CCP 05-24-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved • Any expansion requires review of an amendment to the Special Use Permit. Commissioner McPherson questioned if the prior approved site is operational. Ms. Gundlach responded the applicant chose not to operate in that location. Councilmember Phillips questioned if parking stall #1 would need to be moved to meet the 40 foot setback, additionally Councilmember Phillips expressed concern with the two way traffic on a 16' width drive aisle. Ms. Gundlach explained the 16' width was approved as part of the initial development of the property in 2006. Chairperson Howard opened the Public Hearing at 7:24 pm Mr. Torklidson, residing at 128 New Brighton Rd. questioned where the pets will come from, and how many pets will be cremated. Additional concern was expressed related to regulation. Mr. Torklidson stated he really does not want the business in the neighborhood. Brian Jorgenson, residing at 1978 Thom Dr. reported he visited a pet cremation facility in Edina, MN. Photos of the Edina site were displayed, it was noted that the site is completely surrounded by industry. Mr. Jorgenson displayed photos of the proposed New Brighton site for comparison. Mr. Jorgenson also stated he feels this business could negatively affect his property values in the area. Joey Torklidson, residing at 2010 Thom Dr. questioned if the 350' radius may have missed some properties, as it appears to be awkwardly shaped. Concern was expressed with the regulation of odors. Mr. Torklidson commented that he does not feel the railroad provides an adequate buffer. Hours of operation were questioned. Richard Kotoski, is a property owner of two lots on Thom Dr. expressed concern with falling property values as well. Another concern was with the notification process. Ms. Gundlach confirmed notice was published on the local newspaper. Mr. Kotoski stated he has worked with a crematorium in the past, and there are measurable odors emitted. Paul Gruetzman, residing at 173 2nd Ave SE commented that a 350' notification is not adequate for this type of request, and would have preferred a sign at the proposed site announcing the Public Hearing. Mr. Gruetzman expressed concern with property values. Brenda Holden, residing at 1881 Beckman, Arden Hills questioned how the MPCA would regulate the emissions if they do not have a permit. Ms. Holden also commented that the railroad will not serve as a buffer, also noted was the proposed landscaping plan with the 9 trees, does not provide adequate screening. Ms. Holden would like to require a permit from Rice Creek Watershed District be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. Al Fimon, residing at 280 1st St SE reported he was not notified of the proposed project, and commented he was originally unaware his property was not zoned residential. Mr. Fimon reported he is not in favor of the project. John Fenske, residing at 138 2nd Ave SE commented he is not completely opposed to the request, and questioned how the original building was ever approved. The applicant Skip Wyland introduced himself and his wife Carol Noren. Mr. Wyland explained the drop off process, stating that the animals will be cremated individually. A brief explanation of the retort machine was offered, noting only the pet is placed in the retort. It was clarified that the retort is different than an incinerator, and that the retort is all electronically controlled. There are no odors emitted, because of the high temperature of 1500 degrees. A letter authored by an environmental engineer reporting that the design minimized emissions produced in the exhaust stack, in fact below the state threshold and do not require a permit from the state. Carbon monoxide levels are less than a barbeque grill, freight train, or wood burning stove. 4