Zoning and Other Issues Related to Placement of

CITY COMMISSION AGENDA MEMO
May 2, 2012
FROM:
Karen Davis, AICP, Director of Community
Development
Eric Cattell, AICP, Assistant Director for Planning
Steve Zilkie, AICP, Senior Planner
MEETING:
May 8, 2012
SUBJECT:
Crematoriums
PRESENTERS: Steve Zilkie, AICP, Senior Planner
Eric Cattell, AICP, Assistant Director for Planning
BACKGROUND
The issue of crematoriums came to the forefront in 2011 as a result of YorgensenMeloan-Londeen Funeral Home’s building permit application to construct a crematorium
adjacent to its site at 1614 Poyntz Avenue, which raised concerns with some neighboring
residents. The Manhattan City Commission discussed the issue at its briefing session on
Tuesday, August 16, 2011, and requested that the Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board
provide recommendations on how crematoriums should be addressed in the City.
Currently there are two funeral homes in the City, both located in the C-1 Restricted
Business District along Poyntz Avenue, which are a permitted use under the “mortuaries
and funeral homes” category. While the Zoning Regulations do not specifically define
mortuaries, funeral homes, or crematoriums, City Administration believes that
crematoriums fall under the definition of an “Accessory Use”, which is defined in the
Zoning Regulations. An Accessory Use is a land use category allowed in all zoning
districts and which is subordinate in area, extent or purpose to a principal building or
principal use. The term is broadly defined to accommodate a range of accessory uses that
are too many to list.
During the initial discussions, City Administration presented the following range of
alternatives to the Planning Board:
Alternative 1: Leave Crematoriums as an Accessory Use to Mortuaries and Funeral
Homes
There are two options under this alternative:
1. Leave status quo and take no action to make any changes; or,
Crematoriums
Page 2
2. Amend the Zoning Regulations to add a definition of Mortuaries and
Funeral Homes that includes Crematoriums as an accessory use. The
following is a possible draft definition:
Mortuaries and Funeral Homes: An establishment used for
arranging, managing and conducting funerals and memorial
services; the storage and preparation of the human deceased for
burial, and viewing the deceased for rituals and ceremonies
connected therewith before burial or cremation; and may include
a Crematorium as an accessory use, provided it has a properly
installed cremation chamber that meets all applicable state and
federal regulations and has obtained all applicable state and
federal permits and licenses to operate.
Alternative 2: Regulate Crematoriums separately from Mortuaries and Funeral
Homes
This alternative would regulate crematoriums separately from mortuaries and funeral
homes and would involve amending the Zoning Regulations to add a definition of
Mortuaries and Funeral Homes and add a separate definition of Crematorium.
Mortuaries and Funeral Homes: An establishment used for arranging,
managing and conducting funerals and memorial services; the storage and
preparation of the human deceased for burial, and viewing the deceased
for rituals and ceremonies connected therewith before burial or cremation;
excluding crematoriums as an accessory use.
Crematorium: An establishment used for arranging, managing and
conducting funerals and memorial services and the storage and preparation
of the human deceased for cremation, which contains a properly installed
cremation chamber that meets all applicable state and federal regulations
and has obtained all applicable state and federal permits and licenses to
operate.
This alternative will require identifying zoning districts in which crematoriums should be
allowed as a permitted or conditional use. Some concerned citizens have suggested
crematoriums should be limited to industrial districts presumably under the theory that
cremation is an industrial process. Potential districts could include the following:
•
•
•
•
I-2, Industrial Park District
I-3, Light Industrial District
LM-SC, Light Manufacturing Service Commercial District
I-4, Heavy Industrial District
Finally, consideration could also be given to adding a Use Limitation, or Limitations,
which would require crematoriums to be located some minimum distance from
residential properties and/or residential zoning districts.
Crematoriums
Page 3
Alternative 3: Create a Conditional Use process for Crematoriums
Another alternative would involve amending the Zoning Regulations to add
“Crematoriums” as a Conditional Use in specific zoning districts, which would require
review and approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals through a public hearing process on
a site specific basis. This alternative could also be used in conjunction with Alternative
2, so that crematoriums could be permitted uses in certain districts and a conditional use
in others.
Consideration could also be given to adding specific review criteria that apply to
crematoriums beyond the normal conditional use criteria used by the Board of Zoning
Appeals. However, it may be rather challenging to develop such criteria and the
thresholds for approval or denial of a request.
Alternative 4: Create a Partnership to Construct a Crematorium in Sunrise
Cemetery
There has been a suggestion that the City consider developing a Request for Proposals
(RFP) to solicit the private sector to operate a crematorium in Sunrise Cemetery. Sunrise
Cemetery is owned by the City and is located on Stagg Hill; however, it is not annexed
into the City and is zoned County G-1, General Agriculture. Cemeteries are a
Conditional Use in the G-1 District and the County’s definition of Cemetery excludes
columbarium, crematoriums, mausoleums and mortuaries. Publicly-owned cemeteries
are also listed as a Special Use in all districts under the County’s zoning regulations,
requiring a public hearing with the Planning Board and the Board of County
Commissioners.
Because the County’s definition of cemetery excludes crematoriums, the City would
likely need to annex Sunrise Cemetery and create a Cemetery zone in the City Zoning
Regulations that includes columbariums, crematoriums and mausoleums.
Planning Board Review
The Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board discussed the crematorium issue and asked
for additional information at Work Sessions over a six month period (September 19,
2011; November 7, 2011; December 19, 2011; and February 6, 2012, minutes attached),
concluding with a recommendation to the City Commission made by the Board following
its February 6, 2012, meeting.
During the Work Sessions, concerns were expressed by surrounding neighbors, regarding
emissions from crematoriums. Robert Sinnett, 1625 Leavenworth Street; Dr. Stephanie
Van Wagenen, 1635 Osage Street; Katie Harkin, 1610 Humboldt Street; Jan Borst, 1918
Humboldt Street, and Kathy Dzewaltowski, 100 S. Delaware Avenue, commented or
expressed concerns about crematoriums being located in a residential neighborhood. In
addition, Katie Harkin submitted information to the Planning Board (attachments).
Doug Meloan and Eric Londeen, Yorgensen-Meloan-Londeen Funeral Home, spoke at
the September 19, 2011, Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board meeting (Minutes
attached). The owners indicated after the Planning Board’s first Work Session that they
would step back from the issue.
Crematoriums
Page 4
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this Work Session is to provide an overview of the issues associated with
crematoriums and discuss the Planning Board’s recommendation on how crematoriums
should be addressed in the City of Manhattan.
Crematoriums, or “crematory” as the term is used in Kansas Statues, are regulated by the
State of Kansas. A Crematory is defined as, “A business premises that houses the
cremation chamber and holding facility where dead human bodies are cremated.” Kansas
statute also defines the term cremation to mean, “The mechanical and/or other dissolution
process that reduces human remains to bone fragments. Cremation includes the
processing and usually includes the pulverization of the bone fragments.” Cremation
occurs in a cremation chamber, which is “An enclosed space within which cremation of a
dead human body is performed. Such chambers shall be used exclusively for the
cremation of human remains.”
State Licensure and Inspection: Crematoriums are most often associated with
mortuaries and funeral homes, with several associated with cemeteries, although
crematoriums could also be a free-standing business. Only licensed crematory operators
are authorized to perform cremations in Kansas. The Kansas Board of Mortuary Arts is
responsible for the established rules and regulations regarding crematoriums and
licensing of crematory operators. A crematory is subject to routine inspections at least
once a year by the Board, or its designee, to determine compliance with the Kansas
crematory laws and the Board’s regulations.
The concern and debate about crematoriums has focused on the potential environmental
impact of emissions, with vaporized mercury emissions being the main concern.
Mercury vapor is released into the air when dental amalgam, or fillings, containing
mercury are combusted as a part of the cremation process. Other emissions that are
mentioned include dioxins and particulate matter. Crematorium advocacy groups,
however, emphasize that mercury emissions are low and contribute minimal amounts of
emissions to the air.
Environmental groups and concerned citizens suggest that mercury emissions from
crematoriums may have an adverse affect on the public health, safety and welfare,
particularly on young and unborn children. Throughout the country, when crematoriums
are proposed to be located in or close to neighborhoods and near homes, schools and
parks, the health impacts on residents are the most common concern raised.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not regulate emissions from
crematoriums and has excluded crematoriums from regulations dealing with air quality
and emissions. In addition, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and the
Kansas Bureau of Waste Management do not regulate crematoriums or their emissions.
In Kansas, a human body cannot be cremated that contains a pacemaker or other
potentially hazardous implant. This does not include regulating or removing dental
amalgam, or fillings, containing mercury.
Crematoriums
Page 5
During research of the issue, City Administration found that Kulpmont Borough,
Pennsylvania, a small town in northeastern Pennsylvania, appears to be one of the few
communities in the United States that sets a specific mercury emission standard, and
requires filters and reporting of emissions to the governing body, with all related costs
and requirements paid for by the crematorium or funeral home. No crematoriums have
been built in Kulpmont.
Wisconsin regulates crematoriums, but does not require a permit for mercury emissions,
until 10 pounds of mercury is emitted over a one year period, which is based on that
state’s estimate of a crematorium having to perform around 9,090 cremations in a year.
California also regulates mercury emissions from crematoriums on a per cremation basis.
Some states and communities may regulate emissions from crematoriums and require a
separate air permit, exclusive of mercury emissions, related to particulate matter, density
of smoke and the emission of other gases, such as carbon and nitrogen oxides.
At the municipal level, crematoriums are regulated as permitted uses, conditional uses,
and/or special uses with varying degrees of minimum lot sizes and setbacks, some of
which are specific to distance from residential uses or districts, with the greatest distance
found at 300 yards.
City Administration contacted several of the 31 Kansas communities in which
crematoriums are located to determine how crematoriums are regulated by zoning or
other provisions (Wichita, Topeka, Lawrence, Shawnee Mission, Olathe, and Salina).
Overall, crematoriums are allowed as permitted or conditional uses in commercial and
industrial districts. In some communities, crematoriums are a special use, meaning they
are approved through a public hearing process similar to a conditional use. As of late last
year, none of the communities that were contacted reported any issues, except Topeka,
which held a public hearing last Fall for a conditional use permit in which the mercury
emission issue was raised. The applicant withdrew the request during the review process
and reportedly was looking for another location. In general, none of the cities contacted
were aware of the mercury emission issue.
FINANCING
Not applicable.
ALTERNATIVE
It appears the City Commission has the following alternatives concerning the issue at
hand. The Commission may:
1. Provide direction to City Administration on the crematorium issue.
Crematoriums
Page 6
RECOMMENDATION
Following discussion on February 6, 2012, the Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board,
on a vote of 5-2, recommended the following:
(1) Investigate the opportunities for placing a crematorium in a City
cemetery or the Kansas Veterans Cemetery; and/or,
(2) Limit crematoriums to an industrial district and no closer than 500 feet
to a residential property (see February 6, 2012, minutes attached for a
more complete discussion and the specific motion). The Planning Board’s recommendation will necessitate amending the Zoning Regulations
to regulate crematoriums separately from mortuaries and funeral homes so that they are
no longer an accessory use, by taking the following actions:
1. Add a definition of Mortuaries and Funeral Homes and add a separate definition
of Crematorium.
2. Add crematoriums to specifically identified Industrial Districts with a Use
Limitation that they be located no closer than 500 feet to a residential property;
and/or,
3. Add crematoriums as a permitted use in a specific City-owned cemetery(ies),
following an investigation of those options.
City Administration has not approached the local funeral homes to determine if they
would be open to, or interested in, investigating possibly operating a crematorium in a
City-owned cemetery, and the Kansas Veterans Cemetery has also not been approached.
City Administration recommends that the City Commission provide direction to City
Administration on the crematorium issue.
POSSIBLE MOTION
No formal motion is necessary.
KD/EC/SZ/vr
12044
Enclosures:
1. Planning Board Minutes for September 19, 2011; November 7, 2011; December
19, 2011; and February 6, 2012
2. Information submitted by Katie Harkin
September 19, 2011, Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board
Page 5
neighborhood across the street may be concerned about the change to internal
illumination.
Rolley seconded the motion.
Hill said he wouldn’t support the motion and that he didn’t understand the difference
between two names and three names. Meredith agreed with Hill.
Morse said it was a nominal change and she would support the motion.
On a vote of (3-3) the motion failed, with Stith, Morse and Rolley in favor, and Hill,
Reynard and Meredith opposed.
Rolley moved that the Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board approve the Final
Development Plan of Westport Commons Addition, Unit Three, Commercial Planned
Unit Development, based on conformance with the approved PUD; and, approve the
Final Plat of Westport Commons Addition, Unit Three, Commercial Planned Unit
Development, based on conformance with the Manhattan Urban Area Subdivision
Regulations, with the following condition of approval:
1. The signs in the PUD shall not be internally lit and shall follow the designs as
presented in the Final Development Plan with the size of the sign on Browning
Avenue appropriate to the number of businesses not to exceed those shown on the
drawings.
Stith said the motion did not reduce the number of signs and 14 signs cannot be read
while driving on Browning Avenue. He said he could agree to four signs.
Meredith seconded the motion.
Rolley said the illumination limit is based on the public input during the rezoning and
concerns about introducing commercial activity into the neighborhood. Adding internal
illumination moves the commercial look on Claflin Road into the neighborhood. She said
she will trust the developer not to build the sign any taller than it needs to be.
Reynard said he understood, but would rely on the developer and back lighting may not
be too bright and the Board was over-managing.
Schultz said he was not a fan of backlit signs. He said Chris Curtin added the covenant on
the site before selling it, but that it would not apply to the bank on Claflin Road.
On a vote the motion was approved 6-0.
DISCUSS
ALTERNATIVE
APPROACHES
FOR
ADDRESSING
CREMATORIUMS IN THE MANHATTAN ZONING REGULATIONS.
Zilkie presented the staff report and alternatives.
September 19, 2011, Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board
Page 6
Reynard asked if there any members of the public that wanted to address the Board.
Doug Meloan, Yorgensen-Meloan-Londeen Funeral Home, said they started the
crematorium issue. The funeral home has been at its current location for over 30 years
and on Poyntz 80 years. Currently, as the number of cremation requests has increased, the
funeral home relies on crematories in Salina, Topeka, Wichita and Kansas City. He said
they don’t mind but it is an inconvenience.
Current cremation rate is about 50 percent. When the cremation rate increased to 50% a
lot of travel has increased and they want the service available locally.
They asked the city if there were zoning issues and were informed there were none. He
said they met with their architect and wanted an addition that fit in the area. Its location
was adjacent to its professional staff. It was always their intent to meet with the
neighborhood but word got out before they could meet. They were surprised at the
response based on conversations they’d had in the community about the need for a
crematorium. Once they found out about the concerns, they decided to step back for now
to do what’s best for everybody.
Bruce McMillan was asked if there is any gas, odor or smoke that is emitted, and
responded that to the best of his knowledge the emissions are controlled within the
crematorium itself except for a slight steam that is exhausted but nothing more from a
flue. He visited the Hutchinson crematorium and saw the unit and the manufacturer
indicates the emissions are minimal. He said the crematorium meets the zoning except for
parking. Initial staff response was that parking for the crematoria itself had to be provided
and they were informed afterwards that parking for the entire site was an issue and
needed Board of Zoning Appeals approval.
Reynard asked if the neighborhood, or any neighborhood, would find the crematorium
offensive. McMillan said he couldn’t respond for the neighborhood.
Katie Harkin, 1610 Humboldt Street, said she is a neighbor and found out early about the
project by accident. She said she is concerned as a parent of a six and eight year old child.
She said that initially she didn’t know about crematoriums and didn’t really know about
cremation. She said as a veterinarian she has seen a lot of things and is not uneasy about
the cremation of humans. Once she started reading about cremations she learned about
the emission of mercury from dental amalgam as well as other emissions. She
commented that the C-1 District is supposed to be compatible with neighborhoods and
does not see how mercury raining down on her family is compatible, or on schools and
parks in the area which would affect children. She said the proposed location doesn’t
match and is not a good fit for the neighborhood. She said she understood the funeral
homes need for the service but not in a residential neighborhood.
Reynard asked if Harkin had found anything about filtering of crematoriums. Harkin said
they can be filtered. Her research indicated that certain communities have required filters,
which can be very costly. She said the unit the funeral home proposed to use was a
Millenium III cremator and she called direct sources for information and salesman told
September 19, 2011, Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board
Page 7
her the mercury would be burned twice and go to nothing. She said as a scientist that no
matter how many times it is burned mercury will be released. The other thing about
mercury it will accumulate and deposit on the ground and water. She also found out that
the EPA and KDHE do not regulate mercury emissions and the answer she got from the
air quality scientist at KDHE is that it is up the local community and is a zoning issue and
where crematoriums can be placed. She said the community needs more control. She said
if it is allowed on her block she will be breathing, walking on, seeing it and possibly
smelling it.
Eric Londeen said that in no way does the funeral home want to harm anyone. He said all
the directors have gone through the licensing process. He said he contacted a local dentist
who said he and other dentists have not used mercury in a long time and the number of
people with mercury fillings will diminish over time. They have also been told that the
amount of mercury from a crematorium is about the size of two sugar cubes but didn’t
know if that was substantiated or not. He said there is more mercury in mercury bulbs in
the city than what would create harm in the city. Today it is a small amount and will
decrease.
Rolley said it appears with the changes in dental technology it won’t be as much of an
issue in the future. She asked if teeth were not something that had to go into the
crematorium? Londeen responded that if there is a requirement to pull a tooth that he
wouldn’t do it and thought it was disrespectful on multiple levels.
Morse asked about the average size and features of crematoriums. Londeen said it was
designed to allow families to witness the cremation for a short period of time. The size of
the building is about 29 by 45 feet. He explained the interior design.
Jan Borst, 1918 Humboldt Street, has no qualms about locations but asked the Board to
look at the levels of mercury emission and no matter what anyone says there is no safe
level of mercury. She was also concerned about the licensed crematorium operators
being self regulated. Her understanding was EPA called human remains medical waste
and had questions about that. She was also concerned the Board sometimes made
decisions about who was making the request. She also wanted to know how many people
would be cremated and the number of sugar cubes would add up. She has a lot of respect
for the funeral home but wanted a discussion about emissions.
Meloan said he appreciated Harkin’s and Borst’s concerns and wants to do what is right
for the community. He said the Board of Mortuary Arts regulates funeral homes and
watches operations very carefully. He said whatever the city decides it should be
respectful and if built in an industrial area it would be highly disrespectful and asked the
Board not to consider crematoriums in industrial districts.
Hill asked Meloan about mercury filters. Meloan said he didn’t know about filters. He
mentioned a crematorium he worked in had a 500 foot requirement for comment. He said
the Cremation Association of North America licensing told him they make a filter and
there is debate if it is efficient and costs about $150,000. If the city wants filters they will
need to decide if they wait until technology evolves. He appreciated the neighbor
concerns but was also concerned about himself and his employees as they will be at the
September 19, 2011, Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board
Page 8
site and if there was a concern he wouldn’t give this a second thought and would look for
another location. As new technology and education comes along they learn more and
think the proposed location is where they want it. He said they’ve been told it is a good
location and some have said it is not and is looking for the community’s help.
Hill said he felt the information about mercury in light bulbs is more of an issue than
crematoriums and was something to think about and puts it into perspective for himself.
Rolley asked if he had information that confirmed that and the Board doesn’t know? He
said his guess is that light bulbs were more concern than one crematorium.
Kathy Dzewaltowski, 100 S Delaware, said she lived two and one half blocks from the
funeral home and is not bothered by the process but is concerned about the emissions.
She reminded the Board about a recent local incident where mercury was found and the
EPA representative had said no amount of mercury was safe.
Stith said the city needs a crematorium and intends to use the service but did not want his
particulate matter to rain down on children. He said he didn’t have enough knowledge to
make a decision. He said the board needed to decide how to accommodate the use.
Alternative 1 would allow the use as an accessory by right use but the community
wouldn’t be able to raise any concerns and that would be a problem. He thought the
community and decision makers would need to be more educated about the use. Design
issues as well could not be considered but may not be critical. Any solution should allow
the community to raise concerns and several of the alternatives don’t allow public input.
However, the Board needs more technical information.
Morse said the staff’s position leaned towards allowing crematoriums as a permitted
accessory use. Compatibility as an accessory use or as a free standing use needs to be
considered as well as the operator. She said she wasn’t sure what was appropriate without
more information. She also mentioned animal cremation.
Meredith said he wanted to know more about mercury emissions and planned on
contacting someone he knows about emissions. He said the Sunrise Cemetery was an
option but needed more information.
Rolley said the Board needs more information for a process to allow for public input and
expert knowledge about mercury emissions. So far, all the Board has heard from is the
public.
Zilkie said staff would provide more information as requested by the Board.
REPORTS AND COMMENTS BY BOARD MEMBERS
Cattell told the Board that the Wildcat Creek Watershed Area Working Group will meet
on Thursday, September 22nd, at 7:00 PM in the City Commission Room.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve Zilkie, Senior Planner
November 7, 2011, Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board
Page 8
Bergman said sidewalks will be replaced on the south side and will look at the north side
if replacement is needed.
Rolley suggested the design of pedestrian, landscaping and sidewalk improvements can
be designed to control pedestrian movements and the improvements should anticipate the
future when funding is available. Bergman said BBN is also involved with the design.
Reynard asked if pedestrian overpasses were considered. Bergman said it is cost
prohibitive but was suggested at the open house.
CONTINUATION OF A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE REGULATION OF
CREMATORIUMS IN MANHATTAN.
Zilkie presented information regarding mercury emission from crematoriums and
processes to review crematoriums.
The Board suggested that contemporary standards should apply to crematoria. The Board
also expressed a concern that as the community grows the need for a crematorium and
how they can be accommodated should be considered.
Cattell said the City will need to decide how to regulate the use as there are no
standardized regulations and there are no mercury emission thresholds except for one
small community in Pennsylvania.
Anderson suggested Alternative 4 which would locate a crematorium in Sunrise
Cemetery was a good approach. Rolley indicated a request for proposals could address
the issues and Alternative 4 should be explored.
The Board took a ten minute recess.
Katie Harkin, 1610 Humboldt Street, said she agreed that mercury emissions are a huge
issue that needs to be examined. She suggested that because there are crematoriums in
other communities, Manhattan may not need one. She also suggested crematoriums as an
accessory use could be deleted.
Robert Sinnett, 1625 Leavenworth Street, said existing communities with crematorium
can deal with the issue.
Dr. Stephanie Van Wagenen, 1635 Osage Street, said she was a neurobiologist and the
Board has not sufficiently discussed the toxicity of mercury. The affect on children in the
area should be considered. The crematorium will also decrease her property value.
There were no other comments.
MINUTES
MANHATTAN URBAN AREA PLANNING BOARD
City Commission Room, City Hall
1101 Poyntz Avenue
December 19, 2011
7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Stith, Vice-Chairperson; Phil Anderson; Linda Morse;
Mike Hill; and, Mike Kratochvil.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jerry Reynard and Stephanie Rolley.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric Cattell, Assistant Director for Planning; Steve Zilkie, Senior
Planner; and, Chad Bunger, Planner II.
OPEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one spoke.
CONSENT AGENDA
APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF LOT 1 AND LOT 2, LSB ADDITION, UNIT
ONE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
CANDLEWOOD DRIVE AND GARY AVENUE (APPLICANT/OWNER:
LEONARDVILLE STATE BANK - JON POPE PRESIDENT)
Kratochvil moved that the Board approve the Consent Agenda. Anderson seconded the
motion, which passed on a vote of 5-0.
III. WORK SESSION AGENDA
CONTINUATION OF A DISCUSSION REGARDING A RECOMMENDATION
FOR CREMATORIUM.
Zilkie recapped the previous Planning Board meetings and said the purpose of this
evenings meeting was to make a recommendation on an alternative to forward to the City
Commission. He said at the previous meeting it was suggested that Alternative 4 to locate
a crematorium in Sunrise Cemetery, which would be considered based on a Request for
Proposals. He also said if that is the Board’s choice, the motion will need to specify that
alternative as well as some clean up issues such as adding definitions related to
crematoriums, or determining if crematoriums should be prohibited as an accessory use
to a funeral home in the C-1 District, and zoning changes that may be needed to
accommodate a crematorium in the cemetery.
Anderson asked what would be the obstacles to adding crematoriums as a use near
Menards. Zilkie said that would involve adding the use to a specific zone, such as the I-2
December 19, 2011, Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board
Page 2
District. Anderson said he had talked to Eric Londeen and they would be willing to pick
out a lot in the general vicinity of Menards, which would be a suitable area and would
address resident concerns of locating the crematorium on Poyntz. Zilkie reviewed the
location of I-2 Districts in the city, of which one I-2 District is on the west side of town
off Amherst Avenue in relatively close to residential neighborhoods. He also mentioned
that the Board may need to determine if there will be an emission level or distance
requirement from residential neighborhoods, and other applicable use limitations.
Anderson said a study Londeen provided to Anderson indicated the remains for mercury
was 3/1000 of a percent. He said he had also consulted with a dentist.
Stith said he didn’t think the City would be capable of regulating mercury emission given
the regulatory environment because no one else in the country regulates emissions. Stith
said the city has grown and cremation is becoming a means of disposal of the deceased
and the city needs a crematorium and, if the city was going to have a crematorium, the
Board should consider where to locate and control the use through zoning. He said the
idea of allowing a crematorium on Poyntz didn’t seem appropriate due to emissions and
residential neighborhoods. He said an industrial zone makes sense except one near
residential neighborhoods. Stith said a distance could be set to separate a crematorium
from a residential zone. If an industrial zone is chosen, the I-2 District on the east side of
town appears to make the most sense due to its location, size and what’s around it.
Stith said the Sunrise cemetery option didn’t seem viable because there are residential
neighborhoods to the north and future residential to the east of the cemetery unless more
information was available.
Morse said she originally thought Sunrise might be an option but the prevailing wind
might disperse emission throughout the city. She said if there was going to be one
crematorium then she wouldn’t support the conditional use process, which requires BZA
approval, but sited and considered in a specific zone. She also said the Poyntz locations
are not viable and regulating emissions isn’t workable. She said she didn’t understand
why it had to be in the city and could be in an island of the city. She agreed the terms
need to be defined. She said a crematorium could be outside the city in Riley or
Pottawatomie Counties. She felt the Board needed to come up with a reasonable
proposal.
Kratochvil and Hill said they didn’t think anything needed to be done and the Poyntz
location was appropriate. Kratochvil said any of the alternatives could be a problem given
the right person opposed to it. He said the Board doesn’t have the data or knowledge to
support any of the alternatives, other than alternative one, which is to leave the
crematorium at its proposed location on Poyntz. They both agreed there was no other
location that is better than another.
Anderson suggested someone from the Kansas crematorium association should provide
information on the emission levels from a crematorium. He also asked that emission be
put in some context because he’s been led to believe that emissions from his wood
December 19, 2011, Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board
Page 3
burning stove cause more problems than a crematorium because the process is much
more efficient. Board members agreed they needed more specific information and if the
Commission wants an answer sooner than later. Zilkie said he would try to contact
someone to speak to the Board.
CONTINUATION OF A DISCUSSION REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE
MANHATTAN ZONING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VII, OFF-STREET
PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS.
Bunger presented an overview of the current zoning regulations and proposed changes.
Hill asked if side entry garages would be included or only front entry. Bunger said the
width requirements would apply in both circumstances. Hill asked if the regulations
would not allow a four car garage. Cattell said there is no limit on the number of bays.
The proposed requirements are, in part, attempting to allow newer homes with larger
garages and driveways and at the same time maintaining landscaped front yard space so
parking lots are not created.
Kratochvil said, as a home builder, there are locations where 40 feet for backing space is
needed for side loaded garages as well as locations for storage of boats subject to private
covenants, which require wider driveways. He also asked if there were comments from
builders outside of the newer larger home developments. Bunger said most comments
have been from the newer larger home developers.
Bunger said staff was looking for direction on where to measure, to the closest point of
the house or the furthest side of the house. Hill said the front of the house makes the most
sense to him. Hill asked where the problem was coming from. Bunger said mainly in the
newer larger home areas.
Stith suggested certain parts of the dwelling unit, such as a side loaded garage could be
excluded from the calculation and staff agreed that was a good idea and was one of the
suggested changes.
Kratochvil asked how larger driveways were being constructed now contrary to the
regulations. Bunger said there’s been no consideration with the review of single family
homes and the driveway regulations in past years.
Bunger said the proposed regulations were trying to provide the least amount of
requirements for larger garages and, if necessary, apply to the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA) for an Exception rather than a Variance.
Hill said some homes are being built where a three car garage is not sufficient. His
concern is creating regulations that discourage good design resulting in parking in back
yards where it isn’t appropriate.
REVISED MINUTES
MANHATTAN URBAN AREA PLANNING BOARD
City Commission Room, City Hall
1101 Poyntz Avenue
February 6, 2012
7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Reynard, Chairperson; Phil Anderson; Linda Morse;
Stephanie Rolley; Gary Stith; Mike Hill; and, Mike Kratochvil.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric Cattell, Assistant Director for Planning; Steve Zilkie, Senior
Planner; and, Chad Bunger, Planner II.
OPEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one spoke.
CONSENT AGENDA
APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF ALPHA TAU OMEGA ADDITION,
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF N.
MANHATTAN AVENUE AND MCCAIN LANE AT 1632 MCCAIN LANE.
(APPLICANT /OWNER: DELTA THETA CHAPTER OF THE ALPHA TAU
OMEGA BUILDING CORPORATION, A KANSAS NOT-FOR-PROFIT
CORPORATION)
Stith moved that the Board approve the Consent Agenda.
motion, which passed on a vote of 7-0.
Anderson seconded the
III. WORK SESSION AGENDA
CONTINUATION OF A DISCUSSION REGARDING A RECOMMENDATION
FOR CREMATORIUM
Zilkie presented information requested by the Board at its December 19, 2011, meeting
including (1) that someone from the Kansas crematorium association provide information
on the emission levels from a crematorium; (2) to put crematorium emissions in some
context with emissions from wood burning stoves as the stoves may cause more problems
compared to higher efficiency cremators; and, (3) if the Commission wants an answer
sooner than later.
Zilkie indicated the organization representing the crematorium industry is the Cremation
Association of North America (CANA) and referred to an attachment to the staff memo
from CANA explaining its position on mercury emissions.
February 6, 2012, Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board
Page 2
Zilkie presented the Board with a report from an environmental consultant for the city of
Spring Hill, Tennessee, which was considering a crematorium. Part of the report put the
crematorium in context with residential wood fired stoves and fireplaces, residential
furnaces, and commercial/industrial boilers. The report’s conclusions were that certain
emissions from the residential and commercial uses were greater than those expected
with a crematorium. Mercury emissions from a commercial boiler were of the same order
of magnitude as a crematorium.
Zilkie said staff has provided as much information as possible in order for the Board to
forward a recommendation to the City Commission.
Zilkie also described an air emission modeling example from the Spring Hill report and
the complexity of the model. One of the findings included in the report was that short
term health effects are possible but in the long term health impacts are not expected.
Zilkie mentioned a news article in which an elected official’s of Spring Hill commented
that the short term health effects were a reason the crematorium was denied 8-1.
Anderson asked if the Board could forward two alternatives to the Commission and
Zilkie said they could.
Reynard asked for comments.
Reynard said he thought there isn’t a problem with mercury but the location by a
residential area wasn’t appropriate. A possible location is on Stagg Hill in the cemetery.
Anderson said he visited the Ryan Mortuary, 137 N. 8th, Salina, and the mortuary is
located downtown near residential, churches and a school He said the crematorium had
been at the mortuary for many years and there have been no complaints. Anderson said
the stack of the crematorium was next to a light colored roof and there was no evidence
of emission deposits. He said he saw no reason why a crematorium could not be a
permitted accessory use but that it should be regulated.
Kratochvil said he thought there were two choices, one the “as is” condition with some
regulations or not at all based on information presented. He said the Stagg Hill location
would be close to residential neighborhoods. He didn’t think it was right to have the
Board of Zoning Appeals consider a conditional use and locating one in an industrial area
would be difficult.
Rolley asked if staff had looked at the Veterans Cemetery as a location and Zilkie said it
had not been considered. She said she thought that existing crematoriums in Kansas were
in place before the whole issue was understood so what exists is different than what may
be. She mentioned the issue is complex and the information is such that no one really
knows the impact but there may be short term negative impacts.
Morse said the Veteran’s Cemetery is a possibility and a crematorium should not be in a
residential area. She also thought any mercury residue should be disposed of properly.
February 6, 2012, Manhattan Urban Area Planning Board
Page 3
Morse thought a crematorium could be in Riley County as well.
Hill thought the Veteran’s Cemetery was a good idea and was open to other locations. He
commented that the Spring Hill report indicates some comparable activities that are
worse than a crematorium. He said something of concern to him is locating a
crematorium in an industrial area, which doesn’t seem appropriate but a cemetery or
funeral home location is better location.
It was noted that a stack from a crematorium in the AO District should not be a problem.
Kratochvil said he could support Alternative 1 or 2. He and Hill agreed that it would be
the City Commission that will make the decision. Kratochvil also mentioned there are
other emitters in town may need to be studied.
Reynard asked for a motion.
Stith moved that the Planning Board recommended that if the Commission is inclined to
place a crematorium in cemetery locations, or the Kansas Veterans Cemetery, then staff
should be directed to investigate if the opportunities makes sense in a cemetery setting,
and second, crematoriums should be to limited to an industrial zone and the crematorium
should be located no closer than 500 feet to a residential property. Rolley seconded the motion.
Hill asked why 500 feet was chosen. Stith said it is based on examples that had been
presented and it will allow for dispersion of emissions. Hill thought it was more of a
visual barrier as emissions could affect people other than those in a residence. He thought
the distance was based more on fear than fact.
Anderson said none of the studies suggest any reasonable danger and the proposal is to
locate the use to a remote area as if it didn’t exist there was a potential danger (note:
revised text in italics). Rolley disagreed and said she thought there was not adequate
information to know with any confidence that the use didn’t have an adverse impact on
the public.
Rolley called for the question.
On a vote the motion passed 5-2, with Hill and Kratochvil opposed.
Hill said he couldn’t find anything that was factual to dispute his thinking that
crematoriums are dangerous. He said he couldn’t come up with a fact why crematoriums
shouldn’t be allowed at the proposed location on Poyntz. He said his vote wasn’t that he
wasn’t concerned about pollutants in the neighborhood but he couldn’t find a factual
basis and didn’t want to make a decision based on fear.