maintenance costs ) ; ' 3 . The following members of the CCTF support the construction of a community center in combination with Chanhassen Elementary School expansion for the following reasons : ' * saves tax payers dollars as construction and maintenance costs can be shared; * centrally located within the bulk of the population; ' * shared facilities with school allows more efficient use of space; * costs savings due to shared parking areas with city hall and school during peak --hours ;- ' * no land costs ; * water and sewer in place and readily available; * needed facilities .could be built ri ht away ' * excess tax levy available reducing land costs by approximately $1, 000, 000 ; t/•;N / ,-1j.1.!-z. " v ` I Fc. -/ t lit r ■ ■ . ;` t t, } ;`61.- --'- ,,4' tsr 1 CITY OF , . 1 :.-_::.k ‘L C ;-' i 1 - i,IBASSEN 1 � 7 _;.. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 - (612) 937-1900 I MEMORANDUM I TO: Community Center Task Force FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator (. I DATE: May 10 , 1989 J SUBJ: Site Selection II II The Council has asked the Community Center Task Force (CCTF) for their input as to potential uses of the Eckankar property. They would like to get a clearer picture of what the Task Force ' s II feelings are regarding location of a community center and the number of acres needed. Subsequently, three questions are posed to the CCTF. Members may I endorse one or more of the statements below and please feel free to alter, add or delete any of the listed reasons. II 1 . The following members of the CCTF support the construction of a community center on 20 acres of the Eckankar property for the following reasons : I * parking can be accommodated; * site is centrally located; II * maintains pleasant, open atmosphere; * acreage available to ensure future expansion; * ensures land is available for community center construction in future; II II \,.. ,ky/ .[Q - 4ki.,%- ' , \ NEM Ilk � ■ leD wig" - ;.; I I • ME Community Center Task Force May 10, 1989 Page 2 2 . The following members of the CCTF support the/construction of ' a community center/middle school campus on 44 acres of the Eckankar property for the following reasons : ' * land purchase now ensures the future construction of a middle school in Chanhassen; * community center is not immediately needed, but will be needed by the time the school is built ( 6 years) ; * saves taxpayer dollars as it can be built cheaper as a combination facility ( shared construction and maintenance costs) ; 1 3 . The following members of the CCTF support the construction of a community center in combination with Chanhassen Elementary School expansion for the following reasons : * saves tax payers dollars as— construction and maintenance costs can be shared; * centrally located within the bulk of the population; ' * shared facilities with school allows more efficient use of space; * costs savings due to shared parking areas with city ' hall and school during peak hours ; * no land costs ; * water and sewer in place and readily available; * needed facilities could be built right away; ' * excess tax levy available reducing land costs by approximately $1, 000 , 000 ; . -WA'\\ • CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission ' FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: May 3, 1989 SUBJ: Uses for the Eckankar Property , The City Council, on April 24 , 1989, tabled action on the Eckankar issue so as to have the ground water checked for con- tamination and to publicize the Environmental Impact Statement. In the interim, the Council has directed staff and the Commissions to determine possible uses for the Eckankar property should it be acquired by the City. Staff has contacted Mark Koegler to research the Comprehensive Plan and to do an analysis of the City to determine it' s park needs as well as the long range plan=. Attached please find Mark' s report. ' Update: May 16 , 1989 1 The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed Mark Koegler ' s report and discussed park needs and how those needs affect the Eckankar property. Without making a formal motion, the following comments were made. Three of the Commissioners felt that the most land that would be needed is 25 acres . They did not feel such was an immediate need, however, and that the City should wait until the property is subdivided in the future and acquire land through dedication. Although the land would be needed eventually, these Commissioners felt that current acquisition costs are too high. Two of the Commissioners felt that they would be interested in the land if the Council chose to pursue its purchase. And one Commissioner felt that land should be acquired if possible and we should use available grant money to assist us in the pursuit of such. A II 1 Update - Continued I May 16 , 1989 Page 2 Other comments were made as to where the additional 25 acres should be acquired. Some felt that land should be acquired to ' the west as even though active uses would be separated, the costs would be greatly reduced. Another felt that the land should be acquired to widen the linear strip around the east side of the lake. Again, as the opinions of the individual Commissioners varied, a motion was not made. CITY OF 1 -. ,,. .., .,.‘ CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II _,, (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM I TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Manager (rOki I DATE: May 18 , 1989 SUBJ: Eckankar Property/Future Public Land 1 On May 17, 1989 , the Planning Commission discussed whether the Iwhole site or only a portion of the Eckankar site should be purchased for public purpose. Specifically, the Planning Commission commented that the City Council should review increasing the amount of land available for development ( sewer and water) if the Eckankar site is to be removed from the supply of land through development of a church, school, community center, etc. In addition, a study of what residential develop- 1 ment actually "costs" the city in services provided was requested. Another commissioner stated that the city should review restricting the amount of tax exempt land. Another com- IImissioner felt the church should be prevented from locating at the site, but that purchasing the property was not the way to do this. The concensus was that only a portion of the site should be 1 acquired for public purposes. The Planning Commission did not feel the entire 174 acres was necessary for future park, school II property, etc. The Planning Commission was more concerned with the amount of land becoming tax exempt and the possibility of a large portion of property with sewer and water services being removed from the supply of developable land. The Planning II Commission concensus also was that a referendum should not be pursued at this time for acquisition of Eckankar land. 1 1 1 I Arrilc �J " D ' N 4t 1 ME II II II Note: The City of Chanhassen is seeking your advice on whether lands should be purchased for park/school/community center purposes. This card is not an authorization or vote on this issue. If bonds are to be sold, a special referendum would be necessary. IThere are several proposed public uses for this property including a future middle school, community center and park expansion. . I The anticipated purchase price of this property would require the City to raise its tax rate to the maximum allowed by the State. The following chart represents the tax impact if the land were to be purchased: Total 1989 Homestead Tax Before Increase Required If II Property Tax Credit Credits Eckankar Land Purchased $1,000 $725 $1,725 $103.50* $2,000 $725 $2,725 $163.50* $3,000 $725 $3,725 $223.50* I $4,000 $725 $4,725 $283.50* * This is an estimated fixed rate amount which would be required to be paid each year starting in 1990 and ending in 2004. II I 1 Yes I would advise the City to purchase the Eckankar property. I No IIReturn this half by April 18, 1989 - No postage necessary II II II II II II II om CITY OF CHANHASSEN,MINNESOTA I Page 14 of 28 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 1988 1 Note 2 DETAIL NOTES ON ALL FUND AND ACCOUNT GROUPS (Continued) DEFEASANCE OF DEBT (continued) I The City placed cash and other assets in an irrevocable trust to provide for all future debt service payments. Accordingly,the trust account assets and the liability for the deferred bonds are not included in the City's financial statements. ,j At December 31, 1988 the following bond issues are considered defeased: Issue Outstanding Call Date I G.O.Tax Increment Bonds of 1981,Series A $4,550,000 8/1/91 G.O.Improvement Bonds of 1982 2,430,000 1/1/92 G.O.Imprement Bonds of 1976-2 535,000 2/1/89 G.O.Improvement Bonds of 1977 275,000 3/1/90 G.O.Improvement Bonds of 1978 520,000 2/1/89 II G.O.Improvement Bonds of 1984 375,000 12/1/89 Total $8,685,000 I LEGAL DEBT MARGIN I The City is subject to a statutory limitation by the State of Minnesota for bonded indebtedness payable principally from property taxes. The City of Chanhassen's legal debt margin for 1988 and 1987 is computed as follows: December 31, 1988 1987 Functional value: Assessed value(after fiscal disparities and $69,313,016 • tax increment) Market value $406,050,700 Applicable percentage 2% 7 1/3 % Debt limit 8,121,014 5,082,954 Amount of debt applicable to debt limit: Total bonded debt 29,734,621 25,874,621 Less: Special assessment bonds (15,575,000) (15,905,000) Tax increment bonds (11,354,621) (8,224,621) 1 Cash and investments in applicable debt service funds (258.037) (177.218) Total debt applicable to debt limit 2.546,963 1,567,782 Legal debt margin S5,574,051 $3,515,172 I I t, ,, Affpc,Afuty .r--- no IICITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Page 15 of 33 li NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31 , 1987 IINote 2 - DETAIL NOTES ON ALL FUND AND ACCOUNT GROUPS (Continued) I CITY INDEBTEDNESS (Continued) In 1988 the City acquired a portion of the outstanding current interest bonds with a matured value of $220,000 and a maturity date of August 1 , 1995. The I City paid $130,889 to effectively retire such obligations. The above schedule has not been adjusted for this 1988 transaction. IIPRIOR YEAR DEFEASANCE OF DEBT I In prior years, the City deceased certain General Obligation Bonds by placing proceeds of new bonds in an irrevocable trust to provide for all future debt service payments on the old bonds. Accordingly, the trust account assets and the liability for the defeased bonds are not included in the City's financial IIstatements. At December 31 , 1987, $7,380,000 of bonds are considered defeased. The financial transactions of the escrow account are not presented in the I financial statements. A summary of the 1987 activity, however, is presented in Exhibits 10, 11 and 12 of the Supplementary Financial Information Section. I LEGAL DEBT MARGIN The City is subject to a statutory limitation by the State of Minnesota for bonded indebtedness payable principally from property taxes. The City of IChanhassen's legal debt margin for 1987 and 1986 is computed as follows: December 31 , I 1987 1986 Assessed value (after fiscal disparities and tax increment) $69,313,016 $62,821 ,505 IIDebt limit (7-1/3% of assessed value) $ 5,082,954 $ 4,606,700 Amount of debt applicable to debt limit: II Total bonded debt $25,874,621 $19,304,621 Less: Special assessment bonds and tax increment bonds 24,129,620 17,589,621 II Less: Cash and investments in debt service funds 177, 218 180,092 Total debt applicable to debt limit $ 1 ,567,783 $ 1 ,534,908 IILegal debt margin $ 3,515, 171 $ 3,071 ,792 ILegal debt margin is calculated on general obligation bond issues only (i.e. , this does not include Special Assessment, Revenue/Enterprise Fund or tax incre- ment bonded debt) . 1 i 1 1 mr i FINAL REPORT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 1 AT THE ECKANKAR PROPERTY AT CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 1 1 1 Submitted To: 1 Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, & Lindgren, Ltd. Minneapolis, Minnesota 1 Submitted By: Protox Inc. 1 Minneapolis, Minnesota 1 1 1 1 May 16, 1989 Protox Project A1019 1 11 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ' PAGE 1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1 ' 2 . 0 INVESTIGATION APPROACH 2 2. 1 SITE INSPECTION 2 2 .2 MAGNETOMETER SURVEY 2 2 . 3 SOIL GAS TESTING 2 3 . 0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3 3 . 1 SOUTHERN FARM 3 3 . 1. 1 SITE INSPECTION 3 3 . 1.2 MAGNETOMETER SURVEY 4 ' 3 . 1. 3 SOIL GAS TESTING 4 3 .2 NORTHERN FARM 4 3 .2. 1 SITE INSPECTION 4 3 . 2.2 MAGNETOMETER SURVEY 5 ' 3 . 2 . 3 SOIL GAS TESTING 5 3 . 3 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION 5 3 . 4 OTHER AREAS 5 ' 4 . 0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLE 1 SOIL GAS TESTING SUMMARY ' FIGURE 1 SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 FORMER SETTLEMENT (SOUTH) FIGURE 3 FORMER SETTLEMENT (NORTH) 1 1 i 1. 0 INTRODUCTION Protox Inc. was retained by Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, and Lindgren, I Ltd. to perform an environmental site assessment of Tract B of RLS No. 88 in Carver County, Minnesota. The property is located northwest of the intersection of Highway 5 and Highway 17 in Chanhassen, Minnesota. Two farms had previously occupied the land but were demolished in 1986. The scope of the environmental assessment, which was recommended I by Protox as reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances, included a site inspection, magnetometer survey, and soil gas testing. Special attention was given to the two former farm settlements and the location of the future development (see Figure 1) . The environmental site assessment performed by Protox used standard recognized engineering methods and field data obtained by Protox. The results reported by Protox represent a I professional opinion and not a certification or guarantee of the nature of potential environmental liabilities associated with the subject real estate. , 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 . 0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3 . 1 SOUTHERN FARM The areas identified for additional investigation during the site assessment at the former south farm included a UST, a buried pipeline, a magnetic anomaly, two wells and demolition debris ' from the former farm buildings (see Figure 2) . 3. 1. 1 Site Inspection During the site inspection, Protox discovered a fill pipe leading to a UST next to the foundation of a former farm building. The ' tank appears to be a 12-foot long, 1, 000 gallon UST buried approximately two feet below the surface. Protox could not estimate the volume of any contents since the fill pipe was obstructed. However, Protox believes the UST is empty or nearly ' empty. According to Jack Swedlund, the previous owner of the farm, the UST was used to store fuel oil. He also indicated that a second UST was located near the eastern edge of the former house. Protox was unable to find the UST. Jack Turner Jr. of Turner Excavating, who performed the building demolition at the site for Kraus-Anderson Construction Co. in 1986, indicated that it was not encountered by them. Protox also discovered two wells at the south farm. One well was ' located adjacent to the former house (see Figure 2) and is visible at the surface as a 4-inch riser pipe which has been bent over. Protox assumes that the water pump remains in the well since electrical wiring was protruding from the end of the pipe. ' The second well at the south farm consists of a 3-inch diameter riser pipe with a pitless pump assembly mounted at the top. Neither well appears to have been properly abandoned and the Minnesota Department of Health has no records concerning the wells. According to Mr. Robert Stodola of RES Well Company, both ' wells are approximately 300 feet deep and the 3-inch well supplies a cistern which is located beneath a hand pump near the former house location. Mr. Stodola had previously performed maintenance work at this property and was familiar with the ' system. In addition to the subsurface items located at this site, a large ' amount of demolition debris remain scattered throughout the south farm area. Visual inspection of the debris piles did not indicate the presence of any materials which might contribute to contamination of the environment. I. 1 4 II 3 . 1.2 Magnetometer Survey The magnetometer survey at the southern site revealed two 1 metallic items below the ground surface. A 1.5 inch diameter pipeline was detected approximately eight inches below the I surface. Although the entire length of the pipeline could not be located, several sections were uncovered in a line between the cistern and the former garage next to the UST (see Figure 2) . The pipe was deteriorated and the rubber-like connections were 111 almost completely decayed. According to Mr. Stodola, the pipeline and another located between the cistern and the former barn were gravity flow water pipes associated with the cistern. 1 A second object was located during the magnetometer survey west of the former house. Protox manually excavated to approximately I three feet below the surface and drove a steel pipe another two feet lower but was unable to locate the object. Therefore, the object was not identified during the Protox assessment. Scrap ' metallic objects such as old tools or spikes could account for this magnetic reading. The soil gas sample obtained at this location did not contain detectable concentrations of volatile organic vapors. The source of the magnetic anomaly should be II located by excavating at this location when equipment is on-site for the UST removal. 3. 1.3 Soil Gas Testing 1 None of the 10 soil gas samples obtained from the south farm area 1 had detectable concentrations of volatile organic vapors. Four of these locations were around the UST, one near the underground pipeline, one near the magnetic anomaly, and the remaining four spaced over the farm area. All soil gas testing results are I summarized in Table 1. 3 .2 NORTHERN FARM I Site investigations at the former north farm area identified several areas for additional investigation including a well, a I NSP power pole with a transformer, and an area of demolition debris. 3 . 2. 1 Site Inspection I A well was discovered beneath an old electric pump on a concrete slab to the east of the former house location. A second, larger II concrete slab with two holes that appears to be a cistern cover was located nearby. The well appears to have a 4-inch casing and according to Mr. Robert Stodola, the depth is probably about 300 I feet. A NSP overhead electric line was observed along the driveway to ll the north farm with a transformer located on the pole just east II 11 5 of the former house area (see Figure 3) . Mr. Larry Fortun of NSP ' indicated that there is no polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the transformer. ' A large area of debris was observed in and around the northern foundations of the farm area. The debris appeared to be from building demolition and farming activities with no indication of drums, storage tanks, pesticide containers or contaminants. 3 . 2 .2 Magnetometer Survey The magnetometer survey at the north farm did not indicate any items of concern or areas for additional investigation. ' 3 . 2 . 3 Soil Gas Testing None of the three soil gas samples obtained from the north farm ' area had detectable concentrations of volatile organic vapors. Two of the sampling locations were in the debris area and the third was located near the well. 3 . 3 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION The site of the future development includes the areas where the ' new building and parking lot will be located (see Figure 1) . Portions of the new development overlap the south farm area and horse corrals. ' Two unmarked empty drums were observed in this area and appear to have been used as pylons for horse riding. In addition, three soil gas samples obtained in the area did not reveal detectable ' concentrations of volatile organic vapors. No other items of interest which would warrant further investigation were discovered at this location during the site inspection, ' magnetometer survey and soil gas testing. 3 .4 OTHER AREAS ' During the inspection of the remainder of the site, Protox identified several items for closer observation including three unmarked empty drums, some debris near the culvert on the south ' edge of the property and a small amount of debris located in the woods (see Figure 1) . ' Drum 1 is located just off the northwest corner of the property by a lakeside park. The crushed, empty drum is sealed (bung in place) and no evidence of leaking was observed. Drum 2 is ' located northwest of the north farm and Drum 5 is located by the western property line. Both drums are sealed closed and empty with no evidence of releases observed. None of the drums represent an environmental concern. 1 r 1 6 II In addition, Protox discovered some debris in the ditch near the culvert at the southern edge of the property. The debris I included large appliances, tires, trash and other common materials. A smaller debris area was observed in the woods northwest of the south farm. The debris included tires, 1 automobile parts and other trash. No pesticide containers, drums or other evidence of potential contamination were observed, no unusual magnetic anomalies were encountered, and none of the 11 soil gas samples obtained had detectable concentrations of II volatile organic vapors. Two of the soil gas samples were located by the debris on the southern edge of the property, one by Drum 5, and the remaining eight were located throughout the 1 property (see Figure 1) . I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 7 4. 0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' Protox recommended and performed a reasonable and appropriate environmental site assessment of the property which included a ' site inspection, a magnetometer survey and soil gas testing at 27 locations. The investigation focused particular attention on three areas of the site: the former south farm; the former north farm; and the future development area. Several items on the property were identified which should be addressed. These include three wells and one underground storage tank which do not appear to have been legally abandoned, and a potential second UST ' and a magnetic anomaly on the former southern farm site. All of these items are outside of the construction limits of the proposed development. The three wells and the UST discovered on the property are typical occurrences in rural areas. Protox recommends that the three wells be abandoned according to Minnesota Department of ' Health regulations and that UST and any contents be removed from the site and disposed of properly. If excavating equipment is mobilized to the site to remove the UST, the nearby magnetic anomaly and the potential second UST at the south farm should be investigated. Abandonment of wells and removal of USTs are routine corrective actions which can be undertaken and completed ' within a week. No other areas of environmental concern or items warranting further investigation were identified at the property as a result ' of the Protox investigation. All soil gas measurements indicated no presence of subsurface volatile organic contamination and there is no evidence that any contamination exists on the ' property. It is our opinion that construction activities as proposed can proceed without the danger of environmental contamination. t 1 1 I TABLE 1 1 SOIL GAS TESTING SUMMARY I Soil Gas Sampling Location Depth (ft) OVM Reading (ppm) I SG-1 2. 5 0. 0 SG-1 5.0 0. 0 SG-2 2.5 0. 0 I SG-2 5.0 0. 8 SG-3 2.5 0. 0 SG-3 5. 0 0. 0 I SG-4 2.5 0. 0 SG-4 5. 0 0. 0 SG-5 2 .5 0. 0 ISG-5 5.0 0. 0 SG-6 2.5 0.4 SG-6 5.0 0.2 SG-7 2.5 0. 0 I SG-7 5.0 0. 0 SG-8 2.5 0. 0 SG-8 5. 0 0. 0 I SG-9 2.5 0. 0 SG-9 5. 0 0. 0 SG-10 2.5 0. 0 I SG-10 5.0 0. 0 SG-11 2.5 0. 0 SG-11 5. 0 0. 0 I SG-12 2.5 0. 0 SG 12 5.0 0. 0 SG-13 2.5 0. 0 SG-13 5. 0 0. 0 I SG-14 2.5 0. 0 SG-14 5.0 0. 0 SG-15 2.5 0. 0 I SG-15 5. 0 0. 0 SG-16 2. 5 0. 0 SG-16 5. 0 0. 0 ISG-17 2 .5 0. 0 SG-17 5. 0 0. 0 SG-18 2.5 0. 0 SG-18 5. 0 0 . 0 I SG-19 2.5 0. 0 SG-19 5. 0 0. 0 SG-20 2 .5 0. 0 I SG-20 5. 5 0. 0 SG-21 2.5 0. 0 SG-21 5. 0 0. 0 ISG-22 2 .5 0. 0 I. I I -2- Soil Gas Sampling Location Depth (ft) OVM Reading (Dpm) SG-22 5. 0 0. 0 I SG-23 2.5 0. 0 SG-23 5. 0 0. 0 SG-24 2.5 0. 0 I SG-24 5. 0 0. 0 SG-25 2. 5 0. 0 SG-25 5. 0 0. 0 SG-26 2.5 0. 0 I SG-26 5.0 0. 0 SG-27 2.5 0. 0 SG-27 5. 0 0. 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I SCALE IN FEET N N I DRUM 1 .11.1111.1111M111 El 0 500 1000 LAKE ANN PROPERTY LINE SG-18♦ 0 DRUM 5 •SG-17 FORMER SETTLEMENT (, FORMER SETTLEMENT DRUM 2 0 (SOUTH) (NORTH) • SG-19 = p --- SG-27 • * oo p,4 • E 0 : 3 r • SG-11 SG-14 i SG-26 • • -- •SG-13 ] •SG-12 1 ODRUM 3 SG-15 [DRUM 40 SG-20 • SITE OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ♦SG-22 LEGEND • SG-21 ♦ SOIL GAS SAMPLING LOCATION ♦SG-16 PROPERTY LINE ® DRUM LOCATION HWY 17 DEBRIS AREA 17.71 BUILDING FOUNDATION LOCATION Pro FIGURE 1 CLIENT. LARKIN, HOFFMAN. DALY & LINDGREN, LTD LOCATION. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 14120-23rd Avenue North DATE 5/15/89 DRAWN BY DJF Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 SITE PLAN - (612) 557-1292 PROJECT. A1019 CHECKED BY. JPN MI MI IIIIII UM 11.11 111111 MI 11111 ME IIIIII MI MI ME NM 1111111 MI ME MI 1111111 MN MI OM I= MI 1111■1 IOW MI MI MI MN MI MI MI =I I= MI ^m1,7•7 • SG-7 •SG-8 V SG-5 LEGEND 77:7 V SOIL GAS SAMPLING LOCATION • SHED • WELL LOCATION • SG-6 GARAGE • • MAGNETIC ANOMALY •iv ....•.•. 1 . i BUILDING FOUNDATION LOCATION HOUSE UST * CISTERN LOCATION SG-9 / / SHED V 0, /09 WELL 1 /cp/ • / NOTE SG-1 THROUGH SG-4 LOCATED AROUND UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK (UST) HORSE STABLE • SG-1O WELL 2 • SCALE IN FEET • •-• • .-. . 0 75 150 BARN CLIENT LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD Protesx FIGURE 2 LOCATION. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 14120-23rd Avenue North FORMER SETTLEMENT DATE. 5/15/89 DRAWN BY. DJF Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 (SOUTH) (612)557-1292 PROJECT A1019 CHECKED BY JPN N SHED GARAGE <' SHED , ' C:7 ., LEGEND SG-25 ♦ SHED 0• SOIL GAS SAMPLING LOCATION , • WELL LOCATION HOUSE ;` SHED . TRANSFORMER LOCATION SG-24 171 BUILDING FOUNDATION LOCATION ,,, WELL 3 • • SG-23 I 1 o BARN SCALE IN FEET '-DEBRIS AREA IIMMNIMMEMI 0 75 150 P rod- CLIENT LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN. LTD FIGURE 3 LOCATION: CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 14120-23rd Avenue North FORMER S ETT L E M E N T Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 DATE. 5/15/89 15/89 DRAWN BY DJF (612)557-1292 (NORTH) PROJECT. A1019 CHECKED BY. JPN NM 111111 MI IIIIII MI 111111 IIIIII MI MI MO NM MI 1111. 1111111 IIIIII OM OM MI OM In I `JAMES P LARKIN ROBERT L.HOFFMAN LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY 8C LINDGREN, LTD. DAVID EL TEMCKIM JACK F DALY CHARLES R.WEAVER D.KENNETH LINDGREN HERMAN L.TALLE II WENDELL R.ANDERSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW VINCENT G.ELLA GERALD H. LL ALLAN E.MULLIGAN ANDREW J.MITCHELL JOHN A.COTTER• ROBERT J.HENNESSEY BEATRICE A.ROTHWEILER JAMES C.ERICKSON 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER PAUL B.PLUNKETT EDWARD J.DRISCOLL ALAN L.KILDOW JAMES P MILEY 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET KATHLEEN M.PICOTTE NEWMAN GENE N.FULLER MICHAEL B.LE BARON I DAVID C.SELLERGREN BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE 16121 338-6610 FRANCIS E.GIBERSON RICHARD J.KEENAN TRACY R.EICHHORN•HICKS* JOHN D.FU LLM ER TELEPHONE 16121 835-3800 FAX(6121 336-9 AMY DARR GRADY ROBERT E.BOYLE CATHERINE BARNETT WILSON. FRANK I.HARVEY FAX 16121 896-3333 760 JEFFREY C.ANDERSON CHARLES 5.MODELL DANIEL L.BOWLES CHRISTOPHER J.DIETZEN TODD M.VLATKOVICH JOHN R.BEATTIE TIMOTHY J.MCMANUS LINDA H.FISHER NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE GREGORY E.KORSTAD THOMAS P STOLTMAN LISA A.GRAY STEVEN G.LEVIN 8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE,SUITE 250 GARY A.RENNEKE FORREST D.NOWLIN THOMAS H.WEAVER MICHAEL C.JACNMAN COON RAPIDS,MINNESOTA 55433 SHANNON K.MCCAMBRIDGE JOHN E.DIEHL MICHAEL S.COHEN JON S.SWIERZEWSKI TELEPHONE 16121 786-7117 DENISE M.NORTON THOMAS J.FLYNN JAMES P OUINN GARY A.VAN CLEVE TODD I.FREEMAN FAX 16121 786-6711 MICHAEL B.BRAMAN JOSEPH W.DICKER STEPHEN B.SOLOMON JACQUELINE F. DIETZ PETER K.BECK GAYLEN L.KNACK JEROME Reply to Bloomington E H.KAHNKE KURETICH RETICH RODNEY D.IVES JEEOM JULIE A.WRASE GERALD L.SEC. CHRISTOPHER J.HARRISTHAL JOHN B.LUNDOUIST SHARON L.BRENNA I DAYLE NOLAN. MARIKAV CANAGA LITZAU THOMAS B.HUMPHREY,JR. TIMOTHY J.KEANE JON R.NORBERG WILLIAM C.GRIFFITH THEODORE A.MONDALE JOHN J.STEFFENHAGEN DANIEL W.VOSS 1 May 17, 1989 OF COUNSEL JOSEPH GITIS RICHARD A.NORDBYE /ALSO ADMITTED IN The Honorable Don Chmiel, Mayor WISCONSIN 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 IRe: Eckankar Church Dear Mayor Chmiel: IThis letter responds to the additional requests made by City Council Members with respect to the Eckankar Church at the April 24, 1989, ICity Council meeting. Environmental Study ICouncil Members requested that Eckankar perform an environmental base line study of those areas of the Eckankar property where the former farmsteads were located and the area where the church will be Iconstructed. Response: IEckankar retained the environmental consulting firm of Protox, Inc. , to conduct an environmental site assessment of the entire I 174 acre property. This study included a visual and magnetometer survey of the entire property along east-west traverses at a maximum 200 foot spacing and around the perimeter. At the two former farmstead sites and the proposed construction site the I magnetometer survey was conducted along traverses a maximum 50 feet apart. Subsurface soil vapors were sampled at 27 locations including three in the construction area and in all other I locations identified by the magnetometer survey or visual inspection as possibly containing waste materials . I 1 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. The Honorable Don Chmiel, Mayor I May 17, 1989 Page 2 The Protox study concludes that there is no evidence of any contamination on the Eckankar property and that construction activities as proposed can proceed without danger of environmental , contamination from hazardous materials. Protox did recommend that the following actions be taken: ( 1) three wells on the property be abandoned; ' (2) an underground storage tank discovered during their study be removed; (3) a potential second underground storage tank be investigated with excavating equipment and if necessary removed; and (4) a magnetic object was identified by Protox west of the former house. Protox probed to a depth of five feet but was unable to locate this object. A soil gas sample at this location did not contain detectable concentrations of volatile organic vapors. The Protox report states that scrap metallic objects such as old tools or spikes could account for this magnetic reading and recommends further investigation when excavating equipment is on site. We have contracted with Protox to take the four actions as recommended in their report. This work will be completed before the end of May. The scope of the Protox study goes substantially beyond the study ' requested by the City Council. The entire 174 acres of the property was within the scope of the study. This was done to resolve all potential environmental issues with the entire Eckankar property. Protox engineers met on the Eckankar property with the City Planner prior to commencement of the study to review and receive approval of the scope of the environmental study. Protox, Inc. , has no connection to Eckankar or to any of the other consultants retained by Eckankar with respect to the Eckankar Church. A copy of the report submitted by Protox is enclosed for the Council's information. Sale of Property to the City ' Some City Council Members suggested that Eckankar agree to sell property to the City at fair market value for a community center, park or school. I . LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. ' The Honorable Don Chmiel, Mayor May 17, 1989 ' Page 3 Response: ' Eckankar has advised the City on several occasions of its willingness to negotiate with the City to make a reasonable portion of the Eckankar property available for public purposes at a fair market value. Enclosed is a letter from Peter Skelskey confirming this and setting forth guidelines for negotiating with the City the amount and location of property. ' However, we assume the City is not requiring Eckankar to sell land as a condition for obtaining a permit for a church. Such a condition is not an appropriate condition for the issuance of a ' conditional use permit. Tax Exemption Some City Council Members requested the County Assessor pro-rate and minimize the amount of Eckankar's property which will be tax exempt. Response: This request was directed to the County Assessor and is not subject to response by Eckankar. Eckankar assumes the county Assessor's response will be determined by the Minnesota State Constitution, laws and judicial decisions governing the tax exemption of church property. If it is determined that something ' less than the entire Eckankar property qualifies for tax exemption, then the remainder of the property will continue for ' the time being to be used for agriculture purposes . Skylight ' There was a request by a City Council Member that there not be an excessive amount of light emanating from the skylight at the top of the Eckankar Church. ' Response: ' The architect, Ron Krank, has explained that the design of the Church provides for a method of closing the skylight. Other churches in the City have lights that reflect on their roofs and/or steeples . Eckankar will close the skylight on its church so that no more illumination will occur than occurs from the lighting on other Chanhassen churches . For the Council Members' information, Eckankar has retained Midwest Patrol to patrol its property on a regular basis . This is being done to reduce the possibility of any dumping on the property. Midwest LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. The Honorable Don Chmiel, Mayor I May 17, 1989 Page 4 Patrol met with the City's Public Safety Director on the ro ert P P Y prior to commencing its patrols and is coordinating all of its actions with the City's Public Safety Department. , Sincerely, Pets40t± Robert L. Hoffman, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. kw:EE2s Enclosure , cc: Don Ashworth, City Manager oanne Olson, City Planner Peter Skelskey, Eckankar I I • ECKANKAR • P.O. BOX 27300 • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55427 May 17, 1989 City Council Members ' City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 ' Re: ECKANKAR Church ' Dear Council Members: This letter is in response to the request of the Mayor for a response statement from ECKANKAR to the City's inquiry to ECKANKAR as to ' ECKANKAR's interest in selling some property to the City at fair market value for public purposes. This letter is written in my capacity as President of ECKANKAR. In that capacity I am authorized ' to make representations and commitments on behalf of ECKANKAR with respect to our property in Chanhassen and the ECKANKAR Church. I signed the application to the City of Chanhassen for a Conditional Use Permit for the ECKANKAR Church. Our attorneys, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. , are our representatives and are authorized to act on our behalf before the City of Chanhasssen with respect to the application for the ECKANKAR Church. The purpose of this letter is to specifically confirm that ECKANKAR ' will negotiate with the City for the City's acquisition of a reasonable portion of the ECKANKAR property for public purposes at fair market value, subject to: 1. The City not tying such negotiations or acquisition to the City's consideration of ECKANKAR's application for a conditional use permit for the ECKANKAR Church. 2. Such acquisition, if it occurs, taking place on or before December 1, 1989. 3 . Such acquisition, if it occurs, not interfering with nor delaying construction of the ECKANKAR Church. ' 4. The acquisition being for public purposes only, and not for resale for private development. ' 5. A concept plan for the development of the property proposed for acquisition being adopted by the City and other public agencies that may be involved in the acquisition so that ' ECKANKAR will have necessary information as to the size, nature and location of the proposed public uses. E�C ANCIENT SCIENCE OF SOUL TRAVEL 1 • � w �F in 1 ECKANKAR • P.O. BOX 27300 • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55427 The purpose of these conditions is to ensure that there be a public need identified for the property to be acquired and a plan for its use prior to negotiations and acquisition. Very truly yours, Peter Skelskey , - ECKANKAR cc: Don Ashworth, City Manager , Joanne Olson, City Planner I 1 1 1 8 ANCIENT SCIENCE OF SOUL TRAVEL , IIN ,,.., CITYOF C 13 r 1 , ,ISEN 1 . /. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ......„. M, (612) 937-1900 I _� MEMORANDUM Note: Please bring your I packet from the last meeting. TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager If you cannot locate your copy, please contact City II FROM: Stephen Hanson, Planning Director Hall. DATE: April 20, 1989 ISUBJ: Eckankar Conditional Use Permit #89-1 - Update The City Council tabled this item at the April 10 , 1989 , meeting I in order to further review comments presented at the meeting, the application, documents of record, and issues concerning this request. In order to facilitate this review, I will attempt to state the issues below and provide a response to each. IA. PUBLIC COMMENTS -: The proposed use is a misuse of property. Ii . :. ;;-nib{�ti r'd!�± While it may be argued that other uses may provide more Lib intense use, higher tax revenue or a public use, the pro- ' ___o.._____.. posed use complies with city codes and zoning require- - ments for the property. If the use is inappropriate for = _0-=4 J the site but meets zoning requirements, then it would seem the zoning is in error and the codes should be �_ " :7 -' revised to preclude the use for future applications. .. , t3 ii.. -.)q—LCL,., 2 . The church should use only a portion of the property. Again, the application cation complies with city codes and there is no basis for limiting the use to a portion of the I site, under present city codes . If it is the desire of the city to limit the size of parcels for various uses , the codes need to be revised. These changes would apply to future applications . 3 . Make sure they comply with regulations others have had to meet. II The application submitted has been reviewed by staff and found to be complete. IISpecific issues raised at the meeting on April 10 , 1989 were secondary access , elevator, parking and sprinklers . I II osi 1 Mr. Don Ashworth April 20, 1989 Page 2 The building will be sprinklered, parking meets code, and the building will have an elevator. The access for Eckankar operates as a cul-de-sac and allows adequate width for emergency vehicles as well as access around the entire facility. Staff ' s opinion is the proposed access is sufficient and that a secondary access was not warranted. , 4. Who do they serve? There is no criteria or standard for requiring a ' demonstrated local need or membership standard. None has been requested for other churches in the City. 5 . Negative impact on property values . There has not been a demonstrated impact on surrounding property values, based on the opinions of appraisers. 6 . What is the process for a referendum? The City Council may order a special election on an issue such as "Shall the City be authorized to sell bonds for the acquisition of property. . . " The election could be held in approximately six weeks . The cost of the elec- tion would be approximately $9 , 000 . 7 . Will Eckankar serve the people of Chanhassen? Are there ' local members. in Chanhassen? There are local members . There is no limitation on churches serving only local people. Based on comments from other communities where Eckankar has been active, they have been good neighbors and citizens. 8 . What about lakeshore property? The property along the lake is owned by the City. , 9 . Traffic on TH 5 and Powers Blvd. The applicant submitted traffic impacts in their submit- , tal documents . These have been evaluated by staff and no significant impacts have been identified. 10. View in winter and evening. The applicants, at the April 10 , 1989 meeting, agreed to , submit these. i Mr. Don Ashworth ' April 20, 1989 Page 3 ' 11. Is the conditional use permit a yearly permit or reviewed? The conditional use permit is an approval that runs with ' land and may only be voided if the applicant fails to comply with the conditions of the permit. The City could require a yearly review for compliance with the con- ditional use permit. 12. What is the future use of the property? ' It would be beneficial if there was a concept plan for the entire parcel; however, the applicants have a single legal parcel on which they are applying for a principle ' use for the parcel , in compliance with city requirements . They are only permitted one principle use per parcel . If the aplicants want to do anything further on the prop- ' erty, they will need to come back before the Planning Commission and City Council. This would apply to any change to the conditional use permit. In addition, if they wanted to provide an additional use, they would need ' to subdivide the property to create a buildable parcel which would require review and approval by Planning Commission and City Council. ' 13 . If the property is purchased, what can be done to prevent the same thing from happening? ' This is not a simple question. Obviously the applicant could purchase othe-r property. The city could revise zoning codes to limit the districts where churches are ' allowed. Maximum parcel sizes could be established for churches , however, that would not prohibit a church from owning several parcels and constructing a church on one parcel and retaining the other parcels for open space or future use. 14. If purchased, where will the money come from? The City would sell bonds to raise the funds for acquisi- tion and then the bonds would be paid off by an increase ' in property taxes . The City' s unofficial balloting may give an indication as to whether the referendum would be supported by a majority of voters . Counting will be completed prior to Monday evening. ' 15 . How would this purchase affect other city projects? ' If the full bonding capacity were utilized to purchase the property, the City would not have any bonding capacity for other projects . um Mr. Don Ashworth April 20, 1989 1 Page 4 16 . Does the projected revenue for purchase consider new 1 housing that would be developed in the next 14 years? No, it is based on the present housing. 17. Is the increased tax on the survey card annual? Yes . 18. What other sites for public facilities are available and what costs are associated with them? The City looked at other sites as part of the recent referendum for a community center. The costs for acquisition and development ranged from $600, 000 to $800, 000. 19 . If the church is built, will the entire parcel be tax , exempt or only the portion used for the church? This will be determined by the Carver County Assessor ' when the property is assessed after construction of the church. The Assistant County Attorney has advised the City that the County Assessor would look carefully at whether the entire parcel should or should not be given tax exempt status . Final determination would be up to the tax courts if the decision of the county is appealed. ' B. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Bill Boyt ' 1 . All citizen concerns should be researched. Staff has attempted to address the concerns that have ' been raised at the Planning Commission, City Council , and in letters and phone calls . 2. The City is responsible to protect our safety. The Public Safety Department has thoroughly researched ' Eckankar and found nothing to indicate they are a threat to the community and citizens . 3 . Treat this church like any other church. This is what staff has attempted to do in processing this application. 1 1 Mr. Don Ashworth ' April 20 , 1989 Page 5 4 . Suggested the following additional conditions : ' a. Traffic control be provided for any meetings of more than 200 people or at least provide when determined by Public Safety Department to be necessary. ' b. Replant disturbed area with native prairie grasses and flowers . 11 c. Require full payment of costs reasonably associated with providing services to the proposed church facility. Ursula Dimler 1. No rallies , international or national conferences be con- ducted at the site. Agreed to by applicant at meeting. 2 . Ordinance restricting acreage of tax exempt entities. Staff can prepare an ordinance at the City Council ' s Idirection. 3 . Why can ' t negotiations or purchase of property move ahead? ' This needs to be addressed by the applicant. The City has pursued this at Council direction. 4 . Eckankar should focus on future desires for the use of the land in the spirit of open communication and citizen concern. This needs to be addressed by the applicant. ' Jav Johnson 1. Provide computer image of facility at night with lighting and in the winter. The applicants have agreed to provide this information. Tom Workman 1 . Request financial -statement records of the church. Staff has requested Peter Beck to respond to this. Our understanding is that charitable organizations are required to make their income tax forms public, however, churches are specifically excluded from this section. 1 Mr. Don Ashworth April 20 , 1989 I Page 6 2 . Need further information regarding the benefits of this project to our community to make a sound and wise decision. This should be addressed by the applicant. ' Don Chmiel 1. Feel that issues discussed have not really been fully addressed. Staff has attempted to address the issues above and , expect the applicant to submit further information for the April 24 , 1989 Council meeting. 2 . Doesn' t understand the need for 20 staff people to serve a congregation of 800. The applicant should address this. One point of clarifi- cation, the facility seats 800 people which could handle a much larger congregation. At a ratio of one person per 100 members , which compares with the examples noted, the 20 people translates to 2000 members. C. OTHER ' 1 . SURVEY RESULTS: The City mailed survey cards to all resi- dents in Chanhassen on April 7 , 1989 . The survey asked resi- dents whether they would favor an increase in property taxes, in order to purchase the subject property. The results of the survey as of April 20 , 1989, are 664 ( 45% ) in favor and 780 ( 54% ) opposed to an increase in property taxes to purchase the property. Eleven ( 11) ballots were invalid due to marking both boxes or neither. The total forms returned ( 1455) represents a 34% return. 2. EAW/EIS : Staff was asked by the Mayor to evaluate the poten- tial need for an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) on the property. The applicant voluntarily submitted an EAW ( Environmental Assessment Worksheet) . The applicants sub- mitted this document to demonstrate that no significant environmental impacts exist. But for the voluntary sub- mission, the proposed project would be exempt from the EAW and EIS process. The City Attorney has advised staff that because the EAW was voluntarily submitted to the City, the Council may submit the EAW to the EQB Monitor for publica- tion. After publication , interested persons have 30 days to make written comment. Thereafter, the RGU officially decides the project "has the potential for significant environmental effects" . If their findings are yes , an EIS must be ordered. If the EAW is submitted for publication, the City could not issue the conditional use permit until after the 30 day com- ment period. 1 Mr. Don Ashworth April 20 , 1989 Page 7 Attached for consideration is a copy of a pamphlet on the Environmental Review Process. ' Staff reviewed the EAW submitted initially and did not feel there were significant impacts resulting from the project to recommend the EAW be submitted to the EQB Monitor for publication. RECOMMENDATION ' Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: ' "The City Council finds that Conditional Use Permit Case #89-1 for Eckankar Church is consistent with the zoning standards of the City of Chanhassen and approves the request subject to the ' plans stamped "Received March 22 , 1989" and the matters of record in the Official City Planning File #89-1 Conditional Use Permit (Eckankar Church) with the following conditions : ' 1 . Detailed lighting of the exterior of the building be sub- mitted for review by the city. At staff' s discretion, the lighting may be presented to the Planning Commission for ' review to determine if the lighting is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. ' 2 . All detailed construction plans and specifications are to meet city standards. 3 . Watershed District permits required prior to construction. ' 4 . There shall be no outside speaker system on the site. ' 5 . The facility is for the express use as a church and limited to normal operations and activities associated with a church. In no case shall national or international rallies , confer- ' ences , or meetings be allowed. 6 . No tents , mobile homes , trailers or similar temporary struc- tures shall be allowed on the property; except for the use of ' temporary construction trailers during the construction of the facility. ' 7 . Parking shall only be allowed in the improved parking areas as designated on the site plan. 8. No overnight stays shall be permitted including camping or ' lodging with the exception of the caretaker . 9 . No use other than that specified in the conditional use per- mit shall be permitted, unless the applicant applies for and i Mr. Don Ashworth April 20 , 1989 Page 8 receives approval of a new conditional use permit pursuant to 1 the City Code requirements in affect at that time. " ATTACHMENTS ' 1. City Council minutes dated April 10, 1989. 2 . Letters submitted since April 10 , 1989 Council meeting. 3 . Summary of comments made on survey cards. 4 . Environmental review process. 5 . Letter from City Attorney dated April 12 , 1989 . 1 1 1