PL PACKET 06212005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 5 1 Commissioner Young noted that a funeral home is more expansive in its function and asked if 2 the term mortuary has a different definition than a funeral home. Mr. Tyson explained that a 3 mortuary is inclusive to funeral homes adding that he is ok with the term `funeral home' if this is 4 what the Commission wants. Ms. Moore-Sykes noted that funeral homes and mortuaries are 5 listed separately in the commercial zoning regulations and suggested that they keep the verbiage 6 as `funeral homes and mortuaries' to remain consistent within the ordinance. 7 8 Commissioner Jenson noted that the language in the proposed section 1615.03 states that funeral 9 homes, mortuaries and crematories are accessories to a cemetery and asked if this would imply 10 that a funeral home could only be located in a cemetery. Ms. Moore-Sykes clarified that in an R- 11 1 district they could have a cemetery without a funeral home but not a funeral home without a 12 cemetery. She further clarified that the only district where a funeral home and a mortuary would 13 be allowed would be in a commercial district. 14 15 Chair Stromgren clarified his understanding of the applicant's rationale for the changing noting 16 that the previous application was to rezone the cemetery to an open space district. He stated that 17 the Planning Commission motioned to continue this request and the request was denied by City 18 Council because they were uncertain of the long-term intent of the applicant and due to the 60- 19 day period. He questioned why it should be allowable as an R-1 since it is already and ROS. Mr. 20 Tyson explained that after consulting with Staff it was determined that a full rezoning of the 21 property was not the best way and it was determined that it would be the most consistent use by 22 using the current zoning to make their uses conforming. 23 24 Commissioner Young asked how the Minneapolis portion of the cemetery is zoned. Mr. Tyson 25 stated that the Minneapolis portion of the cemetery is in an R-1 District. 26 27 Dennis Cavanaugh, 2909 St. Anthony Boulevard, reviewed his understanding of Chapter 16 of 28 the zoning code noting that the structure of the code was setup by the City Fathers to keep order 29 within the city. He stated that any rezoning would have to be tested on how it would impact the 30 present preservation of this cemetery. He expressed his disagreement with Mr. Tyson stating that 31 this is not R-1 it is a legal non-conforming use. He noted that the Alderwoods Group is asking to 32 construct a new Administration Building and expressed concerns that there has been no actual 33 discussion on the new building and how it would impact the area. He stated that the original 34 concept review that was submitted made no mention of a new building adding that the present 35 zoning is in place to protect the present use. He stated the two different facilities would have a 36 definite negative impact to the area with an increase in noise levels and traffic. He advised the 37 Planning Commission to be careful when considering the co-mingling of a mortuary and funeral 38 home. He expressed concerns stating that the proposed structure would be extremely close to 39 gravesites from both the north and south areas and the proposed changes to the roadway area 40 would reduce the actual size of the roads making it difficult to navigate through the cemetery. 41 He commended the Planning Commission stating that they did an excellent job researching the 42 historical nature of the building. He stated that the report clearly states that Sunset Memorial is 43 eligible for the National Registry. He stated that the current building is in good condition and if 44 the non-conforming funeral home and administration building were removed it would actually 45 function quite well. He stated that the City is under no legal obligation to adjust the zoning