pf_03315 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

7. In Minnesota cremations have increased from 1,622 in 1969 to 10,950 in 1999, and Ramsey County statistics parallel the increased use of cremation (Source: MN. Department of Health, City Community Development Staff Research, 6/14/01). 8. For 2000, the statewide cremation percentage was 30.30% or about 32 per day (Source: fax from Timothy J. Koch dated 7/23/01). 9. Updated Federal and state standards regarding crematory emissions, location, and operating procedures have not yet been promulgated to adequately address the growing use of cremation, nor developments in medical science such as brachytherapy that that could introduce an additional environmental health threat, in spite ofthe 1990 Federal Clean Air Act amendments that require the Environmental Protection Agency to develop new source performance standards and emission guidelines for crematories. 10. The required emission limits for acid gases (sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride), particulate matter, opacity, metals (including cadmium, lead and mercury), organics (dioxins and furans), carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides from crematories have not been established in part due to the limited information available to environmental protection agencies (Source IEE Co.! All Crematory). 11. As submitted by the applicant, the proposed use would negatively affect the character ofthe neighborhood due to the nature of the proposed use, the intensity of the proposed use, the proximity of residential properties, natural resources, and public facilities abutting or in close proximity to the subject parcel, and the inability to fashion practical terms and conditions for the proposed use to protect the general health, safety and public welfare of the neighborhood and community. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, that the application to issue a conditional use permit to Roselawn Cemetery to allow the construction of crematory facility on property located at 803 Larpenteur Avenue is hereby denied. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Maschka, and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Mastel, Goedeke, Maschka, Kysylyczyn. and the following voted against the same: Klausing. WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted on the 27tl1 day of August 2001. 3