Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PZ Agenda Packet - Part 1; 7-13-15
3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (651) 747-3900 www.lakeelmo.org NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on Wednesday, July 13, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a. June 22, 2015 4. Public Hearing a. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT – CEMETARY. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider an application for a preliminary and final plat for a proposed cemetery located at 11050 50th Street North. The PID for the subject property is 01.029.21.33.0003. b. FINAL PLAT AND FINAL PUD PLAN – WILDFLOWER AT LAKE ELMO. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider an application for a Final Plat and Final PUD Plan for Phase 1 of the proposed Wildflower at Lake Elmo residential subdivision in the Village Planning Area. Phase 1 includes 60 residential lots. The PID’s of the subject properties are 12.029.21.32.0001 and 12.029.21.43.0013. c. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACKS. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider a zoning text amendment to change the rear yard setback for detached accessory buildings in the urban residential zoning districts. d. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – SUBDIVISION IDENTIFICATION SIGNS. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider a zoning text amendment to add additional regulations to the City’s Sign Ordinance with regards to subdivision identification signs. 5. Business Items a. 6. Updates a. City Council Updates – July 7, 2015 Meeting i. Lennar Reider/Deidrich Twin Home Preliminary Plat – Tabled ii. Interim Ordinance – Passed b. Staff Updates 2 i. Upcoming Meetings: July 27, 2015 August 10, 2015 c. Commission Concerns 7. Adjourn Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-22-15 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2015 Chairman Dodson called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dodson, Dorschner, Williams, Fields, Larson, Kreimer and Griffin (arrived at 7:05pm) COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Haggard STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Klatt and City Planner Johnson Approve Agenda: The agenda was accepted as presented. Approve Minutes: June 8, 2015 M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to approve minutes as presented, Vote: 5-0, motion carried with Kreimer not voting. Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit – Lennar Homes Klatt started his presentation regarding a Preliminary Plat request from Lennar Corporation for a 46-unit single family attached (townhouse) development. The proposed development is located on slightly over 15 acres of land immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue, west of the Trans-City manufacturing building, north of the Hunter’s Crossing Development and immediately south of the Cimarron Manufactured Home Park and golf course. Staff is recommending approval of the request subject to 15 recommended conditions of approval. Klatt provided an overview of the proposed development area. He noted that the proposed twin-home development is located on the north side of the planned minor collector road 5th Street with Hunters Crossing located on the south side. With regards to history of the property, it has been historically used for agricultural purposes. The current zoning of the property is RT – Rural Transitional. The Sketch Plan was reviewed in February of 2015. In addition, it should be noted that that the future land use guidance of the property was changed from High Density to Medium Density Residential in October of 2013. The density of the Medium Density Residential land use category is 4-7.49 units/acre. Klatt stated that the proposed density is very close to 4 2 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-22-15 units/acre, and the limited size of the parcel does make the development potential on the site difficult. Regarding utilities, sewer and water are available to the site. As part of the agreement to extend watermain down Lake Elmo Avenue, the appl icants are expected to pay all of the Water Availability Charges for this development up front as opposed to paying for each phase. Klatt also presented a subdivision design summary highlighting all of the dimensional standards proposed for the development . Regarding dimensional standards, one important standards that recently changed was the street width and proposed ownership of the street. The applicants were previously proposing a private street. However, due to concern over how the City will maintain its sewer and water infrastructure, the applicants are now proposing a public right-of-way and street that meet City standards. In addition to the road standard issue, the applicants also are required to provide right-of-way along the County road (17) and additional stormwater management facilities. These changes resulted in the subdivision previously having 48 residential units to now having 46 twin-home units. In terms of future updates to the plan, Klatt noted that the applicant is considering applying for exemption of the front-yard setback requirements to bring homes closer to the street. In addition, the applicant is reviewing the feasibility of using the storm water retention ponds as a reuse facility for irrigation. Klatt then provided an overview of the staff report, which includes review comments on the construction of 5th Street, the Lake Elmo Ave. improvements, the watershed district review, the landscape and tree preservation plans, and other components. Klatt then provided an overview of the recommended conditions of approval. He then outlined draft findings for the proposed approval of the Preliminary Plat application. Fields asked where the closest park or open space area is located to this proposed development. Klatt noted that Oakland Jr. High School is the closest recreation area. Williams asked about proposed condition # 3 regarding the CSAH 17 improvements. He asked why it is the responsibility of this applicant and not both them and the Landucci property. Klatt noted that if it is a joint project, both applicants will be responsible. If it is 2 separate projects, each applicant will be responsible for their portion. Williams asked about design review of the structures for the proposed development. Klatt noted that single family attached structures (which these are) do not fall within the design review process. Williams asked if it was premature to take action on the plat given that the construction plans will need to be updated. Klatt stated that staff is confident that there is sufficient time for the applicant to update their plans for the final plat. 3 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-22-15 Larson asked about trail facilities in the area. Klatt noted that 5th Street will provide trail connection throughout the area. Dodson asked about trail facilities on Lake Elmo Avenue. Johnson responded with the history of trail and facility planning by the County on the CSAH 17 corridor. Kreimer asked about the two proposed townhomes in the southeast of the property that encroach onto the Hunters Crossing property. Lennar developers stated they will respond to that question. Kreimer asked about the maintenance of the exterior of the homes. He as ked if there would be an HOA that maintains the exterior of the homes and yards. Kreimer asked about the setback for Trans City building. Klatt stated that under current standards it would need to be 100 feet, but it is grandfathered in. Any changes to the building would need to meet this requirement. It is currently used for light industrial and any new use would be light industrial. Dorschner asked about the estimated number of REC units per the Comp Plan (57) and proposed number of twin homes in this development (46). Klatt explained that estimates for the purposes of the Comp Plan are calculated using gross density. This calculation does not take into account right-of-way, wetlands, and other factors that will reduce the developable area. Klatt noted that the fact that the proposed number of units is less than anticipated. However, now that the City is removed from the MOU with Met Council, the development being less than estimated should not present any problems for the City. Fields asked what the parkland dedication amount would be should the City want a total dedication of land and not fees. Klatt stated that for this site, 1.5 acres would be required to be dedicated in a pure land dedication. Dodson asked about a condition of approval or finding related to the conflict or encroachment on the southeast corner of the site. There was discussion about an additional finding or condition to resolve this conflict. Paul Tabone, Lennar Homes, spoke about the architectural elevations of the proposed twin homes. He noted that they intend to construct homes similar to the elevations they presented at Sketch Plan. Tabone then discussed the two plans that were completed for the site; one design with private streets and another with a public street meetin g City standard. He noted that the public street and other adjustments to stormwater led to the proposed development with 46 units. Tabone acknowledged that Lennar will need to work with Ryland Homes on the triangle in the southeast corner of the site. With regards to maintenance of the development, Tabone noted that the HOA will maintain all of the grounds and exterior facades of the structures. Regarding the light industrial use to the East, Tabone noted that they met with Trans-City investments. 4 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-22-15 Lennar also met with the owners of the Cimarron Park golf course. Both parties were receptive to collaborating on a landscaping plan that would help buffer the different land uses. Fields asked how tall the industrial building is to the east. Tabone noted he estimates it is 20 to 25 feet tall. Griffin asked where the stormwater outlet is for the pond. Tabone stated that it goes into a storm drain system within 5th Street. If there is a storm event, there is still the outlet to the property to the North, however, there can be no more water going to a property than the existing condition. Williams asked about the proposed grading in the power line easement. Tabone noted that Lennar has contacted the easement holder, but has yet to receive formal written permission. Dodson asked what the area would look like should the permission not be granted. Tabone noted that the fallback is a retaining wall. Kreimer asked what the center island in the road would look like. Would it be an amenity area? Tabone said that at a minimum it would be grass. They don’t however want to overload the area as the engineer stated it would be a staging area should there be a watermain break or some other maintenance work. Klatt updated the Commission on 2 previously asked questions. First the current standards for setbacks of commercial to residential is 150 feet for the building and 100 feet for a parking lot. Trans City is at 20 feet. The distance from this site to the Junior High is actually 2/3 of a mile. Public Hearing opened at 8:10pm No one spoke. The City received no written or electronic correspondence. Public Hearing closed: 8:11 Williams stated his support to recommend approval of the development. He recommends changing condition #4 to require a watershed district permit prior to submitting final plat to the City. Williams also suggested that the applicant receive written approval for construction in the easement area as part of final plan submittal. Dodson suggested this should be condition #16. There was agreement by the Planning Commission that both conditions #15 and #16 be added. M/S/P: Larson/Dorschner, move to add a draft finding that there are no parks within close proximity to the development, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. 5 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-22-15 M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer, move to add a draft finding that lots 29-32 are too close to the southern boundary of the plat and this issue must be remedied in some fashion as part of final plat application, Vote: 7-0 - motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to recommend approval of the Lennar/Diedrich preliminary plat with the 16 conditions of approval and findings as amended, Vote: 7-0 - motion carried unanimously. Dorschner noted he supports the City standard for streets. The width of the street must be maintained to allow for adequate street parking. Klatt noted that they must meet the 28-foot street standard. Kreimer noted that he does not support reducing the r ear yard setback along the northern portion of the property due to the golf course to the north. The applicant noted that other developments on golf courses include a disclosure. Williams noted that he has played the course several times and a conflict is not likely. Business Item: Zoning Text Amendment – Accessory Building Setbacks Urban Residential Districts. Johnson is seeking direction from the Planning Commission on whether to proceed on a Zoning Text Amendment to reduce the rear yard setback for accessory buildings in the urban residential districts. In LDR, MDR and HDR, the rear yard setback is not differentiated between accessory buildings and principal buildings and is currently 20 feet from rear yard. Staff is recommending a change from 20 feet to 10 feet for rear yard setback for accessory structures in urban districts. This setback would be consistent with other Cities that were researched. These structures are typically not very large and are sometimes regulated further by covenant. There were general questions from Planning Commissioners about the accessory building code. M/S/P: Dorschner/Williams, move to recommend that staff draft a Zoning Text Amendment to change the rear yard setback for accessory structures in urban residential districts from 20 feet to 10 feet, Vote: 7-0 motion carried unanimously. Business Item: Zoning Text Amendment – Subdivision Identification Signs Johnson is seeking direction from the Planning Commission on whether to proceed with this Zoning Text Amendment regarding Subdivision Identification Signs. Currently staff would interpret the sign code as only allowing one subdivision sign. The areas to discuss would be number of signs, content, whether sub-monuments would be allowed, and a definition of subdivision. Johnson stated that most Cities allow 2 signs and some 6 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 6-22-15 determine the number based on number of entrances to the subdivision. The content to consider would be changeable copy, and some Cities only allow the name of the Subdivision. However, Johnson wanted to do more research and talk to the City Attorney regarding the content issue due to 1st Amendment rights with signage. The number of signs would relate to the total subdivision and not each phas e. The Planning Commission had a discussion about subdivision signs. They asked to see some examples of sub-monuments. Johnson brought up an example from Boulder Ponds. It is a stone column with the name. Klatt stated we might want to survey some of the developers to get their opinion about why they would want more signage. The Commission felt that clarification for the ordinance was necessary. They felt that number might be based on size of development and number of entrances. Johnson stated that they might want to require a comprehensive sign plan so that developers do not just include the signs on their landscape plans. The Planning Commission liked the Comprehensive Sign Plan idea. M/S/P: Williams/Fields, move to direct to prepare a Zoning Text Amendment related to subdivision identification signs, Vote: 7-0 motion carried unanimously. Council Updates – June 9, 2015 Meeting 1. Phase I downtown Street and Utility Project – City concurrence to award contract approved. 2. Cooperative Agreement with Washington County approved 3. Easton Village Development Agreement amended. 4. East Village Trunk Sewer Agreement Approved. 5. Zoning Text Amendment – Freeway Signs denied with written findings. Staff Updates 1. Upcoming Meetings a. July 13, 2015 b. July 27, 2015 Commission Concerns Commissioner Dorschner noted his concern about recent staff resignations. Meeting adjourned at 9:25 pm Respectfully submitted, Joan Ziertman Planning Program Assistant PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 7/13/2015 AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2015-06 ITEM: Halcyon Cemetery – Preliminary and Final Plat SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director Jack Griffin, City Engineer Ann Pung-Terwedo, Washington County Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing to consider a Preliminary and Final Plat application request from Mr. Lee Rossow for a cemetery to be platted on a 10-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) and 50th Street North. Staff is recommending approval of the request subject to compliance with 8 conditions as noted in this report. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Lee Rossow, 11050 50th Street North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Property Owners: Lee Rossow, 11050 50th Street North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Location: Part of Section 01, Township 29 North, Range 21 West in Lake Elmo, immediately north of 50th Street and immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17). PID Number: 01.029.21.33.0003 Request: Application for preliminary and final plat approval of a cemetery to be called Halcyon. Existing Land Use and Zoning: Single Family Detached, Rural Residential (RR) zoning Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North – single family home (RR); west – single family home (RR); south – Agricultural (RR); east – single family residential (RR) and Municipal Well Site #4. Comprehensive Plan: Rural Area Development History: Sketch Plan review by Planning Commission on 11/24/2014. Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 6/17/2015 60 Day Deadline – 8/17/2015 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 10/16/2015 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM Applicable Regulations: Chapter 153 – Subdivision Regulations Article IX – Rural Districts Article V – Off Street Parking Article VI – Landscaping and Tree Preservation §150.270 Storm Water, Erosion, and Sediment REQUEST DETAILS The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Mr. Lee Rossow to plat a 10-acre cemetery at 11050 50th Street North to be called Halcyon. Under State Law, cemeteries must be filed and recorded with the County. In order for the cemetery plat to be filed and recorded at the County, the City must approve a final plat for the cemetery. The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing on the proposed cemetery plat. The proposed cemetery would be located at the northeast corner of Lake Elmo Ave. and 50th St. North. The 10-acre parcel has historically been used as a single family residential home. It should be noted that a Sketch Plan of the Halcyon Cemetery was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 24th of 2014. At the Sketch Plan review level, the City completed a high- level review of the proposal to inform a future preliminary/final plat application. There is no formal approval issued by the City at the time of Sketch Plan review. According to standard subdivision procedures, a typical plat will go through both a preliminary and final plat review process. However, it is possible to proceed with preliminary and final plat review concurrently for plats of more limited scope and size. In the judgment of staff, the review of the Halcyon Cemetery represents such an application of more limited scope/size where the review of preliminary and final plans should be permitted to proceed in a concurrent fashion. Therefore, the applicant has prepared a final plat and construction plans for consideration by the City. The existing condition of the property is that of a single family residential home with an accessory building on the eastern side of the property. It should be noted that the existing home has access off both 50th Street and Lake Elmo Avenue. The proposed cemetery would eliminate the access on Lake Elmo Ave., improving the access spacing related to driveways on the County arterial road. Access to the proposed cemetery would be accommodated off of 50th Street North approximately 270 feet east of Lake Elmo Ave. (CSAH 17). As part of the proposed cemetery use, the existing home and accessory building would be repurposed to support the cemetery use. The home would be used as an administrative office, caretaker quarters and gathering space for the bereaved. The existing accessory building would be utilized as a maintenance garage. In addition to these existing improvements, the applicant is planning to construct private storm water management facilities along the eastern portion of the site to address the additional impervious surface. It should be noted that these facilities have been designed to comply with the rules of the City of Lake Elmo and the Valley Branch Watershed District. With regards to the cemetery, the applicant is planning a total of 5 sections or areas to serve as burial sites or columbarium/mausoleums. Sections 1, 2 and 5 are within the planned Phase 1 area of the cemetery, while Sections 3 and 4 are in the planned Phase 2 area of the cemetery. The options for burial or interment include in-ground burials, mausoleums, columbarium, in-ground cremation and estate lots. At full capacity, the 5 sections could host the remains of 1,995 persons according to the site plan. Finally, there is also a 58-stall parking area planned for the cemetery. The parking lot would be utilized to accommodate larger parties for various burial ceremonies or rituals. As far as utilities are concerned, the existing building will be served by a private septic system. The applicant has completed a compliance inspection and submitted to Washington County. The inspection revealed that the existing system is not compliant per Washington County ordinance. 3 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM Therefore, the applicant will need to construct a new septic system in consultation with Washington County Health Department (Condition #8). With regards to water, the site does have access to the City’s municipal water system within 50th Street. Water service will be extended to the site to provide proper fire suppression for the home once it is converted to serve the cemetery use. It should also be noted that there is an existing well on the site. It is the understanding of the City that the well is to be protected and maintained for irrigation purposes. PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES The Halcyon Cemetery parcel is guided Rural Area Development (RAD) according to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The existing zoning of the parcel is Rural Residential (RR). According to Article XI – Rural Districts of the Zoning Code, cemeteries are considered a permitted use within the Agricultural (A) and Rural Residential (RR) zoning districts. Therefore, the proposed use of a cemetery on this property is in compliance with the City’s Zoning Code. It should also be noted that the Zoning Code does not contain any specific development standards for the cemetery use. Based on Staff’s review of the preliminary and final plat, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all applicable code requirements at the level of detail that is required for a plat. As noted previously, the plat approval from the City is not required as a result of splitting the parcel into 4 or more lots, but rather as an approval of the proposed use prior to the filing of the property as a cemetery with Washington County. However, the platting procedures do allow the City and County to obtain the necessary right-of-way to serve both Lake Elmo Avenue and 50th Street. With regards to parkland dedication, the Subdivision Ordinance does require that residential and commercial plats provide parkland dedication based upon a percentage or fee set under the City’s Fee Schedule. Residential developments typically require a dedication percentage in between 7-10%, whereas the City’s Fee Schedule require $4,500/acre for commercial development be provided for parkland fees. In researching the cemetery use, staff has determined that the use is technically defined as a public cemetery association, meaning that the cemetery is owned privately but is open to the public. As a result of this definition and the fact that private cemeteries are considered a quasi- public use, staff does not believe that the City can require parkland dedication fees for the proposed use. The cemetery use is neither residential nor commercial, and thus staff is not recommending to impose any parkland dedication fees. Finally, it should be noted that City staff has received some inquiries of concern from some surrounding property owners about the cemetery use. In speaking with the surrounding property owners, the general concerns staff has received relate to traffic, the effect on property values and the means to maintain the cemetery into perpetuity. Staff has completed some general research to look into these concerns: • Traffic. With regards to increased traffic generated by the cemetery, the property is located at the intersection of a County arterial road and City major collector road. These facilities, as opposed to local residential streets, should be able to accommodate any increased traffic generated from the cemetery use. According to the City’s Transportation Plan, the average daily traffic of 50th Street in 2009 was 500 trips, whereas the projected volume on 50th Street in 2030 is 1500 trips per day. Given this lower average daily traffic as of 2009, it is unlikely that the cemetery use would generate the amount of traffic that would come within any proximity of the available capacity. Lake Elmo average daily traffic as of 2009 was 3100 vehicle trips per day. The projected traffic volume for 2030 is 9200 vehicle trips per day. The applicant has estimated that daily travel to the cemetery will be extremely limited, with peak 4 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM travel resulting from scheduled funerals on an infrequent basis. While staff understands the concern over additional traffic generated by the proposed cemetery, the fact that the subject property is located at the intersection of an arterial road and major collector provides assurance to staff that the use would be ideally located. In the judgment of staff, there is adequate capacity on Lake Elmo Ave. and 50th Street. • Property Values. Staff has received two concerns about reduced property values as a result of the proposed cemetery. Staff has conducted some research into this concern. Based on the limited research conducted, staff is not confident that there is a documented or proven correlation between property values and cemeteries. In researching the matter, the connection between cemeteries and property values remains inconclusive. There are academic studies and anecdotal articles that fall on both sides of the argument. For the benefit of the Planning Commission, staff has attached the article (Attachment #9) that presented the most comprehensive look at the effect of cemeteries on property values based on the research conducted. • Permanent Care of the Cemetery. One resident that contact staff inquired about how the cemetery would be well maintained into the future. In researching this question, staff found that some cemeteries depending on location and population are required to maintain a Permanent Care and Improvement Fund. Whether or not the Halcyon Cemetery is required to establish this fund is undetermined at this time. However, the applicant has noted in their narrative that they intend to utilize a percentage of funds from every burial and interment to pay a permanent care and maintenance fund, which would be established and run by the cemetery association. The narrative notes that this fund will be in compliance with State Statutes. According to the applicant, this fund would be utilized to care for the grounds and complete capital projects and improvements to the cemetery. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS City Staff has reviewed the proposed preliminary and final plat for the Halcyon Cemetery. It should be noted that the applicant chose to wait to submit the plat application until the Valley Branch Watershed Permit was approved and issued, which occurred on June 25th, 2015. During the course of these review, staff has evaluated the proposed plans according to City ordinances and engineering standards. In completing the review, there are some elements of the plat that remain in conflict with City, County or Valley Branch Watershed District standards, which must still be addressed or corrected by the applicant. In general, the proposed plat will meet all applicable City requirements for conditional approval, and any deficiencies or additional work that is needed is noted as part of the review record. The City has received a detailed list of comments from the City Engineer, Fire Chief and Washington County concerning the proposed cemetery, all of which are attached for consideration by the Commission. In addition to the general comments that have been provided in the preceding sections of this report, Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the issues and comments related to the following discussion areas as well: • Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan for this area. The subject property is guided Rural Area Development (RAD), which correlates to Agricultural and Rural Residential land uses. Under the Comprehensive Plan, cemetery use is not in conflict with this land use guidance. 5 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM • Zoning. The zoning of the subject property is Rural Residential (RR). Under this zoning designation, cemeteries are a permitted use according to the Zoning Code. • Subdivision Requirements. The City’s Subdivision Ordinance details the process for platting and other pertinent design standards. The majority of the standards are not applicable as the parcel is not being subdivided in the manner that is typical of other development. Staff, as well as the City Engineer, have not identified any existing conflicts with the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. However, staff has found that additional public right-of-way may need to be provided on both 50th Street and Lake Elmo Avenue. The requirements to provide public right-of-way is found in the Subdivision Ordinance. • Infrastructure. No public infrastructure is proposed to be constructed as part of the cemetery use. The wastewater facilities will be private. The existing home will be connected to the City water system via a water service. In addition, the Fire Chief will be requesting a hydrant to be located on the property. Nevertheless, the water line and hydrant will be privately owned and maintained. Finally, the storm water management facilities will also be privately owned and maintained. The City will require the landowner or association to enter into a maintenance agreement for the storm water facilities. • Wetlands. The landowner has completed a wetland delineation as part of the permitting process for the Valley Branch Watershed. The applicant will be required to meet all the rules and regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act and Valley Branch Watershed District (Condition #3). • Landscaping. Staff has reviewed the landscape plan submitted by the applicant and found the plan to be in general conformance with the City’s ordinance. However, the applicant must provide 6 additional new trees to meet the City’s quantity standards. Aside from this issue, the plant material provided meets the City standards for variety and plant size. It should also be noted that the applicant is proposing to transplant many of the existing trees on the site. In combination with the new plant material, there should be a fairly significant amount of landscaping on the 10-acre site. Staff was unable to have the plan reviewed by a registered Landscape Architect prior to consideration by the City. Therefore, Staff would recommend that the plan be reviewed for final approval prior to the installation of the plant material on the site. Finally, it should be noted that the City Engineer has identified some areas where plant material or trees are located on top of proposed utilities. The Landscape Plan should be revised to provide separation between the proposed utilities and plant material. These recommendations are included in a recommended condition of approval (Condition #5). • Tree Preservation Plan. Staff has reviewed the Tree Preservation Plan and found it to be in conformance with the City’s regulations pertaining to tree preservation for sites undergoing development activity. The total number of caliper inches on the site according to the survey is 1,550 caliper inches of significant trees. According to the Tree Preservation Ordinance, an applicant is allowed to remove 30% of significant trees on the site before tree replacement schedule is initiated. 30% of 1,550 total caliper inches is 465 caliper inches. The applicant is proposing to remove 340 caliper inches of significant trees, which is below the threshold for tree replacement. It should be noted that the applicant is proposing to transplant a significant amount of existing trees on the site to install mature plantings from an early point. Under the Tree Preservation Ordinance, transplanted trees do not count towards the total tree removals. 6 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM Staff finds the submitted tree preservation plan to be in conformance with the City’s ordinance. • Off-Street Parking. The proposed site plan for the cemetery shows 58 parking stalls. The City’s Off-Street Parking Ordinance (§154.210) includes the required number of off-street parking stalls for various uses. As for cemeteries, the ordinance does not provide concrete direction, but rather states that parking should be provided in an amount determined by the Planning Director. Planning staff has reviewed the overall amount of parking on the plan and found it to be more than adequate. The amount of parking provided in the southern parking lot should prevent cars from parking on 50th Street or Lake Elmo Ave., both of which are currently designated no parking. Should an overflow parking be necessary, it is likely it could be accommodated within the various drive lanes that circulate the cemetery. In the judgment of staff, the amount of parking provided is more than adequate. Finally, it should be noted that the parking stall dimensions meet the City’s minimum standards per the ordinance. • City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has completed a review of the proposed cemetery and submitted his review comments in a memorandum dated July 8, 2015. With regards to the plat, he notes that 50th Street North is a major collector road, requiring 80 total feet of right-of-way. The plat currently shows 35 feet granted on the north side of 50th Street. He is requesting an additional 5 feet to establish the correct amount of right-of-way for collector roads. In addition, he is requesting additional right-of-way at the intersection to accommodate the sight line triangle. Finally, he is also requesting that a 10-foot drainage and utility easement be provided on the southern property line. This additional right-of-way and easement should not impact the proposed improvements on the site. Should any improvement be located in the drainage and utility easement, an easement encroachment agreement may be approved to allow fencing and other such improvements to be located there. In addition to the review comments on right-of-way, the engineer is requiring that the storm water management system be owned and maintained privately. The storm water facilities have not been designed to meet City standard. These facilities must be owned, operated and maintained privately. The City will expect a maintenance agreement to ensure proper operation of the facilities. Finally, the City Engineer has also noted several revisions and additions to the Construction Plan sheets. These review comments are mostly detail and plan notes that provide greater accuracy and clarity on the plans. Staff is recommending that the Engineer’s review comments be adopted as a condition of approval (Condition #2). These modifications should be completed prior to the City executing the Final Plat. • Fire Department Review. The Fire Chief has reviewed the proposed cemetery and identified some areas of further review. One request included additional information about the location of hydrants on the property. In addition, the Fire Chief is requesting additional information related to the movement of emergency vehicle on the site. Staff is recommending that the concerns identified by the Fire Chief be addressed prior to the issuance of grading or building permits (Condition #7) • Washington County Review. County Staff has reviewed the cemetery plat and responded with a review memorandum dated July 7, 2015. Within the memo, County staff correctly notes that the amount of public right-of-way for Lake Elmo Ave. shown on the final plat is insufficient. In order to address this deficiency, an additional 25 feet must be provided. Staff is confident that the additional amount of right-of-way requested can be accommodated, as the Final Construction Plans include the correct amount of right-of-way, while the plat does 7 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM not. In other words, the additional right-of-way should not result in redesign of the site. In addition to the right-of-way issue, County staff notes that a right-of-way permit will be needed for the removal of the driveway and grading work associated with the retaining wall. In addition, the applicant must submit drainage calculations to review downstream impacts in the County ditch. Staff is recommending that all requirements and modifications identified in the County review memorandum be adopted as a condition of approval (Condition #4). • Watershed District Review. The project area lies within the Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD). The Valley Branch Watershed District reviewed the proposed cemetery at their June 25th meeting. At the meeting, the Valley Branch Board of Managers approved the permit for the cemetery with several conditions (see Attachment #7). It should be noted that the applicant must meet all the rules of the Wetland Conservation Act and the conditions of the VBWD permit. Staff is recommending a condition of approval (Condition #3) that these requirements be fulfilled. Based on the above Staff report and analysis, Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat with 8 conditions intended to address the outstanding issues noted above and to further clarify the City’s expectations in order for the developer to move forward with a final plat. The recommended conditions are as follows: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1) The applicant shall revise the Final Plat to accommodate all required right-of-way on Lake Elmo Avenue and 50th Street North as documented in review memorandums submitted by Washington County and the City Engineer. 2) All required modifications to the plans as requested by the City Engineer in a review letter dated July 8, 2015 shall be incorporated into the plans prior to the City’s execution of the Final Plat. 3) The developer shall follow all of the rules and regulations spelled out in the Wetland Conservation Act, and abide by all conditions of approval established in the approved Valley Branch Watershed District permit. 4) The applicant shall be responsible to address all review comments submitted by Washington County described in the review memorandum received from the County dated July 7, 2015. In addition, the applicant shall obtain all necessary right-of-way permitting from Washington County. 5) The Landscape Plan shall be revised to include 6 additional trees to fulfill the City’s Landscaping Requirements. In addition, the plant material that is on top of utilities shall be moved to comply with the direction of the City Engineer per his memorandum dated July 8, 2015. Finally, prior to installation of plant material, the plan shall be reviewed by the City’s Landscape Consultant for final approval. 6) The applicant must enter into an agreement with the City to own, operate and maintain the private storm water facilities on the property. The storm water maintenance agreement must be recorded with the Final Plat. 8 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM 7) Prior to the issuance of grading/building permits, all review comments of the Fire Chief must be addressed by the applicant. 8) The applicant shall obtain the necessary permitting from Washington County to install a new septic system to serve the property prior to the City issuing and building permits for the remodel of the home. DRAFT FINDINGS Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider the following findings with regards to the proposed Halcyon Cemetery Final Plat: • That the Halcyon Cemetery Final Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area. • That the Halcyon Cemetery complies with the City’s RR – Rural Residential zoning district. • That the Halcyon Cemetery complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance. • That the Halcyon Cemetery Final Plat meets other City zoning ordinances, such as landscaping, tree preservation, erosion and sediment control, off-street parking and other ordinances, except where noted in this report herein. • That the Halcyon Cemetery Final Plat is consistent with the City’s engineering standards, except where noted, provided the plans are updated to address the City Engineer’s comments documented in a letter dated July 8, 2015. RECCOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Halcyon Cemetery Final Plat with the 8 conditions of approval as listed in the Staff report. Suggested motion: “Move to recommend approval of the Halcyon Cemetery Final Plat with the 8 conditions of approval as drafted by Staff based on the findings of fact listed in the Staff Report.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Application Forms and Narrative 3. Preliminary and Final Plat and Plans 4. City Engineer Review Memorandum, dated 7/8/15 5. Fire Chief Review Memorandum, dated 7/7/15 6. Washington County Review Memorandum, dated 7/7/15 7. Valley Branch Watershed District Permit 8. Lake Elmo Transportation Plan, Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes 9. Cemetery Proximity and Single Family Home Price Report (1st Half) 9 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM INCLUDED IN THE ELECTRONIC PACKET BUT NOT PROVIDED IN HARD COPY: 1. 2nd Half of Cemetery Proximity and Single Family Home Price Report – Supporting Data 2. Information Handout About Cemeteries from League of Minnesota Cities ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff - Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Data Source: Washington County, MN11-17-2014 Location Map: Proposed Halcyon Cemetery K 50th St. N. L a k e E l m o A v e . N . 0 300 600150 Feet 1"=300' 11050 50th Street N. 456717 PAGE 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM Date: July 8, 2015 To: Nick Johnson, City Planner Re: Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary and Final Plan Review Cc: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer An engineering review has been completed for the Halcyon Cemetery Preliminary‐Final Plat, and Construction Plans. The submittal consisted of the following documentation prepared by Loucks Associates, dated January 5, 2015: Site Plan and Preliminary Plat dated June 17, 2015. Construction Plans for Parking, Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Utilities dated June 17, 2015. Tree Preservation Pland and Landscape Plan dated June 17, 2015. Stormwater Management Plan dated May 14, 2015. STATUS/FINDINGS: Engineering has prepared the following review comments and conditions for Final Plat: PRELIMINARY / FINAL PLAT The Final Plat must be revised to include an additional 25 feet R/W along CSAH 17 (Lake Elmo Avenue) as required by Washington County (75 feet from CSAH 17 centerline). An 80 foot R/W with 10 foot utility easements immediately outside of the R/W is the recommended minimum corridor plan for 50th Street as a Municipal State Aid major collector roadway. The Final Plat must include an additional 5 feet R/W along 50th Street so that the 50th Street R/W is a total of 80 feet. The proposed plat of 35 feet must be revised to 40 feet. The Final Plat must include a 10 foot utility easement along the full length of the south property line, located just outside of the 50th Street R/W. The Final Plat must include additional R/W at the intersection of CSAH 17 and 50th Street to accommodate a sight line triangle similar to the sight triangle at the southeast corner of this intersection. The Final Plat must be contingent upon the applicant providing written documentation demonstrating adequate wastewater management facilities for the proposed land use. Minimum documentation must include: If the existing system is to continue in use, submit to the City a compliance inspection report that has been reviewed and approved by Washington County. Provide water use data used to size the current and secondary ISTS systems for the property. Provide percolation testing indicating that the proposed locations are suitable for the proposed use. Provide to the City a copy of Washington County’s ISTS system approvals, including conditions. FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc. Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261 Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264 Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267 Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4283 PAGE 2 of 2 The storm water ponds, infiltration basins and all storm sewer are to be privately owned and maintained by the property owner with this responsibility recorded to run with the property ownership. These facilities have not been designed to meet City design standards for storm sewer or storm water management facilities. The Final Plat must be conditioned upon the applicant executing an agreement to own, operate and maintain the storm sewer and storm water facilities proposed on the site and recording this agreement with the property. CONSTRUCTION PLANS: The following engineering review comments must be addressed prior to any construction work on the property. Provide plan notes on Sheet C3‐1, C3‐2 and C4‐1 calling out measures to protect both the existing and proposed drainfield sites throughout the construction process. Sheet C4‐1, Utility Plan: Add note that all storm sewer pipe and storm water facilities are to be privately owned and maintained. Sheet C4‐1, Utility Plan: Update all Plan Notes to be pertinent and consistent with the proposed Utility Plan. Generic notes appear to be inconsistent or irrelevant to this project. Replace all City Standard Details and Plan Notes with the updated Details and Plan Notes dated February 2015. Sheet C8‐1, Civil Details: Remove details 3003 and 3013. The City Standard Detail No. 605 and 604 respectively must be used as shown on Sheet C8‐2. The Construction Plans must be updated with field verified utility locations with the plans resubmitted for engineering review and approval prior to the start of construction. The applicant must complete a Gopher State One call and utility locate and field survey all utilities to finalize the construction plans. All notes referring to utility information being provided by others must be removed from the plans. The Tree Protection detail on Sheet C1‐1 and Sheet L1‐0 must be replaced with the City standard detail 904. LANDSCAPE PLANS: This engineering review does not include a review of the proposed Landscape Plans, however the following comments are noted. The landscape plan must be revised to provide maintenance access for the storm water pond adjacent to the entrance driveway. The landscape plan must be revised to relocate trees planted directly over the proposed utilities. Revisions must be made to address these conflicts to maintain a minimum 5 foot separation. 23,848,635 articles and books 984 10kLikeLikeShareShare Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. Link/Page Citation 1 ABSTRACT In this article, the potential impact of cemeteries on value is addressed empirically using regression analysis on data from 575 transactions of single-family houses in the vicinity of four cemeteries. Consistent with the limited previous research on this topic, when all observations are analyzed simultaneously no price effect is discovered. However, when each cemetery is investigated separately, the results vary. In two cases, cemetery view is not significantly related to price. In a third case. cemetery view is associated with higher prices (equal to 8.8% of mean house price), and in a fourth case, cemetery view is associated with lower prices (equal to 10.1% of mean house price). ********** The real estate literature is replete with papers reporting the influence of externalities on residential property values. Studies appearing in The Appraisal Journal, for example, observe positive price effects given a house's proximity to a golf course, (1) or an ocean, (2) and negative effects for proximity to freight rail lines, (3) a cell phone tower, (4) a ruptured oil pipeline, (5) highway noise barriers, (6) and the residence of a registered sex offender. (7) It is intuitive that price premiums should apply when an externality adds to an owner's enjoyment of his or her property and that discounts should apply when a property is located close to an externality that poses either a nuisance or potential danger. Not all market participants, however, immediately adopt this view, as indicated by Hansen, Benson, and Hagen (8) who report significant price discounts for houses located close to a major fuel pipeline after, but not before, it exploded. The impact of open space property uses on nearby residential property values has been subject to some empirical investigation. The results, in general, are not surprising. Golf courses, parks, and green spaces tend to be positive externalities for surrounding properties, and landfills tend to be negative externalities. Of the various types of open space property uses, cemeteries have been the least studied. A search of the literature reveals only two published studies on this topic and both of these examine the same Portland, Oregon, database to report an insignificant price difference between houses located close to a cemetery and those located farther away. (9) Stadium View A Luxury Apartments In A Convenient 0LikeLikeShareShare Full-Text OnlinOnline library of books, journals, a Periodicals Literature Search Keyword Title Author Topic Page 1 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library 1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02... The purpose of the current study, therefore, is to direct some additional attention to this little-examined subject. In this study, regression analysis is applied to transaction data from 575 single-family houses located in relatively close proximity to four cemeteries in Greene County, Ohio. Grouping cemeteries for analysis, as was done in previous analyses, may mask the impact of a cemetery on the transaction price of nearby houses. Because some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with close cemetery proximity depend upon whether or not the cemetery is within sight of the subject property, the present study also improves upon the previous research by simultaneously investigating the price effect resulting from both the distance from, and view of, a cemetery. This article describes the characteristics of cemeteries that may impact the value of nearby properties, reviews the pertinent literature, and explains the data and methodology used in the research. The results of the analysis are then presented. Cemetery Characteristics That May Influence Value The effect of proximity to a cemetery on nearby residential property value is uncertain. On the positive side, cemeteries offer a place to walk, jog, exercise, or otherwise enjoy the outdoors safe from speeding traffic. In effect, some people may view a cemetery as a park, and the tombstones as incidental. A view of a relatively open vista that includes some tombstones may be preferable to one that is limited to the back of the neighbor's garage or house. Further, a person who wishes to regularly visit the final resting place of a loved one may value a house located conveniently close to the loved one's grave. To the extent that any of these advantages apply, purchasers may be willing to pay a premium for a house located in close proximity to a cemetery, and the premium may be enhanced to the degree that market participants believe the future use of the cemetery will not change. Historically, there has been considerable reluctance, especially in rural areas, to disturb land used as a cemetery. Therefore, owners of houses in close proximity to such cemeteries can be fairly certain that their properties will not subsequently be squeezed in by additional houses or less desirable property uses. On the other hand, there is no guarantee that the use of cemetery property is fixed. Cemeteries are occasionally relocated and the property put to an alternative use, which residential neighbors may find objectionable. Kay (10) observed that the probability of cemetery relocation may be positively related to the rate at which an area is becoming urbanized. There are also potential disadvantages associated with close proximity to a cemetery. Cemetery workers, visitors, or trespassers may create noise disturbances. The relatively pleasing vista previously mentioned may be compromised if the cemetery falls into disrepair or if trespassers vandalize it. Potential physical dangers to people residing in close proximity to a cemetery include poisoning and disease. Spongberg and Becks (11) reported that cemeteries may release hazardous chemicals and metals into surrounding soil and ground water. Possible contaminants include arsenic and mercury, which were used in past embalming practices, or formaldehyde used in current embalming practices; and varnishes, sealers, and preservatives used on wood coffins, or lead, zinc, and copper from metal coffins. Vezzani (12) asserts that mosquitoes are the most medically important insect vectors of disease. He also concludes that cemeteries are highly suitable habitats for artificial container-breeding mosquitoes due to the great availability of the different resources that they need (i.e., sugar substances, shelter, and water-filled containers). Finally, there are psychological factors associated with cemeteries that may negatively impact some people. The sight of a grave being dug or an internment service can put a damper on a party being held at a residence with a cemetery view. For some, the sight of a cemetery or of tombstones may be upsetting, and for others, knowing that the cemetery is close may be disconcerting. Each of these factors may influence potential purchasers who may lower their bids or refuse to make offers on properties with cemetery views. Larsen and Coleman (13) report moderate, but statistically significant selling price effects for residential properties that were classified as psychologically impacted for reasons other than the property's proximity to a cemetery. First Home Buyer Programs guaranteedrate.com/First-Home Very Low Rates and Fees Guaranteed. Free Quotes, No SSN, No Obligation. Page 2 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library 1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02... Casual examination of cemeteries in the U.S. Midwest results in several observations that are consistent with the notion that cemeteries may negatively impact the value of nearby single-family houses. First, cemeteries tend to be initially situated remotely from residential properties. Second, in recent years when residential development has occurred in close proximity to a cemetery, developers have shown a propensity, where possible, to leave a wooded buffer zone between the cemetery and the residential development. Finally, houses constructed in close proximity to an existing cemetery are rarely, if ever, high-end properties. Even if the disadvantages enumerated are significant in the transaction process, their impact may not be observable in transaction prices as long as the search for a buyer routinely continues until a buyer is located who does not care about or is ignorant of the physical risks or is not psychologically impacted by the proximity of a cemetery to the subject property. It may, however, take more time to locate such a purchaser and this would be revealed by a significantly longer time on market for houses located in close proximity to a cemetery. The fact that the only relevant database previously studied did not contain time on market data may help explain why it yielded no significant market effects attributable to cemetery proximity. Also, there are other factors that may have contributed to the previous findings. Unfortunately, time on market is not available in the present database. The addition of a time on market variable would be a valuable addition to any extensions of this research. Literature Review Bolitzer and Netusil (14) employ regression analysis to study how single-family house selling price is influenced by the proximity of the house to a variety of open space property uses, including cemeteries. They analyze transactions that occurred in 1990-1992 in Portland, Oregon. Selling prices of 662 houses located within 1,500 feet of one of fifteen cemeteries are compared to prices of 6,005 houses that are not located within 1,500 feet of any type of open space (e.g., cemetery, golf course, public park). No significant differences in prices attributable to cemetery proximity are discovered. Lutzenhiser and Netusil (15) analyze the same database and employ basically the same methodology as Bolitzer and Netusil. Again, selling price is found not to differ significantly between houses located on either side of the 1,500-foot demarcation. In addition, a variable to account for cemetery size is included in this model, and house prices are found to be insignificantly related to it. These studies are noteworthy because they were pioneering efforts, but both suffer from problematic methodological issues. For instance, the 1,500-foot demarcation point appears a bit arbitrary; Bolitzer and Netusil state it "was selected after consulting with park specialists at Metro." (16) It is unclear what expertise metropolitan park specialists possessed concerning setting this kind of criteria. No tests were conducted to determine if price effects are present within 1,500 feet of each cemetery or whether 1,500 feet is an appropriate demarcation point. It is possible that in some cases local price effects do not occur, but for other cases the local price effects exist and are exhausted before 1,500 feet, while for still other properties, local price effects extend farther. The exact solution is unique to each situation and dependent upon factors such as topography, foliage, housing density, and cemetery condition. Another methodological problem is that neither one of the studies compares properties with a cemetery view to those without a view to investigate whether view might represent a better demarcation point. Also, although the model employed in these studies includes binary variables to control for the area of the city in which a particular house is located, a number of factors not included in the model could compromise the validity of the comparison (e.g., the extent to which other externalities affect properties on both sides of the demarcation line). Further, the data for houses surrounding the fifteen cemeteries is incorporated into a single model, which may have exacerbated the issue if the variables that significantly influence nearby residential property values are not identical for all cemeteries. This possibility is demonstrated in the current study by first estimating a single model that includes all four study areas, and then comparing this result to results obtained by estimating separate models for each cemetery and restricting the analysis to houses located in the same neighborhood. Data This article analyzes transactions of 575 single-family houses in the vicinity of four cemeteries, all located in Greene Villanova Univ. Online Advance Your Human Resources Skills & Prep for Certification. Get Info! Page 3 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library 1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02... County, Ohio. Greene County, located in southwestern Ohio, was established at its present boundaries in 1819. Historically, Greene was an agricultural county, and today it remains predominantly rural. Only 4% of the county's 421 square miles consists of urban areas. Its total population is about 148,000 residents. After World War II, parts of Greene County became a bedroom community for the city of Dayton in adjacent Montgomery County. In more recent years, the county has undergone substantial commercial development. According to the Greene County Auditor's office, 65 cemeteries are located in the county. Several are small family plots and most of the 65 are located remotely enough that measuring their effect on nearby houses is problematic because there are not many houses close by. This article focuses on four locations where residential development has extended to an active (i.e., burials are still taking place) cemetery border: Bellbrook, Fairborn, Beavercreek, and Xenia. All four study areas were personally inspected to determine whether each property currently has a cemetery view. A definition of variables used in studying the four locations can be found in Table 1. Bellbrook Area The first study location is situated on 16.9 acres in the northeastern corner of the city of Bellbrook (population 7,009). Residential development reached this cemetery in 1961, when the first of five houses that abut the cemetery was constructed. The last house to abut the cemetery was built in 1965. All houses in the sample were constructed in 1951-2003. There are 157 houses located to the east and southeast and within 1,513 feet of the well-maintained cemetery. The sample is limited to the 122 houses where an arm's-length transaction of an improved lot could be identified. Transactions in this study area occurred in 1958-2008. There is no buffer zone between the Bellbrook cemetery and the residential development, but trees, houses, and structures in the development block a cemetery view for most houses in the Bellbrook study area. However, 18 of the sample properties do have a full or partial view of this cemetery. It was assumed that the view from each property was the same at the time of each transaction. Data limitations prevent determination of property quality and condition at the time of each transaction, but at the time of the study, it was observed that property quality and condition tended to improve with distance from the cemetery. The Bellbrook area is limited to 1,513 feet by default because the neighborhood ends at that distance. Property characteristic and transaction information analyzed in this study were obtained from the office of the Greene County Tax Assessor and the office of the Greene County Recorder. Table 2 shows descriptive statistics for houses in the Bellbrook study area. The mean transaction price (PRICE) for these houses is $97,012. The mean house age at the time of the transaction (AGE) is 27.4 years. The mean living space (SQFT) is 1,408 feet, and the mean parcel size (LOT) is 13,427 square feet. Fairborn Area The second cemetery in the study is situated on 22.3 acres near the eastern edge of Greene County's second largest city, Fairborn (population 51,390). The residential development is located south of the cemetery. The first house in the development, constructed on the southern boundary of the development, sold in 1996. Development proceeded to the north (toward the cemetery), with all the houses closest to the south side of the cemetery being sold between 2003 and 2006. Transaction data could not be obtained for 28 houses (these lots were purchased unimproved from the developer), so the sample is restricted to the 244 observations that are arm's-length transactions of improved lots. The Fairborn area is the newest development of the study areas, and the developer dedicated a buffer zone between the development and cemetery that is approximately 200-feet wide (187 feet at the narrowest point) and fairly heavily wooded. The deciduous trees in the buffer zone eliminate any view of the well-maintained cemetery from all but a few houses for approximately seven months of the year, but when the trees are bare, 46 houses have a full or partial view of the cemetery. There is no discernable difference in the house quality and condition in this study area; all are currently in above-average condition due, in no small part, to their relatively young age. Table 3 shows that PRICE in this area is the highest of the four study areas. More houses in this area, 85.9%, have a basement (BASE) than the other study areas and all houses in this development have central air conditioning (AIR). Beavercreek Area Page 4 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library 1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02... The third cemetery investigated is situated on 8.7 acres near the southern edge of Greene County's largest city, Reavercreek (population 40,014). There are 103 houses located to the south and southwest and within 1,215 feet of the cemetery. The study is restricted to the 77 houses for which an arm's-length transaction of an improved lot could be identified. The oldest house in the sample was built in 1900. All but three houses have been constructed since 1950, with the newest built in 2005. Residential development reached the western and southern border of this cemetery in 1956, when the first two of twelve houses that abut the cemetery were built. Transactions included in the sample occurred in 1962-2008. There is no buffer zone between the residential development and this well-maintained cemetery, but only 18 of the sample houses have a full or partial view of the cemetery. Similar to the Bellbrook study area, house quality and condition in this area tend to improve with distance from the cemetery. Table 4 shows that the mean lot size in the Beavercreek area is the largest of the four study areas. Xenia Area The fourth cemetery is situated on 9.9 acres in the southwestern portion of Xenia, the county seat and the county's third-largest city (population 27,557). Two hundred houses, located north and east of the cemetery, are within 1,594 feet of the cemetery. The study is restricted to the 151 houses where an arm's-length transaction of the improved lot could be identified, 28 of which have a full or partial cemetery view. Similar to the Fairborn study area, there is little difference in house quality within this study area. Almost all the houses in this sample are single-story, tract houses constructed in 1956-1958; none has a basement. Although house quality and condition at the time sale could not be ascertained, almost all houses in this sample were rated average at the time of the study. The oldest house was built in 1951 and the newest in 2000. Transactions included in the sample occurred in 1967-2008. The maintenance condition of this cemetery can be generously described as moderate/average. There is no buffer zone between the residential development and this cemetery. The nominal transaction prices shown in Tables 2, 5, 4, and 5 are partially a function of the year in which the transactions occurred. Table 5 shows that the Xenia study area involves the lowest-valued houses of the four study areas. Correlation of Variables Table 6 contains the simple correlation of model variables for all four cemetery areas and shows that most of the explanatory variables are highly correlated with transaction price. There is high correlation among many of the independent variables (e.g., square footage, bathrooms, bedrooms, and basement). What is surprising is the significant correlation between distance from a cemetery (DISTANCE) and every other variable. The correlations indicate that house size increases with distance from the cemetery. Houses located farther from the cemetery tend to have more garage space, bathrooms, and bedrooms, but lot size tends to decrease with distance from the cemetery. The correlations also indicate that the farther a house is located from a cemetery in the sample, the greater the probability that the house has air conditioning and a basement. On the other hand, a significant simple correlation between whether a cemetery view is available from the house and the other explanatory variables does not exist. The appendix section of this article provides the correlation coefficients for the individual study areas. Methodology In studies of the impact of externalities on real property values, regression analysis is frequently referred to as hedonic regression. This well-known and often-used technique facilitates the effective unbundling of the implicit value attributable to the physical and location-specific characteristics of a property from the sale price. The methodology in this study has two basic parts. First, the data for all four study areas is combined and the following model is estimated to investigate whether housing prices are influenced by cemetery proximity: (17) [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (1) Page 5 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library 1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02... where: PRICE = the transaction price [alpha] = the intercept [beta] = the estimators SALEYR = a variable equal to the year in which the house sold e = the error term All the other independent variables are as defined in Table 1. Based on the results of previous studies, (18) a positive sign is expected on the estimator for SQFT, LOT, GAR, BATH, BED, AIR, and BASE, and a negative sign is expected for AGE. The expected sign for GAS is positive because it was the most affordable form of heat in the area over the study period and should be capitalized in house prices. Preliminary analysis reveals that three variables designed to detect seasonality in selling prices are highly insignificant and they were dropped from the model. The REG Procedure (19) was used to estimate Equation 1 with the COLLIN option specified. The results of the COLLIN option indicate a moderate amount of multicollinearity is present. (20) For the second part of the methodology in this article, Equation I is estimated separately for each cemetery. The estimate of the Fairborn data does not include AIR or GAS because each of the sample houses in this area has central air conditioning and gas heat. The estimate of the Xenia data does not include GAS or BASE because all houses in this area have gas heat and none has a basement. (21) Results The results of the present study are similar to the two previous cemetery proximity studies when, as was the case in the previous studies, all cemeteries are analyzed with a single estimate. Table 7 shows summarized estimation results of the full model; the data fits the model well. The F-value is highly significant and the independent variables explain 92.29% of the variation in the dependent variable. Seven of the ten control variables are significant at the 99% confidence level. Focusing on the two variables of interest, the estimators for both VIEW and DISTANCE are highly insignificant, indicating that neither a cemetery view nor distance from a cemetery has a significant effect on nearby house price. To investigate the possibility that the results may vary by cemetery, this study estimates Equation 1 separately for each area. The results for the Fairborn cemetery area are consistent with the full model results. Table 8 shows the summarized estimation results for the Fairborn cemetery area; the data fits the model well, the F-value is highly significant. The adjusted [R.sup.2] indicates that the model explains 78.14% of the variation in the dependent variable. This figure is low compared to the [R.sup.2] reported for the full model, but recall that AIR and GAS have been dropped from this model because they are constants. Five of the eight control variables are significant at the 99% confidence level. Regarding the variables of interest, the estimators for both VIEW and DISTANCE are highly insignificant in this estimation, indicating that no price effect can be attributed to cemetery proximity. A different result occurs when the analysis is limited to the Xenia cemetery area. Examination of the results, which are summarized in Table 9, shows that the data fits the model fairly well; the F-value is highly significant, and the model explains 70.11% of the variation in the dependent variable. This is the lowest adjusted [R.sup.2] of any of the estimates, but this estimate does not include BASE or GAS because each is constant. Only one of the control variables is significant at the 99% confidence level; two more are significant at the 90% level, and the sign of the estimator for each of these variables is in the anticipated direction. Recall that almost all the houses in this sample are nearly identical tract houses. It is interesting, therefore, that the estimation indicates only four factors are significantly related to house price: date when the house sold, age of the Page 6 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library 1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02... house when the sale occurred, garage size, and whether the house has a cemetery view. The estimator for VIEW is negative and significant at the 90% confidence level and indicates that houses with a cemetery view in this area sold, on average, at a discount of $6,291.89 compared to those without a cemetery view. For the mean-priced house in this sample, this represents a discount of 10.1% ($6,291.89/$62,531.30). The variable DISTANCE is not significant in this estimate. Table 10, where the estimation results for the Beavercreek cemetery area are presented, shows that the data fits the model well. The F-value is highly significant, and the adjusted [R.sup.2] indicates that the model explains 90.71% of the variation in the dependent variable. Four of the ten control variables are significant at the 99% confidence level, and three are significant at the 95% level. Focusing on the variables of interest, VIEW is insignificant, indicating no price effect can be attributed to this variable, but DISTANCE is significant at the 90% level. The positive estimator for DISTANCE indicates that transaction price in this area increased by $29.58, on average, for each additional foot the lot is removed from the cemetery. This result should occur if market participants systematically deem the negative factors associated with close cemetery proximity to dominate the positive factors, but this may not be the case here and there may be an alternative explanation. Recall that casual observation indicated that property quality and condition in this study area improved with distance from the cemetery, so DISTANCE may actually be serving as a proxy for quality and condition. If this explanation is correct, there is a cemetery proximity effect associated with distance, but it is occurring not because market participants judged the disadvantages of close proximity to the cemetery to outweigh the advantages; it occurred because the original homeowners and/ or developers/builders constructed better-quality houses farther from, rather than closer to, the cemetery. Table 11, where the estimation results of Equation 1 for the Bellbrook cemetery area are summarized, reveals that the data fits the model well. The F-value of 124.4 is highly significant and the adjusted [R.sup.2] indicates that the model explains 92.45% of the variation in the dependent variable. Four of the ten property characteristic variables are significant at the 99% confidence level and four are significant at the 95% level. The sign of each of the significant explanatory variables is in the expected direction, and each appears reasonable in amount. Both of the variables of interest are significant: VIEW at the 90% confidence level, and DISTANCE at the 95% level. The results indicate that buyers in this area value the park-like view. A cemetery view added $8,521.46 on average to the transaction price for houses with a cemetery view. For the mean priced house in this sample, this represents a premium of 8.8% ($8,521.46/$97,012.30). The estimator for DISTANCE indicates that residential property values increased by $8.10 for each foot the lot was removed from the cemetery. As was the case for the Beavercreek cemetery area, casual observation indicates that property quality and condition in this study area improve with distance from the cemetery; here again it is believed that DISTANCE is acting as a proxy for house quality and condition and the effect is occurring because the original homeowners and/or developers/builders constructed better quality houses farther from rather than closer to the cemetery. Conclusion The characteristics of cemeteries that may influence value are presented in this article and suggest that the influence of a particular cemetery on nearby residential properties is uncertain. To empirically test this issue, data from 575 sale transactions of houses in relatively close proximity to one of four cemeteries is subjected to regression analysis. In five iterations, transaction price is regressed against a battery of property characteristic variables to control for price differences. Transaction price is also regressed against two variables of interest, DISTANCE, specified as the shortest straight-line distance between the cemetery and the lot on which the subject house is located; and VIEW, specified as the ability to view the cemetery from the subject property. When all observations are tested in a single model, the results are consistent with the limited previous studies on this topic--no significant price effect attributable to cemetery proximity is discovered. When each cemetery is tested individually, however, the results vary. For two cemeteries, no price effect can be attributed to VIEW. For a third cemetery, the estimator for VIEW is a negative $6,291.89, but for a fourth cemetery, the estimator for VIEW is a Page 7 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library 1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02... positive $8,521.46. For the mean priced house in each sample, the former represents a 10.1% discount and the latter represents an 8.8% premium. The sign of the estimator in each of these two instances is intuitively appealing because the positive estimator is associated with a well-maintained cemetery, and the negative estimator is associated with a less well-maintained cemetery. The fact that the results vary by cemetery suggest the possibility that previous studies might have arrived at different conclusions if they had not grouped all cemeteries into a single model. The fact that VIEW is significant in two of the four samples investigated here suggests that previous models may have used the wrong criteria in testing for market effects due to cemetery proximity; VIEW may be more important than DISTANCE. DISTANCE is insignificant in two of the four study areas. In both of these cases, almost all sample houses are constructed within a relatively compact Lime frame and house quality and condition do not vary within the study area. In the other two samples, house construction took place over a protracted period of time and it is observed that property quality and condition tend to improve with distance from the cemetery. In these two cases, the estimator for DISTANCE is a positive $8.10 per foot in one case and $29.58 per foot in the other. The interpretations of these findings is that DISTANCE is actually serving as a proxy for house quality and condition in these two cases. This suggests that the effect occurred not because market participants judged the disadvantages of close proximity to outweigh the advantages, but because the original homeowners and/or developers/builders constructed better quality houses farther from rather than closer to the cemetery. Cemetery proximity should not be ignored by residential appraisers in arriving at a value estimate. It is possible cemetery proximity will have no significant impact on nearby residential property values, but as the present study indicates, it may. It is recommended, therefore, that appraisers test their local area to determine if cemetery proximity market effects are present. Unfortunately, data restrictions prevented the testing for another important market effect--time on market. Time on market is more likely to be influenced by cemetery proximity than price. Extensions of this research, therefore, could examine not only whether the results reported here apply in other markets, but also whether cemetery proximity impacts time on market. Appendix 1 Correlation Coefficients, Bellbrook Cemetery Area SQFT LOT AGE GAR BATH BED AIR PRICE .6178 .2025 .0435 .2391 .5543 .3430 .2152 <.0001 .0253 .6345 .0080 <.0001 .0001 .0173 SQFT .2461 .4490 .2019 .6604 .5693 .1973 .0063 <.0001 .0257 <.0001 <.0001 .0294 LOT .1509 .1023 .2059 .1103 .0593 .0971 .2623 .0229 .2264 .3465 AGE .0617 .3369 .2343 .0593 .4994 .0001 .0094 .5167 GAR .1426 .0246 .0842 .1172 .7875 .3566 BATH .3688 .2749 <.0001 .0022 BED .2042 .0240 AIR GAS BASE SALEYR VIEW GAS BASE SALEYR VIEW DISTANCE PRICE .0105 .4717 .7429 .2245 .09185 .9089 <.0001 <.0001 .0129 .3143 SQFT .1194 .4804 .1286 .1397 .0053 Page 8 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library 1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02... .1902 <.0001 .1582 .1248 .9540 LOT .0814 .0934 .0322 .1094 .0632 .3725 .3060 .7251 .2304 .4889 AGE .0943 .2233 .6431 .0645 .0324 .3013 .0134 <.0001 .4802 .7232 GAR .0192 .0587 .1094 .0466 .0961 .8335 .5210 .2305 .6104 .2926 BATH .2505 .6528 .1646 .1693 .1435 .0054 <.0001 .0701 .0622 .1149 BED .2121 .5087 .3405 .0007 .0996 .0190 <.0001 .7096 .9934 .2748 AIR .0915 .2207 .1002 .0061 .1261 .3163 .0146 .2721 .9465 .1664 GAS .3032 .0153 .1102 .0953 .0007 .8675 .2269 .2964 BASE .1730 .1406 .0829 .0567 .1225 .3640 SALEYR .2452 .1012 .0065 .2671 VIEW .5726 <.0001 Appendix 2 Correlation Coefficients, Fairborn Cemetery Area SQFT LOT AGE GAR BATH BED BASE PRICE .5566 .2761 .0213 .0631 .1459 .2932 .2108 <.0001 <.0001 .7410 .3261 .0226 <.0001 .0009 SQFT .1405 .1063 .1633 .4622 .4837 .0405 .0282 .0976 .0106 <.0001 <.0001 .5293 LOT .0981 .0231 .0321 .1013 .1146 .1263 .7192 .6179 .1145 .0740 AGE .0424 .0428 .1537 .2737 .5099 .5055 .0163 <.0001 GAR .0678 .0844 .1929 .2914 .1890 .0025 BATH .4953 .1882 <.0001 .0032 BED .2307 .4958 BASE SALEYR VIEW SALEYR VIEW DISTANCE PRICE .6351 .2542 .3577 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 SQFT .0225 .1259 .0680 .7261 .0495 .2904 LOT .0817 .0000 .0812 .2030 1.0000 .2963 AGE .3930 .2078 .3447 <.0001 .0011 <.0001 GAR .0477 .0992 .1043 .4582 .1221 .1042 BATH .1256 .0258 .0865 .0500 .6889 .1781 Page 9 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library 1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02... BED .0438 .0579 .0958 .4958 .3681 .1354 BASE .0581 .1626 .2320 .3659 .0110 .0001 SALEYR .1844 .3295 .0038 <.0001 VIEW .6128 <.0001 Appendix 3 Correlation Coefficients, Beavercreek Cemetery Area SQFT LOT AGE GAR BATH BED AIR PRICE .6499 .0129 .2980 .2327 .5016 .3282 .0915 <.0001 .9103 .0080 .0403 <.0001 .0033 .4256 SQFT .0771 .4830 .2926 .7569 .5234 .0340 .5018 <.0001 .0093 <.0001 <.0001 .7674 LOT .2233 .0316 .1669 .1417 .0711 .0494 .7837 .1441 .2159 .5363 AGE .2220 .4193 .2400 .1269 .0508 .0001 .0343 .2681 GAR .2458 .1039 .0894 .0301 .3653 .4363 BATH .5738 .0980 <.0001 .3935 BED AIR GAS BASE SALEYR VIEW GAS BASE SALEYR VIEW DISTANCE PRICE .0925 .1534 .6665 .1595 .5138 .4204 .1801 <.0001 .1632 <.0001 SQFT .0846 .1563 .1730 .1844 .4987 .4613 .1717 .1299 .1060 <.0001 LOT .0953 .0754 .0570 .2330 .1835 .4064 .5119 .6203 .0401 .1077 AGE .0288 .0100 .3942 .2202 .4523 .8027 .9308 .0004 .0527 <.0001 GAR .1683 .0202 .0145 .1725 .2218 .1409 .8604 .1309 .1309 .0509 BATH .2327 .1188 .2204 .2199 .4525 .0403 .3001 .0524 .0531 <.0001 BED .1798 .0090 .1372 .1164 .1944 .1151 .9378 .2310 .3103 .0881 AIR .4615 .3250 .2844 .0462 .1271 <.0001 .0037 .0116 .6879 .2675 GAS .3221 .0287 .0141 .0852 .0040 .8030 .9028 .4583 BASE .0333 .2056 .0754 .7720 .0709 .5116 SALEYR .0314 .1764 .7847 .1225 Page 10 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library 1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02... VIEW .7660 <.0001 Appendix 4 Correlation Coefficients, Xenia Cemetery Area SQFT LOT AGE GAR BATH BED AIR PRICE .1903 .0405 .6538 .0997 .0852 .2249 .1464 .0294 .6460 <.0001 .2571 .3332 .0098 .0951 SQFT .1116 .1258 .1111 .2690 .3242 .0241 .2045 .1522 .2065 .0019 .0002 .7845 LOT .1025 .0873 .1940 .0188 .0909 .2441 .3216 .0264 .8315 .3020 AGE .0908 .0618 .1167 .1098 .3024 .4828 .1845 .2119 GAR .1250 .0232 .0522 .1549 .7922 .5537 BATH .1634 .0113 .0621 .8981 BED .0299 .7346 AIR SALEYR VIEW SALEYR VIEW DISTANCE PRICE .8233 .1776 .2039 <.0001 .0425 .0195 SQFT .2039 .0150 .0234 .0195 .8651 .7910 LOT .1011 .3378 .2636 .2505 <.0001 .0024 AGE .8622 .0777 .0930 <.0001 .3777 .2904 GAR .0196 .1304 .1553 ,8241 .1377 .0765 BATH .0843 .1897 .1738 .3383 .0300 .0471 BED .2484 .0969 .0838 .0042 .2710 .3413 AIR .1612 .0113 .0433 .0658 .8976 .6233 SALEYR .1172 .2078 .1824 .0173 VIEW .6514 <.0001 Additional Reading Major, Christopher, and Kenneth M. Lusht. "Beach Proximity and the Distribution of Property Values in Shore Communities" The Appraisal Journal (Fall 2004): 333-338. Morancho, Aurelia Bengochea. "A Hedonic Valuation of Urban Green Areas." Landscape and Urban Planning (December 2005): 35-41. Web Connections Page 11 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library 1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02... Internet resources suggested by the Lum Library Funeral Assistant http://www.funeralassistant.com/ International Cemetery, Cremation, and Funeral Association http://www.iccfa.com/ Cemetery Records Online-Geneasearch http://geneasearch.com/cemeteries.htm Interment.net http://www.interment.net/ (1.) Gary Grudnitski and A. Quang Do, "Adjusting the Value of Houses Located on a Golf Course," The Appraisal Journal (July 1997): 261-266; and Gary Grudnitski, "Golf Course Communities: The Effect of Course Type on Housing Prices," The Appraisal Journal (April 2003): 145-149. (2.) Rachelle Rush and Thomas H. Bruggink, "The Value of Ocean Proximity on Barrier Island Houses," The Appraisal Journal (April 2000): 142-150. (3.) Robert A. Simons and Abdellaziz El Jaouhari, "The Effect of Freight Railroad Tracks and Train Activity on Residential Property Values," The Appraisal Journal (Summer 2004): 223-233. (4.) Sandy Bond and Ko-Kang Wang, "The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoods," The Appraisal Journal (Summer 2005): 256-277. (5.) Robert A. Simons, Kimberly Winson-Geideman, and Brian A. Mikelbank, "The Effects of an Oil Pipeline Rupture on Single-Family House Prices," The Appraisal Journal (October 2001): 410-418. (6.) Benoit Julien and Paul Lanoie, "The Effect of Noise Barriers on the Market Value of Adjacent Residential Properties," The Appraisal Journal (Fall 2008): 316-327. (7.) James E. Larsen, Kenneth J. Lowrey, and Joseph W. Coleman, "The Effect of Proximity to a Registered Sex Offender's Residence on Single-Family House Selling Price," The Appraisal Journal (July 2003): 253-265. (8.) Julia L. Hansen, Earl D. Benson, and Daniel A. Hagen, "Environmental Hazards and Residential Property Values: Evidence from a Major Pipeline Event," Land Economics (November 2006): 529-541. (9.) Benjamin Bolitzer and Noelwah R. Netusil, "The Impact of Open Spaces on Property Values in Portland, Oregon," Journal of Environmental Management (July 2000): 185-193; and Margot Lutzenhiser and Noelwah R. Netusil, "The Effect of Open Spaces on a Home's Sale Price," Contemporary Economic Policy (July 2001): 291-298. (10.) Dianne H. Kay, "Cemetery Relocation: Emerging Urban Land Development Issue," Journal of Urban Planning and Development (March 1998): 1-10. (11.) Alison L. Spongberg and Paul M. Becks, "Inorganic Soil Contamination from Cemetery Leachate," Water, Air, and Soil Pollution (January 2000): 313-327. (12.) Dario Vezzani, "Artificial Container-Breeding Mosquitoes and Cemeteries: A Perfect Match," Tropical Medicine & International Health (February 2007): 299-313. (13.) James E. Larsen and Joseph W. Coleman, "Psychologically Impacted Houses: Broker Disclosure Behavior and Perceived Market Effects in an Unregulated Environment," Journal of Real Estate Practice and Education (2001): 1-16. (14.) Bolitzer and Netusil. Page 12 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library 1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02... (15.) Lutzenhiser and Netusil. (16.) Bolitzer and Netusil, 188. (17.) One reviewer of this article suggested that in order to ensure that DISTANCE was not a proxy for some omitted variable that the correlation between the residuals (the actual dependent variable value minus the predicted dependent variable value) and DISTANCE be calculated for each model. We did so and in all cases the correlation was 0 with a p-value of 1. (18.) David M. Brasington, "Which Measure of School Quality Does the Housing Market Value?" Journal of Real Estate Research 18, no. 3 (3.999): 395-43.3; and Larsen, Lowrey, and Coleman. (19.) SAS Institute Incorporated, SAS OnlineDoc[R] 9.1.3, 2004, http://www.sas.com. (20.) Multicollinearity is the term used to describe the fact that two or more of the explanatory variables are correlated. It is present to some degree in all data. If it is severe it can result in estimates that are highly unreliable, although the estimators will have the smallest variance of all unbiased estimators. The results of the COLLIN option, which follows the approach of Belsy, Kuh, and Welsch, indicate multicollinearity is not severe in any of the databases examined here. See David A. Belsey, Edwin Kuh, and Roy E. Welsch, Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity (New York: John Wiley, 1980). (21.) Preliminary analysis demonstrated that both the log and linear functional form specifications provide similar results. Following the suggestion of Robert A. Yaffee's presentation, "Regression Analysis with SAS" (www.nyu.edu/its/socsci/Docs/SASREG.ppt), the linear form is selected as the one that best represents the true functional form of this data, and for expository expedience the linear model only is presented in the article. Because many studies that examine distance from an externality have found that externality effect degrades with distance, we followed the suggestion of a reviewer of this article and estimated Equation 1 with (1/distance) in place of distance. The adjusted [R.sup.2] for this estimation (0.9262) was nearly identical to the results presented here. The p-value of 0.4103 for (1/distance) indicates that (1/distance) does not improve the linear model. by James E. Larsen, PhD, and Joseph W. Coleman, PhD James E. Larsen, PhD, received his PhD from the University of Nebraska. He is professor of finance at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio. His research has been published in numerous journals, including The Appraisal Journal, Real Estate Practice and Education, Real Estate Research, and Real Estate Review.Contact: james.larsen@wright.edu Joseph W. Coleman, PhD, received his PhD from Arizona State University. He is professor of information systems and operations management at Wright State University. His primary teaching interests are in operations management and applied statistics. His research has been published in a variety of journals, including The Appraisal Journal, Real Estate Practice and Education, and Real Estate Review. Contact: joseph.coleman@wright.edu The authors are indebted to three anonymous reviewers whose comments on previous versions of this article were instrumental in improving it. Table 1 Definition of Variables PRICE Transaction price in nominal dollars SQFT Number of square feet of living space in house LOT Number of square feet in lot AGE Age of house in years GAR Number of square feet in garage BATH Number of bathrooms in house BED Number of bedrooms in house AIR Binary variable = 1 if house has central air conditioning, otherwise = 0 GAS Binary variable = 1 if house has gas heat, otherwise = 0 Page 13 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library 1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02... BASE Binary variable = 1 if house has full basement, = 0 VIEW Binary variable = 1 if full or partial view of the cemetery from house, otherwise = 0 DISTANCE Distance in feet between nearest borders of residential lot and cemetery Table 2 Property Characteristics, Bellbrook Cemetery Area Variable Mean St. Dev. Minimum Maximum PRICE 97,012.30 51,430.42 13,000 248,800 SQFT 1,407.95 407.26 900 2,844 LOT 13,426.75 5,720.96 8,976 47,840 AGE 27.41 15.61 0 55 GAR 361.63 164.22 0 924 BATH 1.67 0.55 1 3 BED 3.22 0.51 2 5 AIR 0.89 0.31 0 1 GAS 0.93 0.25 0 1 BASE 0.39 0.48 0 1 VIEW 0.11 0.28 0 1 DISTANCE 700.96 416.48 0 1,513 Table 3 Property Characteristics, Fairborn Cemetery Area Variable Mean St. Dev. Minimum Maximum PRICE 176,851.64 24,629.71 115,500 250,700 SQFT 1,883.70 389.09 1,197 3,044 LOT 10,392.75 1,808.92 7,930 16,348 AGE 2.01 3.025 0 12 GAR 444.81 56.71 340 840 BATH 2.33 0.35 1 3.5 BED 3.45 0.53 2 5 AIR 1.00 0.00 1 1 GAS 1.00 0.00 1 1 BASE 0.86 0.32 0 1 VIEW 0.14 0.30 0 1 DISTANCE 1,177.30 547.06 187 2,225 Table 4 Property Characteristics, Beavercreek Cemetery Area Variable Mean St. Dev, Minimum Maximum PRICE 124,802.60 71,412.69 16,000 322,800 SQFT 1,936.08 649.09 1,014 3,590 LOT 21,508.47 4,142.49 10,500 40,804 AGE 26.3 17.9 0 104 GAR 529.16 191.38 0 1,462 BATH 2.02 0.55 1 3.5 BED 3.33 0.52 2 5 AIR 0.70 0.46 0 1 GAS 0.48 0.50 0 1 BASE 0.46 0.46 0 1 VIEW 0.23 0.43 0 1 DISTANCE 621.77 394.05 0 1,215 Table 5 Property Characteristics, Xenia Cemetery Area Variable Mean St. Dev. Minimum Maximum PRICE 62,531.30 20,167.83 11,000 103,000 SQFT 984.68 174.69 864 1,893 LOT 8,044.39 1,699.52 6,900 20,732 AGE 40.88 10.48 1 51 GAR 338.93 242.29 0 900 BATH 1.07 0.25 1 2.5 BED 2.98 0.30 2 5 AIR 0.74 0.44 0 1 GAS 1.00 0.00 1 1 BASE 0.00 0.00 0 0 VIEW 0.17 0.34 0 1 DISTANCE 611.37 420.90 0 1,394 Table 6 Correlation Coefficientsfor Four Cemetery Areas SQFT LOT AGE GAR BATH BED AIR PRICE 0.7367 0.1029 0.6204 0.2932 0.7295 0.4130 0.2491 Page 14 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library 1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02... <.0001 0.0135 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 SQFT 0.3029 0.6093 0.3404 0.7797 0.5650 0.1605 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0001 LOT 0.0216 0.2331 0.1878 0.0978 0.1210 0.6050 <.0001 <.0001 0.0190 0.0037 AGE 0.2288 0.6934 0.3624 0.2822 0.6176 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 GAR 0.2976 0.0938 0.0373 <.0001 0.0245 0.3725 BATH 0.5283 0.2404 <.0001 <.0001 BED 0.1397 0.0008 AIR GAS 0.0514 0.2182 BASE SALEYR WEW GAS BASE SALEYR VIEW DISTANCE PRICE 0.0509 0.6487 0.6015 0.0431 0.3618 0.22 <.0001 <.0001 0.3026 <.0001 SQFT 0.1910 0.5373 0.1366 0.0172 0.2637 <.0001 <.0001 0.0010 0.6802 <.0001 LOT 0.4607 0.0897 0.1824 0.0398 0.1458 <.0001 0.0315 <.0001 0.3407 0.0005 AGE 0.0976 0.0806 0.0120 0.3896 0.0192 0.0534 0.7737 <.0001 GAR 0.2063 0.1360 0.0378 0.0674 0.1323 <.0001 0.0011 0.3655 0.1064 0.0015 BATH 0.1391 0.6869 0.2077 0.0423 0.3376 0.0008 <.0001 <.0001 0.3114 <.0001 BED 0.1059 0.4129 0.0619 0.0115 0.0948 0.0111 <.0001 0.1385 0.7832 0.0229 AIR 0.2722 0.3205 0.1125 0.0235 0.1376 <.0001 <.0001 0.0069 0.5742 0.0009 GAS 0.1473 0.0016 0.1275 0.0004 0.9696 0.0022 BASE 0.2203 0.0317 0.2223 <.0001 0.4481 <.0001 SALEYR 0.0701 0.2016 0.0931 <.0001 WEW 0.5542 <.0001 Table 7 Regression Analysis Results for Four Cemetery Areas Variable Parameter Estimate Standard Error Intercept -7,782,652 183,934 SQFT 37.09 2.37 LOT 1.53 0.17 AGE -1,427.81 68.28 GAR 13.75 4.63 BATH -3,891.26 2,306.94 BED 1,055.88 1,787.32 AIR -1,686.66 2,439.29 GAS 10,470 3,203.42 Page 15 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library 1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02... BASE 9,600.01 2,277.17 SALEYR 3,925.09 93.06 VIEW -1,156.23 2,320.52 DISTANCE -2.21 1.91 Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .9229 F-Value = 573.6 Pr > F < .0001 Variable t-Value Pr > t Intercept -42.31 <.0001 SQFT 15.65 <.0001 LOT 8.97 <.0001 AGE -20.91 <.0001 GAR 2.97 .0031 BATH -1.69 .0922 BED 0.59 .5549 AIR -0.69 .4896 GAS 3.27 .0011 BASE 4.22 <.0001 SALEYR 42.18 <.0001 VIEW -0.50 .6185 DISTANCE -1.16 .2459 Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .9229 F-Value = 573.6 Pr > F < .0001 n = 575 Table 8 Regression Analysis Results, Fairborn Cemetery Area Variable Parameter Estimate Standard Error Intercept -10,728,989 633,894 SQFT 33.59 2.40 LOT 1.58 0.42 AGE -1,153.96 337.23 BATH -3,104.85 2,765.77 BED 1,540.71 1,780.12 GAR 19.70 13.75 BASE 8,072.82 2,640.34 SALEYR 5,397.34 316.09 VIEW 1,229.34 2,446.68 DISTANCE 0.03 2.03 Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .7814 F-Value = 87.87 Pr > F < .0001 Variable t-Value Pr > t Intercept -16.93 <.0001 SQFT 14.01 <.0001 LOT 3.75 .0002 AGE -3.42 .0007 BATH -1.12 .2628 BED 0.87 .3877 GAR 1.43 .1533 BASE 3.06 .0025 SALEYR 17.08 <.0001 VIEW 0.50 .6158 DISTANCE 0.01 .9888 Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .7814 F-Value = 87.87 Pr > F < .0001 n = 244 Table 9 Regression Analysis Results, Xenia Cemetery Area Variable Parameter Estimate Standard Error Intercept -4,152,393 452,801 SQFT -3.25 6.29 LOT 0.74 0.64 AGE -366.21 195.57 GAR 7.94 4.28 BATH -1,366.94 4,223.16 BED -336.44 3,666.72 AIR 112.24 2,302.61 SALEYR 2,116.19 228.70 VIEW -6,291.89 3,354.84 DISTANCE -3.33 3.25 Page 16 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library 1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02... Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .7011 F-Value = 29.58 Pr > F < .0001 Variable t-Value Pr > t Intercept -9.17 <.0001 SQFT -0.52 .6066 LOT 1.17 .2460 AGE -1.87 .0636 GAR 1.86 .0660 BATH -0.32 .7467 BED -0.09 .9270 AIR 0.05 .9612 SALEYR 9.25 <.0001 VIEW -1.88 .0632 DISTANCE -1.02 .3085 Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .7011 F-Value = 29.58 Pr > F < .0001 n = 131 Table 10 Regression Analysis Results, Beavercreek Cemetery Area Variable Parameter Estimate Standard Error Intercept -10,760,738 635,750 SQFT 34.50 7.12 LOT 1.46 0.69 AGE -2,081.68 249.97 GAR 33.98 14.80 BATH -26,308 -8,562.62 BED 6,071.35 6,545.21 AIR 7,279 7,409.71 GAS 10,804 6,728.52 BASE 17,265 7,008.54 SALEYR 5,424.09 326.15 VIEW 15,765 12,229 DISTANCE 29.58 15.43 Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .9071 F-Value = 63.68 Pr > F < .0001 Variable t-Value Pr > t Intercept -16.93 <.0001 SQFT 4.85 <.0001 LOT 2.12 .0376 AGE -8.33 <.0001 GAR 2.30 .0250 BATH -3.07 .0031 BED 0.93 .3570 AIR 0.98 .3296 GAS 1.61 .1132 BASE 2.46 .0164 SALEYR 16.63 <.0001 VIEW 1.29 .2019 DISTANCE 1.92 .0596 Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .9071 F-Value = 63.68 Pr > F < .0001 n = 78 Table 11 Regression Analysis Results, Bellbrook Cemetery Area Variable Parameter Estimate Standard Error Intercept -7,854,904 350,615 SQFT 18.38 5.69 LOT 0.18 0.24 AGE -1,518.02 159.38 GAR 21.51 8.41 BATH 8,567.14 3,965.23 BED 7,240.64 3,471.40 AIR 2,980.84 4,431.78 GAS 21,956 5,634.77 BASE 8,092.16 3,985.52 SALEYR 3,953.47 179.42 VIEW 8,521.46 4,797.33 DIS TANCE 8.10 4.07 Page 17 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library 1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02... Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .9245 F-Value = 124.40 Pr > F< .0001 Variable t-Value Pr > t Intercept -22.40 <.0001 SQFT 3.23 .0016 LOT 0.74 .4587 AGE -9.52 <.0001 GAR 2.56 .0119 BATH 2.16 .0329 BED 2.09 .0393 AIR 0.67 .5026 GAS 3.90 .0002 BASE 2.03 .0448 SALEYR 22.03 <.0001 VIEW 1.78 .0785 DIS TANCE 1.99 .0489 Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .9245 F-Value = 124.40 Pr > F< .0001 n = 122 COPYRIGHT 2010 The Appraisal Institute No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder. Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. Please bookmark with social media, your votes are noticed and appreciated: 1 Reader ratings: 5 [1 vote(s)] You can rate this article by selecting 1 to 5 stars on the left. Reader Opinion Title: Comment: Submit Article Details Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback Author:Larsen, James E.; Coleman, Joseph W. 0LikeLikeShareShare Page 18 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library 1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02... Publication:Appraisal Journal Geographic Code: 1USA Date:Jan 1, 2010 Words: 8455 Previous Article:Zillow's estimates of single-family housing values. Next Article:Water market trends: transactions, quantities, and prices. Topics:Cemeteries Economic aspects Evaluation Economic policy Externalities (Economics) Housing developers Housing, Single family Prices and rates Land development Real estate appraisal Real estate appraisers Real estate development Real property Valuation Regression analysis Usage Single family housing Prices and rates Beautiful Grave Markers We Design & Create A Wide Array of Custom Headstones & Grave Markers Page 19 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library 1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02... The Free Library > Business and Industry > Business > Appraisal Journal > January 1, 2010 The Free Library > Business and Industry > Real estate industry > Appraisal Journal > January 1, 2010 The Free Library > Date > 2010 > January > 1 > Appraisal Journal Publications by Name Publications by Date Authors Literature A-D E-O P-T U-Z before 1995 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009 2010- ABCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZ ABCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZ Terms of use | Copyright © 2015 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters Page 20 of 20Cemetery proximity and single-family house price. - Free Online Library 1/12/2015http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cemetery+proximity+and+single-family+house+price.-a02... INFORMATION M EMO Cemetery Regulations Learn about the legal requirements and issues associated with municipal cemetery establishment, maintenance, and care. Contains links to LMC model ordinances establishing a city cemetery and regulating its maintenance and use, establishing a permanent care and improvement fund, and a cemetery lot agreement. RELEVANT LINKS: I. Types of cemeteries There are three types of cemeteries in Minnesota. The first are private cemeteries, which restrict burial to a certain group of people, such as a fraternal organization or a particular religious group. The second type is city-owned cemeteries, which are often referred to as municipal cemeteries. Municipal cemeteries are public cemeteries because lots are sold without restriction. The third type is public cemetery associations. Public cemetery associations are privately owned, but lot sales are open to the public without restriction. Although municipal cemeteries are separate from public cemetery associations, background information on public cemetery associations can be helpful in regulating cemeteries and any transfer of cemetery ownership between a city and a public cemetery association. This memo discusses legal requirements and issues associated with municipal cemetery establishment, maintenance, and care. Public cemetery associations are briefly discussed as they relate to municipal cemeteries. II. Municipal cemeteries Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 9. Statutory cities have the express authority to establish and maintain cemeteries. A city may acquire a cemetery through purchase, gift, condemnation, or devise of land. Devise is a gift given through a will. A city may provide funds for the cemetery’s upkeep including its layout, enclosures, and ornaments on the grounds. The city may also sell and convey the lots to members of the public. Additionally, a city has the authority to regulate cemeteries and the disposal of the dead by ordinance. A. Land purchase Minn. Stat. § 412.211. Minn. Stat. § 465.01. A.G. Op. 870j (June 2, 1959). Statutory cities have express authority to purchase property for a city purpose, such as a cemetery. While most municipal cemeteries lie within the boundaries of the city, state statute allows cities to acquire real property outside city limits for municipal purposes. This general grant of power is likely broad enough to allow cities to establish a cemetery outside of its boundaries as long as it will be used for burial of city residents. 145 University Ave. West www.lmc.org 3/23/2015 Saint Paul, MN 55103-2044 (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 © 2015 All Rights Reserved This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 412.211. Minn. Stat. § 306.025, subd. 1. A.G. Op. 870j (June 2, 1959). Additionally, cities are authorized to accept the transfer of an existing public cemetery located either inside or outside city limits. 1. Eminent domain Minn. Stat. § 465.01. Minn. Stat. ch. 117. Handbook, Chapter 14, Section V-C, Eminent domain. All cities have the authority to take (or condemn) private property for public use as long as they pay the landowner reasonable compensation. Essentially, this is a way to require that an owner sell his or her land to a city. This procedure requires a formal court action, and a city must pay an owner for the value of the land, or the damages to the land if the city is taking only part of the private property for a public purpose, such as an easement. Occasionally, a city may desire to expand its municipal cemetery but cannot come to an agreement with the neighboring property owners. In such cases, the power of eminent domain may be used. However, before using this power, the city must establish that the addition is required because of public necessity, propriety, and convenience. B. Funding cemeteries Minn. Stat. § 410.01. Minn. Stat. § 471.84. Statutory cities may appropriate funds to maintain a cemetery the city owns. Additionally, any statutory city or any city of the fourth class (population of no more than 10,000) is authorized to appropriate up to $10,000 per year to any other public or private cemetery. The cemetery does not have to be located within the city limits, but it must allow burials from any city without restriction. C. Joint operation and maintenance Minn. Stat. § 471.59, subd. 1. Handbook, Chapter 17. LMC information memo, Combining Governmental Services: Issues to Consider. The Joint Powers Act authorizes cities to cooperatively exercise any powers common to the participating units of government. In addition, local governments (such as counties and cities) may enter into agreements whereby one entity will exercise power for both governments. For example, a city and a county may enter into a joint powers agreement for operation of a cemetery where both governments engage in operation and maintenance through that joint powers entity. In exercising such powers, local governments are not necessarily confined to their territorial limits. 1. City-town and city-city joint maintenance Minn. Stat. § 471.24. In addition to the joint powers agreement, cities and towns may enter into a joint agreement for maintenance of a cemetery. If a city or town owns an established cemetery, either within city limits or outside, it may enter into a mutual agreement with neighboring towns or cities for the maintenance of the cemetery. In order to enter into a joint agreement: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 2 RELEVANT LINKS: • The cities or towns must have contiguous borders. • Each entity must have an estimated market value not less than $2,000,000. • The cemetery must be open for burial of residents from all municipalities. Minn. Stat. § 471.24. Once the municipalities have established a joint agreement for maintenance, each may appropriate up to $10,000 per year toward upkeep of the cemetery. The council or governing board may also levy a tax to generate funds for maintenance. D. Cemetery board A.G. Op. 870a (Dec. 31, 1959). The city council may appoint a cemetery board and delegate ministerial power to it. However, the city council must retain complete discretionary control of the cemetery. Handbook, Chapter 6. The courts have not explicitly described the meaning of discretionary administrative power. They have, however, provided several rules that offer some basis for distinguishing which powers the council can delegate. Johnson v. State, 553 N.W.2d 40 (Minn. 1996). Discretionary powers or functions are those that involve the exercise of judgment. Ministerial functions are absolute, fixed, and certain so that no judgment is necessary in fulfilling them. For example, in exercising ministerial power, the cemetery board may advise the city council on setting lot prices for the cemetery. Yet, it is the city council that has the discretionary authority to actually set the lot fees. E. Recordkeeping Minn. Stat. § 15.17. While there appears to be no specific statutory recordkeeping requirement for municipal cemeteries, the city is required to keep full and accurate records of its official activities. Therefore, if a city owns a cemetery, it must keep current and accurate records. Specifically, a burial register, information on each person buried or interred in the cemetery, and a cemetery map are important records to maintain. 1. Burial register The specific information for each individual buried in the cemetery is not prescribed in statute for municipal cemeteries. However, public cemetery associations are specifically required to record certain information on each person buried or interred in the cemetery. Although the requirements do not apply to municipal cemeteries, such requirements may be a helpful guide for cities. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 3 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 306.03. For instance, cemetery associations must include the following information for each person buried or interred in the cemetery: • Date of burial, entombment, or cremation. • Name, date of birth, sex, nativity, and cause of death. Minn. Stat. § 306.03. The information should come from a reliable source to ensure it is accurate. Public cemetery associations are required to obtain the information from friends, the attending physician, or the undertaker in charge. In the case of a pauper, stranger, or criminal, the information may come from the public official directing the burial. While cities are not required to obtain information from specific sources, it could be helpful to establish from whom information should come to ensure the information is correct. Minn. Stat. § 13.03. General Records Retention Schedule. Minn. Stat. § 138.17. For municipal cemeteries, the burial record is government data and is classified as public data under the Minnesota Data Practices Act. This means the burial record must be accessible to the public for inspection. If someone requests to see the burial record or wants a copy of it, the city must produce the record in accordance with the Minnesota Data Practices Act. Additionally, under the Minnesota Records Retention law, the retention period for the burial record is permanent, which means that burial records may never be destroyed. 2. Cemetery map Minn. Stat. § 15.17. In order to maintain an accurate record of the city’s actions regarding the cemetery, a map of the cemetery land is necessary. Although cities are not technically required to maintain a map, for practical purposes the cemetery map is necessary for lot sales, burials, and future planning for cemetery improvements. Consequently, it would be prudent to maintain a map that illustrates the cemetery land and how the land is divided into lots, including all alleys, roads, and walks. If new land is either donated or purchased, the city would update the map by having the cemetery surveyed. III. Public cemetery association Minn. Stat. § 306.02. Minnesota Association of Cemeteries. Cities are not authorized to form public cemetery associations and are not considered a public cemetery association. However, there are a few reasons cities may need to be familiar with public cemetery association laws. First, state statute provides little guidance for the operation of a municipal cemetery; however, there are several statutes governing public cemetery associations. In some cases, these statutes may serve as a helpful guide for cities. Second, a city may transfer its cemetery ownership to a public cemetery association, or the association may transfer its cemetery ownership to a city. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 4 RELEVANT LINKS: Third, cities may contract with a public cemetery association to operate or maintain a municipal cemetery. In all of these instances, a basic understanding of public cemetery associations may be useful. A. Association incorporation Minn. Stat. § 306.01. A public cemetery association may be formed to secure, hold, or sell land or lots used exclusively for the purpose of a public cemetery. Public cemetery associations established after March 1, 1906, must organize and follow state statutes. Minn. Stat. § 306.02, subd. 1. To establish a public cemetery association, three or more persons, who become the trustees of the association, must initiate incorporation. The trustees must also verify the certificate or articles of incorporation. The certificate of incorporation must be recorded with the county recorder’s office of the county where the cemetery is located. Upon filing, the association is a corporation. B. Powers of public cemetery association A public cemetery association has many powers that enable it to manage its operations and grounds. 1. Acquisition of land by purchase or gift Minn. Stat. § 306.02, subd. 1(2). Once incorporated, a public cemetery association may acquire and manage all real and personal property necessary for the establishment, care, and management of a cemetery as well as the operation of a crematorium on cemetery grounds. Minn. Stat. § 306.05. An association may purchase or receive as a gift up to 300 acres of land within the county of the cemetery or an adjoining county. The land must be used exclusively for burial, cremation, or related purposes. Minn. Stat. § 306.05. Minn. Stat. § 306.09. Any land must be surveyed and divided into lots of a size determined by the trustees. Avenues, alleys, and walks must also be surveyed, as necessary. A map of the survey must be filed with the county recorder of the county where the cemetery is located. a. Gifts to cemetery association Minn. Stat. § 306.10. An association may accept a gift of real or personal property to maintain a monument or to keep or improve cemetery grounds. If an association accepts a gift with such conditions, the funds must always be devoted to these uses. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 5 RELEVANT LINKS: 2. Eminent domain Minn. Stat. § 306.05. In cases when a cemetery association needs to expand but cannot come to an agreement with adjacent property owners, it may use the power of eminent domain. However, along with consideration of the cemetery boundaries, the association must establish that there is a public necessity, propriety, and convenience that require the addition before using this power. 3. Sale of cemetery lots or property Minn. Stat. § 306.09. Trustees may sell or convey designated cemetery lots once the association’s survey map is filed with the county recorder. The trustees may create terms, conditions, or restrictions on sales and conveyance as they deem appropriate. The terms must be listed on the lot agreement. Minn. Stat. § 306.09. Every conveyance must be expressly for burial purposes and be in the corporate name of the association and signed by its president or vice president and by its treasurer or secretary. Minn. Stat. § 306.10. Section IV, Permanent care and improvement funds. A public cemetery association may sell or convey real or personal property that is not needed for cemetery purposes. The proceeds from lot sales may be invested in a permanent care and improvement fund, or applied solely to the payment of debts incurred in purchasing the cemetery grounds and property, fencing, improvement, or beautification of the cemetery. C. Tax-exempt status Minn. Stat. § 306.14, subd. 1. Minn. Const. art. X, § 1. State v. Lakewood Cemetery Ass’n, 101 N.W. 161 (Minn. 1904). Grand View Park Cemetery Ass’n v. City of Edina, 257 N.W.2d 329 (Minn. 1977). City of New Hope v. Catholic Cemeteries, 467 N.W.2d 336 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). The property of a public cemetery association is exempt from all taxes and special assessments. This tax-exempt status also applies to land the cemetery owns but is not yet actively using for burial. As long as the land will presumably be used in the future for burial, it is not subject to taxes or special assessments. It may not be sold against an association or any lot owner. Furthermore, no road may be constructed through a cemetery or any part of its lands without the consent of the trustees. 1. Exception to special-assessment exemption Minn. Stat. § 306.14, subd. 2. Cemetery associations are generally exempt from special assessments. However, if at least part of the purpose for forming the association is to provide monetary gain for its shareholders and members and it pays dividends or some other monetary remuneration either directly or indirectly to shareholders and members, it is not exempt from special assessments. Most cemeteries are nonprofit organizations and would be exempt from special assessments. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 6 RELEVANT LINKS: However, there are some private cemeteries that may provide some type of monetary payment to members or shareholders and, thus, would not be exempt from special assessments to cemetery property. D. Disinterment and reinterment Minn. Stat. § 306.155, subds. 1, 3. In the rare situation where an operator of a cemetery is informed or becomes aware that it has interred or permitted the interment of a body or remains in the wrong burial space, the cemetery must disinter the burial container wrongfully interred, identify the burial container, and reinter it in the proper burial space. The only exception is if the interested parties have agreed otherwise in writing. The cemetery is responsible for all costs of the disinterment and reinterment. The cemetery must give reasonable notice, in advance of the disinterment, to the person or persons legally entitled to control the body or remains of the deceased person and, if requested, the owner of the burial space. Minn. Stat. § 149A.96, subd. 1. Minn. Stat. § 149A.96, subd. 7. Minn. Stat. § 149A.96, subd. 5. Disinterment and reinterment may only occur with (1) the written authorization of the person or persons legally entitled to control the body or remains and (2) a disinterment-reinterment permit properly issued by the commissioner or a licensed mortician. The cemetery where the body or remains were originally interred must retain a copy of the disinterment- reinterment permit, the authorization to disinter, and, if applicable, the court order showing reasonable cause to disinter. Until the body or remains are reinterred, the original permit and other documentation must be in the possession of the person in physical or legal custody of the body or remains, or attached to the transportation container which holds the body or remains. At the time of reinterment, the permit and other documentation must be filed according to the laws, rules, or regulations of the state or country where reinterment occurs. Minn. Stat. § 149A.96, subd. 3. Minn. Stat. § 149A.80, subd. 2. A disinterment-reinterment permit is not required if the disinterment and reinterment is within the same dedicated cemetery. Under these circumstances, the authorities in charge of the cemetery may disinter and reinter a body or remains within the same dedicated cemetery upon receipt of the written and notarized authorization of the person or persons with the right to control the disposition. Minn. Stat. § 306.155, subd. 2. At the disinterment and reinterment, the cemetery must permit the person or persons legally entitled to control the body or remains and, if requested, the owner of the burial space to witness the disinterment and reinterment. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 7 RELEVANT LINKS: IV. Permanent care and improvement fund The purpose of a permanent care and improvement fund is to provide a means for continual care and improvement of a cemetery. Portions of the sale of burial space are directed to the fund, the interest from which is used to maintain the cemetery. There is no statutory authority to force current lot owners to contribute to the permanent care and improvement fund if the lot was purchased prior to the establishment of the fund. However, some cemeteries accept voluntary contributions to the fund from such lot owners. A. Municipal cemeteries Minn. Stat. § 306.41(b). Minn. Stat. ch. 50. Minn. Stat. § 306.44, subd. 1. The city council may establish a permanent care and improvement fund, by a unanimous vote, to be deposited or invested in the same securities in which savings banks are allowed to invest. While adoption of a resolution may be sufficient, an ordinance may be better given the perpetual nature of a cemetery permanent care and improvement fund. Minn. Stat. § 306.41(b). However, in order to establish the fund, the cemetery must be at least one- half acre in area, and the plat must be on file with the county recorder. Minn. Stat. § 306.41(a). The principal of the fund may not be spent or dispersed. The interest accrued from the fund may be spent, but only for the care, maintenance, and improvement of the cemetery. The permanent care and improvement fund must not exceed $25,000 per acre. 1. Payments to the fund Minn. Stat. § 306.42. Minn. Stat. § 306.44, subd. 1(a). The council may stipulate that any portion of a cemetery lot sale must be deposited as a part of the permanent care and improvement fund, and that the interest accruing from the amount set aside from the lot be used by the board or municipality to care for and beautify the lot. Deposits to the fund must be made on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1. 2. Gifts and donations LMC Model Resolution Accepting Donations. Minn. Stat. § 465.03. Minn. Stat. § 306.43. The city council may, by resolution, accept donations or gifts of money to the permanent care and improvement fund to be used for the purpose specified by the donor. This may include care of a specific lot or general care of the cemetery. If the cemetery lacks funds for the general care of the cemetery, the council or board may use one-fifth of the annual income from any particular lot for general care. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 8 RELEVANT LINKS: 3. Investment of permanent care and improvement fund Minn. Stat. § 306.44, subd. 1(a), (c). Minn. Stat. ch. 50. The city council may vote to invest the permanent care and improvement fund in the same securities in which savings banks are allowed to invest. The funds must be invested quarterly on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1. Minn. Stat. § 306.44, subd. 1(f). LMCIT Risk Management Information: Bond Coverage. The city council must designate some of its members to handle those funds. The designated persons must be bonded by the city. The bond must be at least equal to the total amount of the fund at the time of posting the bond, conditioned upon the faithful discharge of the trust. The bond must be renewed in the amount of the new fund balance on July 1 of each even- numbered year. Minn. Stat. § 306.44, subds. 1(c), 2. The principal of the fund may not be used; only the interest from the fund may be spent or dispersed. Any interest in excess of $100 that is unused for one year, after becoming available for care, maintenance, or improvement, must be returned to the fund and become a part of the principal. 4. County cemetery fund Minn. Stat. § 306.54. Minn. Stat. § 306.44, subd. 1(a), (b). LMC Model Ordinance Establishing a Permanent Care and Improvement Fund. For cities in counties under 50,000 in population, the city council may deposit the money belonging to the permanent care and improvement fund into the county treasury. The money must be deposited quarterly on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1. Minn. Stat. § 306.44, subd. 1(e). At the time of deposit, the council must file a statement indicating any particular gifts or donations set aside for a specific lot. For each instance, the statement must include the name of the lot owner, name of the donor, and a description of the lot to which the income from the particular amount of the permanent funds is applicable. Minn. Stat. § 306.45. The aggregated funds of all the cemeteries in the county that deposit their permanent care and improvement funds with the county constitute the county cemetery fund. This fund is managed and invested by the county commissioners and deposited by the county treasurer. Interest on the fund is due and payable on or about February 1. a. Investment of county cemetery fund Minn. Stat. § 306.48. Upon petition of at least two-thirds of the city councils or governing boards of cemeteries participating in the county cemetery fund and approval of the county attorney, the county commissioners must invest all or part of the county cemetery fund in the same kinds of bonds and securities in which the state permanent school fund may be invested. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 9 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 306.48. The law as it exists at the time any money is received into this fund controls the investment of the fund, and no subsequent amendment of the law authorizes the investment of any fund differently or in any other class of securities. Minn. Stat. § 306.48. Bonds or other securities in which the fund is invested remain with the county treasurer, and the bond is the security for the proper care of the bonds or other securities and the payment of interest received. b. Apportionment and payment of interest from county cemetery fund Minn. Stat. § 306.44, subds. 1(c), 2. The principal of the permanent care and improvement fund may not be used; only the interest on the fund is available for use. Additionally, a cemetery must use the interest during the year in which it is received or it will be returned as part of the principal of the permanent care and improvement fund. Minn. Stat. § 306.50. Minn. Stat. § 306.44, subds. 1(c), 2. On or before February 1 of each year, the clerk or secretary of the board of directors of each cemetery must file a report with the county auditor, showing in detail the amount of interest expended that it received from the county cemetery fund. Unused interest, in excess of $100, must be re- deposited in the county cemetery fund and added to the principal of the permanent fund credited to the cemetery. Minn. Stat. § 306.51. The county auditor apportions the interest payments on or about March 1 to each cemetery participating in the county cemetery fund in proportion to the amount of each cemetery’s permanent fund. Funds deposited to the county cemetery fund just before the close of the year, on which no interest has collected, are not considered part of the permanent fund for that apportionment. Minn. Stat. § 306.52. Immediately after apportionment, the county auditor must report to the cemetery secretary the amount of interest due to the cemetery, along with a statement of the total amount of cemetery funds received by the county treasurer during the preceding year, closing on January 1, and a statement of the amount of the cemetery’s permanent care and improvement fund. Minn. Stat. § 306.53. On or after March 1, if the council or cemetery board has made its report and deposited any excess interest, the county treasurer must pay to the treasurer of the municipality or the cemetery board its apportioned share of the interest from the county cemetery fund. Minn. Stat. § 306.51. If the legal existence of any religious corporation or association has ended during the year, the interest due is paid to the municipality where the cemetery is located. The city must use this money for care, maintenance, or improvement of the cemetery. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 10 RELEVANT LINKS: 5. Withdrawal and transfer of funds between depository and investments Minn. Stat. § 306.44, subd. 1(d). A city or cemetery association may also choose to deposit a portion of its permanent care fund into the county cemetery fund and invest the other portion. Funds from either the investments or the county cemetery fund may be withdrawn and transferred to the other by resolution. The county treasurer must return any money deposited into the county cemetery fund that the board, by resolution, withdraws. B. Public cemetery associations Minn. Stat. §§ 306.31-.39. Minn. Stat. §§ 306.76-.79. Minn. Stat. § 306.54. Minn. Stat. § 306.80. Minn. Stat. § 306.40. Public cemetery associations are permitted and sometimes required to establish a permanent care and improvement fund. The population size of the county where a public cemetery association is located determines whether or not establishing a permanent care and improvement fund is optional or required. State statutes also establish requirements for investment and reporting on the fund. V. Regulating cemeteries There are no general statutory provisions regulating the location, size, or general operation of municipal cemeteries. Minn. Stat. § 412.221. LMC Model Ordinance Regulating the Maintenance and Use of a Municipal Cemetery. State ex rel. City of St. Paul v. District Court of Ramsey County, 131 N.W. 327 (Minn. 1911). State ex rel. Oak Hill Cemetery Ass’n v. Harrington, 209 N.W. 6 (Minn. 1926). Clifton v. E. Ridgelawn Cemetery, 4 A.2d 79 (N.J. 1939). Foster v. Mayor of Beverly, 53 N.E.2d 693 (Mass. 1944). Grand View Park Cemetery Ass’n v. City of Edina, 257 N.W.2d 329 (Minn. 1977). Laurel Hill Cemetery v. City and County of San Francisco, 216 U.S. 358 (1910). Union Cemetery Ass’n. v. Kansas City, 161 S.W. 261 (Mo. 1913). However, charter and statutory provisions relating to health and burial of the dead are generally broad enough to permit the enactment and enforcement of police-power measures regulating or prohibiting burial of the dead, establishing of new cemeteries, enlarging existing cemeteries, establishing future interments, and requiring removal of bodies from existing cemeteries. The location and maintenance of cemeteries may also be regulated by zoning and nuisance ordinances. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 11 RELEVANT LINKS: VI. Cemetery rules and regulations Scott v. Lakewood Cemetery Ass’n, 208 N.W. 811 (Minn. 1926). “‘Choices’: Information on the Regulations and Requirements of the Final Disposition of a Dead Human Body in Minnesota,” Minnesota Department of Health (January 2011), for ideas about what types of rules cemeteries can impose. A municipal cemetery or a public cemetery association may establish rules and regulations that provide for the improvement, decoration, and care of lots. However, the rules must be reasonable. Scott v. Lakewood Cemetery Ass’n, 208 N.W. 811 (Minn. 1926). There is no general definition of what is considered “reasonable;” it depends on the facts of each situation. However, the courts have found rules that do not apply uniformly to all owners are unreasonable. Other rules considered unreasonable by the courts include: Brown v. Hill, 119 N.E. 977 (Ill. 1918). LMC Model Ordinance Regulating the Maintenance and Use of a Municipal Cemetery. • Rules that require lot owners to use cemetery staff for decorating their lot instead of a competent person of their choosing. • Rules that could cause monuments, markers, or cornerstones of lots that are in reasonably good condition, to be removed or changed without permission of the owners merely for the purpose of beautifying the cemetery. • Re-platting the cemetery in a way that would change the size of the original lot. A municipal cemetery may set out such regulations by resolution, ordinance, or policy. However, only an ordinance is ultimately enforceable and, therefore, may be more desirable. VII. Cemetery lot agreements and lot owner rights A. Cemetery lot agreements Brown v. Hill, 119 N.E. 977 (Ill. 1918). Anderson v. Acheson, 110 N.W. 335 (Iowa 1907). Rowley v. Laingsburg Cemetery Ass’n, 184 N.W. 480 (Mich. 1921). Erickson v. Sunset Memorial Park Ass’n, 108 N.W.2d 434 (Minn. 1961). Nothing exists in state law that explicitly provides what a cemetery lot owner’s interest is, and Minnesota courts have not resolved the issues. However, courts in Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan have adopted the general rule that the owner possesses only the right of burial in the lot, not absolute title to the land. Courts in Minnesota may agree with these decisions. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 12 RELEVANT LINKS: LMC Model Municipal Cemetery Lot Agreement. Since purchasing a cemetery lot is not absolute title to the land, it is sometimes designated as an easement, privilege, or license. Instead of issuing a traditional cemetery lot deed, cities may want to consider issuing a cemetery lot agreement. A cemetery lot agreement is a license that restricts use of the lot to burial. A deed could connote absolute title to the land and could potentially be troublesome for a city if challenged in court. 1. Cemetery lot transfers and sales Minn. Stat. § 306.15. Minn. Stat. § 306.15(e). The original cemetery lot owner, or his or her heir, may sell or convey his or her unused lot to be used for burial purposes to the cemetery or to another person. An agreement of sale or transfer must be filed with the cemetery. The lot sale or transfer agreement must transfer the lot back to the cemetery. In the case of a sale or transfer to another person, the agreement must also request the cemetery issue a new conveyance of the lot directly to the purchaser. The agreement must also include the purchase price of the lot, which may not exceed the price the cemetery would charge for a similar lot. The agreement must be signed and acknowledged by the lot owner and spouse, if any, and the proposed purchaser. A cemetery may charge a transfer and service fee up to $15 to be paid at the time of filing the agreement. B. Lot owner rights Minn. Stat. § 307.08, subd. 2. Although the lot owner’s right to the lot is only an easement, privilege, or license, an owner is able to sue cemetery owners or strangers for disturbing the lot without consent while the lot is used as a cemetery. Consequently, lot owners have rights against invasion by trespassers or by the cemetery itself. VIII. Merger and transfers of cemeteries Minn. Stat. § 306.027. Mergers between cemeteries of all distinctions, including those owned by a cemetery association or corporation, a municipality, a religious corporation, or of a privately-owned cemetery, are permitted. The terms of the merger are set by the cemeteries’ governing bodies, board of trustees, or owner. The surviving entity is subject to the laws that apply to that particular type of cemetery ownership. Minn. Stat. § 306.027. A merger cannot impair the rights of any third parties, such as lot owners. After the merger, lot owners of the former cemeteries are entitled to the same rights and privileges concerning their lots that were accorded to them under the previous ownership. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 13 RELEVANT LINKS: A. Transfers to a public cemetery association Minn. Stat. § 306.02, subd. 2. Ownership of municipal cemetery land may be transferred by deed, with or without conditions, to a public cemetery association. The transfer agreement should be drafted by the city attorney. As a part of the transaction, the city may enter into a contract or agreement with the cemetery association to provide for the management and maintenance of the cemetery, for the sale of lots or land in the cemetery, and for those other matters concerning the care and control of the cemetery as the city sees necessary. Minn. Stat. § 306.06. In cities where land has been devoted, without restriction, to public cemetery purposes since 1870, the city council may convey the land to a public cemetery association organized to acquire land for cemetery purposes. In these transfers, the city determines the terms of the transfer. B. Transfers to a city Minn. Stat. § 306.025, subd. 1. Minn. Stat. § 306.025, subd. 3. Any public cemetery association owning cemetery lands at least partially located within a city may transfer ownership of the lands, along with other funds and property, to that city. The city may accept the transfer and continue to maintain and operate the cemetery. Any funds received in the transfer will be administered by the city for the same purposes and upon the same trusts for which they were originally established. Before the transfer is made, the city must first adopt a resolution. Minn. Stat. § 412.211. A.G. Op. 870j (June 2, 1959). A city may also be able to accept a transfer of ownership from a public cemetery association located wholly outside of city limits. Since cities are authorized in statute to purchase real or personal property outside of the city for purposes the city requires, it seems likely a transfer of cemetery lands to be used for the burial of city residents would be permissible. Furthermore, the state attorney general has added that a public cemetery association, if established prior to 1906, may transfer its ownership of lands to a city, even if outside city limits. IX. Cemetery abandonment Increasingly, cities are encountering cemeteries that have been abandoned by their incorporating associations or corporations. An abandoned cemetery can quickly become a nuisance when graves and the land are not maintained. The area can become vulnerable to criminal activity. To prevent or mitigate this situation, many cities appropriate funds to maintain the cemetery and ultimately clear the title to gain legal rights to the cemetery. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 14 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 306.246. Minn. Stat. § 410.01. Minn. Stat. § 471.84. Cities are authorized to disburse funds for the general maintenance of an abandoned or neglected cemetery. Likely, statutory cities and fourth-class cities would have to factor any funds disbursed to this cemetery into their overall limit of $10,000 per year for all cemeteries. However, there appears to be no limit on how long a city may provide for an abandoned cemetery, so feasibly a city council could disburse funds indefinitely. A. County takeover Minn. Stat. § 306.243, subds. 1, 4. A.G. Op. 870 (Aug. 6, 1957). Minn. Stat. § 306.246. Minn. Stat. § 306.243, subd. 5. To gain legal title to the cemetery, a city may ask the county to take over the cemetery and maintain it for one year. Counties are given express authority to take over and maintain an abandoned cemetery, whereas cities only have the authority to disburse funds for maintenance. After one year, the county may transfer the cemetery to the city. This is perhaps the least complicated option; however, it relies on the county’s willingness to take on the control of the cemetery. B. Title registration in Torrens system A city may also obtain title to an abandoned cemetery by registering the title under the Torrens system. Torrens law is intended to establish an indefeasible title that is free from any rights or claims not registered with the register of titles. In the case of an abandoned cemetery, it would clear the title. Minn. Stat. § 508.03(6). Registration can be a complex court proceeding, and the city should consult its city attorney for assistance. To register title, a city must pass a resolution to register the title of the cemetery before the clerk and mayor apply on behalf of the city. Minn. Stat. § 508.06. The application must be in writing and approved by the examiner of titles before filing with the district court administrator. Minn. Stat. § 508.11. As soon as possible after filing the application with the court administrator, the city must submit an abstract title of the land described in the application. In some cases, the title examiner may require the city to have a land survey of the cemetery. In such cases, the city is then required to file a plat of the land resulting from the survey with the court administrator. A certified copy of the application is filed with the country recorder and serves as notice of pending action. Minn. Stat. § 508.13. The examiner of titles will then review the application and related documents, identify the legal and factual issues, and prepare a recommendation to the court of the necessary parties to be joined as defendants to adjudicate the matter. A copy of this report is given to the city, and the city must comply with it. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 15 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 508.15. Once all of the requirements of the title examiner’s report are met, the city files a petition for a summons with the court administrator. The court will examine the files and records of the case and issue the summons. Minn. Stat. § 508.16. Minn. Stat. § 508.17. The summons requires defendants (possible parties with interest or claim to the title) to appear and provide an answer to the application of the city within 20 days of service. Additionally, any party claiming an interest in the title, even if they are not listed on the summons, may file an answer in the case. Minn. Stat. § 508.16. The service of the summons must follow the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, and the city is responsible for the cost. The required form of the summons in provided in statute. Minn. Stat. § 508.16. A diligent search for defendants or their heirs must be done. However, if the defendants cannot be found, are unknown, or are not residents of Minnesota, publication of the summons suffices as service. Minn. Stat. § 508.16. The summons must be published at least once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper published and printed in the same county as the application to register the title was filed. Minn. Stat. § 508.16. Additionally, if the title in question has not been registered before, which is likely in the case of a cemetery, the summons must be published in the newspaper. Again, the newspaper must be published and printed in the same county as the application was filed in, and run at least once a week for three consecutive weeks. Minn. Stat. § 508.19. Minn. Stat. § 508.22. Once the time for answering the summons has expired, no person has appeared, and the court is satisfied with proof of the city’s right to the title, the court may issue a decree confirming the title of the applicant and ordering its registration. The decree of registration binds the land to the city and clears the title. The city is thus the legal owner of the cemetery. C. Quiet title action Minn. Stat. § 559.01. The city may also bring an action in court to settle any adverse claims to the land and clear the title. This is sometimes referred to as quiet title action. This process is often complex and the city should consult its city attorney if exercising this option. Minn. Stat. § 559.02. When the city files the claim with the court, the filings must include the title and the names of any persons or heirs that are known or appear of record to have some right, title, estate, interest, or lien on the property. The city must also include the following statement: “Also all other persons unknown claiming any right, title, estate, interest, or lien in the real estate described in the complaint herein.” League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 16 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 559.02. Minn. Stat. § 508.16. Summons for the proceedings must be issued to any and all known persons with a valid interest in the property. The summons is served in person to those who are still living in the state. For those persons who are unknown or cannot be found with a reasonable diligent search, the service of summons may be made by publication in the newspaper. The newspaper must be printed and published in the county where the action was filed and must run at least once a week for three consecutive weeks. Minn. Stat. § 559.02. Prior to publication, the city must file a notice of the pending action with the county recorder. If no person with valid interest or right to the land contests the city’s claim to the cemetery, the court will issue an order quieting all adverse claims to the land. The city then records the order in its records as proof of title to the cemetery. X. Conclusion League of Minnesota Cities Research Service. Minnesota Association of Cemeteries. Cemeteries provide an important service for communities. However, many issues and requirements factor into the establishment, care, and maintenance of a cemetery. For additional information not included in this memo, please contact the League of Minnesota Cities Research Service or the Minnesota Association of Cemeteries. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 3/23/2015 Cemetery Regulations Page 17 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – ACTION ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 7/13/15 AGENDA ITEM: 4C – PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2015-22 ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Accessory Building Setbacks in the Urban Residential Districts SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director Casey Riley, Planning Intern SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing to consider a Zoning Text Amendment to reduce the rear yard setback for accessory buildings in the urban residential zoning districts. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed change to the setback at their meeting on June 22, 2015. After reviewing the proposed change, the Planning Commission directed staff to schedule a public hearing and prepare the Zoning Text Amendment. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Zoning Text Amendment through the following motion: “Move to recommend approval of the Zoning Text Amendment to reduce the rear yard setback for accessory buildings in the urban residential zoning districts from 20 feet to 10 feet.” GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: City of Lake Elmo Property Owners: N/A Location: N/A – Proposed zoning text amendment would apply to residential properties in the urban residential zoning districts (LDR, MDR and HDR) Request: City staff is recommending that the City consider a minor amendment to the rear-yard setback requirements for accessory buildings in urban residential zoning districts. The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment. Existing Land Use: N/A Existing Zoning: N/A Surrounding Land Use: N/A Surrounding Zoning: N/A Comprehensive Plan: N/A Proposed Zoning: N/A 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – ACTION ITEM History: The urban residential zoning districts were adopted as part of the Zoning Code Update Project in 2012/13. As part of this effort, the City adopted three residential zoning districts intended to be utilized in the City’s urban planning areas (I-94 Corridor and Village Area). These zoning districts include lot dimension and building bulk requirements that include the setback requirements for both principal and accessory structures. Applicable Regulations: Article X – Urban Residential Districts (154.452 Lot Dimensions and Building Bulk Requirements) BACKGROUND City staff has recently received an inquiry about the required setbacks for accessory buildings in the Urban Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning districts. Upon review of the setback requirements as found in §154.452 for accessory buildings, it was discovered that the required rear-yard setback for accessory buildings is 20 feet. Staff has researched multiple other cities and found that typical rear yard setbacks for these structures in urban residential districts are between 5 and ten feet. In addition, the City’s Rural Single Family (RS) zoning district also has a 10-foot rear yard setback fro accessory buildings. It should be noted that there are several homes that have been issued Certificates of Occupancy in the Savona LDR subdivision. As more of these neighborhoods are constructed and new residents move in, the City is likely to receive more inquiries about tool sheds and other small accessory structures. Staff recommends addressing the rear-yard setback issue prior to more inquiries coming into the City. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS: Based on the research conducted by Staff, it is recommended that the rear yard setback for accessory buildings in urban residential districts be reduced to 10 feet. A setback of 10 feet allows for a substantial enough setback from adjoining properties while at the same time keeping these structures outside of the City’s standard drainage and utility easements. Finally, a separation of 10 feet should be significant enough to mitigate potential drainage or surface water challenges that may arise from locating accessory buildings in these areas. RECCOMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Text Amendment through the following motion: “Move to recommend approval of the Zoning Text Amendment to reduce the rear yard setback for accessory buildings in the urban residential zoning districts from 20 feet to 10 feet.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. DRAFT 154.452 Lot Dimensions and Building Bulk Requirements 3 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – ACTION ITEM 2. Accessory Structure Regulations Comparison ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director - Report by Staff ..................................................................................... City Planner - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members § 154.452 LOT DIMENSIONS AND BUILDING BULK REQUIREMENTS. Lot area and setback requirements shall be as specified in Table 10-2, Lot Dimension and Setback Requirements. Table 10-2: Lot Dimension and Setback Requirements, Residential Districts LDR MDR HDR Minimum Lot Area (sq. ft.) Single family detached dwelling 8,000 7,000 5,000 Two-family dwelling (per unit) a 5,000 4,000 3,000 Single-family attached (per unit) b - 4,000 2,500 Multi-family dwelling (per unit) - 4,000 1,800 Secondary dwelling see 155.102 Live-work unit - - 3,600 Congregate housing - see 155.102 see 155.102 Manufactured home park - see 155.102 - Minimum Lot Width (feet) Single family detached dwelling 60 50 50 Two-family dwelling (per unit) a 35 30 20 Single-family attached (per unit) b - 25 20 Multi-family dwelling (per building) - 75 60 Live-work unit - - 25 Maximum Height (feet) 35 35 50 Maximum Impervious Coverage 40% 50% 75% Minimum Building Setbacks (feet) Front yard 25 c 25 c 20 c LDR MDR HDR Minimum Building Setbacks (feet) Interior side yard e Principal Buildings f,g 10 10 10d Attached Garage or Accessory Structures f,g 5 5 10d Corner side yard g,h 15 15 15 Rear yard Principal Buildings 20 20 20 Detached Accessory Buildings 10 10 10 Notes to Urban Residential Districts Table a. Common open space areas may be used in the determining whether or not the minimum lot areas within a development are met, when provided as part of an overall development plan. b. Two-family units may be side-by-side with a party wall between them (“twin”) or located on separate floors in a building on a single lot (“duplex”). The per-unit measurements in this table apply to “twin” units, whether on a single lot or separate lots. The standards for single-family detached dwelling shall apply to a “duplex” containing two vertically-separated units on a single lot. c. In the case of single-family attached dwellings that are not situated on individual lots, minimum lot size shall be applied to each unit as a measure of density; i.e. 1 unit per 2,500 square feet. This standard is also used for multifamily dwellings. d. Single family dwellings (both attached and detached) and two-family dwellings may use the side yard setbacks within MDR zoning districts. e. In a block where the majority of the block face has been developed with the same or similar setbacks, the front setback for the remaining lots on that block face shall fall within the range established by the existing setbacks. f. In situations where a garage or accessory building is set back less than 7 feet from a side property line, the maximum permitted encroachment for anything attached to said building (including eaves, overhangs, steps, chimneys, and other appurtenances as described in Section 154.081) will be two (2) feet. g. Side yards setbacks shall apply to the ends of attached or two-family dwellings. h. Corner properties: The side façade of a corner building adjoining a public street shall maintain the front setback of the adjacent property fronting upon the same public street, or the required front yard setback, whichever is less. If no structure exists on the adjacent property, the setback shall be as shown in the table. (Ord. 2012-062, passed 9-18-2012; Am. Ord. 08-071, passed 3-5-2013) Accessory Structure Regulations – Comparison Chart City Maximum Size Max Number Setbacks Other Cottage Grove 5’ Side, 10’ Rear 30’ height maximum. Residents have to provide 400 SF of usable open space on their lot. In no cases can more than 30% of lot be covered with structures. Hugo 260 SF for lots < 1.5 acre If accessory building is less than 120 SF, 10’ rear, 6’ side. Lots > 1.5 acres but < 2.99 acres, Max size for all accessory buildings is 1,500 SF Inver Grove Heights 1,000 SF 1 30’ Front, 5’ Side, 8’ Rear Max Height: 25’ Maplewood Lot area under 8,000 SF: 768 SF Combo of Detached and Attached Garage Building: 1188 SF 5’ Rear, 5’ Side If the lot area is greater than 8,000 SF and less than 16,000 SF, the accessory structure can be 1,000 SF. The Combination of both can be 1,420 SF. Oakdale 30’ Front, 20’ Corner Side, 5’ Side, 5’ Rear The minimum distance between buildings at any point shall be equal to the height of the exterior wall or 15 feet, whichever is greater. Stillwater 500 SF 1 5’ Side, 10’ Rear 20 ft max building height White Bear 1,000 SF for garage, 120 SF for 2nd accessory structure 2 5’ Rear, 5’ Side Must be in rear or side yard. Woodbury 400 SF 1 5 ft. rear and side Cannot be on easement, cannot be in front of principle building, wall cannot exceed 12 ft in height, shall not occupy more than 25% of rear yard PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4D – ACTION ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 7/13/15 AGENDA ITEM: 4D – PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2015-23 ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Subdivision Identification Signs SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing for a Zoning Text Amendment to provide greater clarity on the amount and type of subdivision identification signage allowed in the Sign Ordinance. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at their meeting on 6/22/15 and directed staff to prepare a zoning text amendment and schedule a public hearing. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Zoning Text Amendment to the Sign Ordinance to provide clarity with regards to subdivision identification signs. The suggested motion is the following: “Move to recommend approval of the Zoning Text Amendment to add greater detail to the subdivision identification sign provisions in the City’s Sign Ordinance.” GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: City of Lake Elmo Property Owners: N/A Location: N/A – Proposed zoning text amendment would apply to existing and future residential subdivisions throughout the community. Request: The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing on proposed changes to the Sign Ordinance with regards to subdivision identification signs. Existing Land Use: N/A Existing Zoning: N/A Surrounding Land Use: N/A Surrounding Zoning: N/A Comprehensive Plan: N/A Proposed Zoning: N/A History: The City updated the Sign Ordinance in 2013 as part of the Zoning Code Update Project. The provisions that regulate subdivision identification signs were included in the 2013 update. Applicable Regulations: §154.212 – Sign Regulations 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4D – ACTION ITEM BACKGROUND With the recent residential development activity in the community, staff has received some inquiries from developers regarding the allowance of subdivision identification sigs. In researching the City’s provisions, staff found the regulations to be somewhat limited in comparison with other communities. Staff presented these findings to the Planning Commission on 6/22/15. After review and discussion of various ways to improve the ordinance, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare Zoning Text Amendment and schedule a public hearing on proposed changes to the Sign Ordinance with regards to subdivision identification signs. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS: Staff has prepared a Zoning Text Amendment proposing changes to the City’s Sign Ordinance related to subdivision identification signs. The proposed changes can be found in the draft ordinance in Attachment #1. The proposed changes included in the draft ordinance are the following: • The number of total subdivision identification signs allowed was changed to two signs. • Clarification was added to note that the entirety of the subdivision, regardless of the number of phases, is allowed two signs. • Clarification with regards to location was added to note that signs are only allowed at neighborhood entrances, with the exception that one sign can be located along an abutting arterial or collector road. • Provisions were added to allow for two sub-monuments within each residential subdivision. These sub-monuments are not allowed to exceed 4 square feet in size. The addition of sub- monuments to the ordinance are in response to requests from developers to allow for smaller signage incorporated into landscape features such as columns or fencing. Staff recommends that this type of signage be allowed as long as it is limited in size. In addition to these changes, it should also be noted that staff did reach out to various parties to get questions posed by the Planning Commission answered. Staff conducted the following outreach: • Staff contacted the Fire Chief to ask if subdivision identification signs are helpful for public safety personnel to locate homes in emergency situations. He noted that the address is always the most important factor. However, in situations where an emergency make be taking place outside of a specific home but within a subdivision, the sign can be helpful for police, fire or medical services to find the correct location. Overall, in the opinion of the Fire Chief, the subdivision signs do provide a public safety improvement, but the benefit is minimal. • Staff asked a number of residential developers who are working in the community about the value and importance of permanent neighborhood signage. Unfortunately, none of the developers responded with definite feedback regarding the need for permanent signage. In the experience of staff, these signs can be utilized initially as a marketing tool, but also as community or neighborhood identity once the neighborhood is built out. 3 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4D – ACTION ITEM It should be noted that the proposed Zoning Text Amendment was drafted utilizing best practices from other communities in the judgment of staff. Example of other sign ordinances researched can be found in Attachment #2. RECCOMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Zoning Text Amendment to the Sign Ordinance to provide clarity with regards to subdivision identification signs. The suggested motion is the following: “Move to recommend approval of the Zoning Text Amendment to add greater detail to the subdivision identification sign provisions in the City’s Sign Ordinance.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. DRAFT 154.212 – Proposed Zoning Text Amendment 2. Sign Ordinances from Other Metro Communities – Subdivision Signs ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director - Report by Staff ..................................................................................... City Planner - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members § 154.212 SIGN REGULATIONS. G. Limitations According to the Type of Land Use. Unless exempt under §154.212.K or as expressly provided elsewhere, no permanent or temporary signs shall be displayed except in conformity with the following regulations as they correspond to the type of land use and districts in which the sign is to be displayed. 1. Residential Uses in Residential Districts a. In connection with legal home occupations, a single sign which is limited in content to the name, address and legal home occupation of the owner or occupant of the premises, and which does not exceed two (2) square feet in area. Signs under this paragraph shall be wall signs only. b. A residential condominium or multi-family apartment complex may display signs identifying the name of the condominium or apartment complex if the total acreage of the lot is one (1) acre or more and the condominium or apartment includes eight (8) or more units. One (1) wall sign and one (1) ground sign per street frontage may be displayed, with a maximum of two (2) wall signs and two (2) ground signs per lot. No identification sign shall exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in area, and the maximum height is one (1) story or twelve (12) feet above curb level, whichever is lower. For purposes of this paragraph, the term “lot,” when used in reference to a condominium means all property within a common interest community. c. A subdivision identification sign not exceeding thirty-two (32) square feet in sign area as approved by the City. Subdivision Identification Signs i. Number. Each residential subdivision is allowed up to a maximum of two (2) subdivision identification signs. For the purposes of this section, residential subdivisions shall include all phases of approved staged developments. ii. Location. Subdivision identification signs shall be located near entrances to the subdivision, except that one sign may be located along an abutting arterial or major collector roadway. iii. Size. The maximum size for a subdivision identification sign is thirty-two (32) square feet. i.iv. Sub-Monuments. Each residential subdivision may have two (2) sub-monument identification signs in addition to two (2) subdivision identification signs. Sub- monument identification signs may not exceed four (4) square feet in size.