The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-07-11 CPC PacketAFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON City of Stillwater Stillwater Gazette • July 1, 2011 City of Stillwater Planning Commission Notice of Workshop Meeting Monday, July 11, 2011 A workshop meeting will begin at 6 p.m., Monday, July 1, 2011 in the Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street, Stillwater MN 55082. The purpose of the workshop will • _ to review and discuss the special use permit application from : -. ;and Jayne Bradshaw. BM Turnblad Community Development Director Jul 1 2011 Ci of StillwaterBradshaw 1 tion Julie Athey, being duly sworn on oath, says: that she is, and during all times herein states has been, Clerk of Sun Newspapers Publisher of the newspaper known as the Stillwater Gazette, a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Stillwater and the County of Washington. That the notice hereto attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper and was printed and published therein on the following date(s): ld of July 2011 Newspaper Ref./Ad #1059404 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of July 2011 NOTARY PUBLIC Washington County, Minnesota My commission expires January 31, 2016 MARK E. BERRIMAN NOTARY PUBLIC MINNESOTA My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2016 THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING MONDAY, July 11, 2011 6 p.m. A workshop meeting will begin at 6 p.m., Monday, July 11, 2011 in the Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street, Stillwater MN 55082. The purpose of the workshop will be to review and discuss the special use permit request from James and Jayne Bradshaw. 7 p.m. The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, July 11, 2011 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. City of Stillwater Planning Commission regular meetings are held at 7 p.m on the second Monday of each month. All City Planning Commission meetings are open to the public. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF June 13, 2011 MINUTES 3. OPEN FORUM The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Commission may reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or Tess 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS. The Chairperson opens the hearing and will ask city staff to provide background on the proposed item. The Chairperson will ask for comments from the applicant, after which the Chairperson will then ask if there is anyone else who wishes to comment. Members of the public who wish to speak will be given 5 minutes and will be requested to step forward to the podium and must state their name and address. At the conclusion of all public testimony the Commission will close the public hearing and will deliberate and take action on the proposed item. 4.01 Case No. 2011-18. A zoning text amendment to allow craft brewery by a special use permit in the BP-0, Business Park Office District and a request for a special use permit for a craft brewery located at 1900 Tower Drive in the BP-0, Business Park Office District. Dan Schwarz, Lift Bridge Properties, LLC, applicant. 4.02 Case No. 2011-04. Special use permits for properties related to the Comprehensive Plan rezoning. City of Stillwater, applicant. Continued from the June 13, 2011 meeting. 4.03 Case No. 2011-04. Future land use map amendments related to the Comprehensive Plan rezoning. City of Stillwater, applicant. Continued from the June 13, 2011 meeting. 5. OTHER BUSINESS 5.01 Discussion of variance review criteria CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET s STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us j (Water. THE IIOTXIIA CE OF MINNESOTA. CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2011 CALL TO ORDER Present: Commissioners Spisak, Maisom, Buchanan, Siess, and Kocon Absent: Commissioners Gallick, Hansen, Kelly, Dahlquist Staff: Community Development Director Turnblad, Planner Pogge, and Councilmember Menikheim Vice Chair Spisak called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Buchanan, to approve the May 9, 2011 Planning Commission minutes. Motion was approved unanimously. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2011-14. A street vacation request for a small portion of Broadway Street North adjacent to 101 Ridge Lane located in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Leon and Sharon Thurmes, applicants. City Planner Pogge presented several diagrams of the property indicating the portion the applicants wish to vacate. He continued by saying that a survey has been completed on this property, showing an undeveloped triangular portion of North Broadway St. in the southwest corner of their lot, which the owners are requesting that the City vacate in order to create a more uniform property line. He informed the commission that currently on this site are a set of stairs, retaining wall, and other landscaping features installed and maintained by the Thurmes; however the survey also showed a public storm sewer main on the thurmes' property that is outside of any easement. He stated that the Thurmes' are proposing to convey a storm sewer easement to the City that will cover the existing storm sewer main. The total proposed easement area is 535 square feet. Planner Pogge advised the Commission that when considering if publicly owned property should be vacated there are three basic conditions the City considers. One condition is whether the property is or is likely to be necessary or desirable for any public purpose within the reasonably foreseeable future. He informed the Commission that staff has confirmed with Engineering and the Water Board that the area under consideration contains no known public utilities and that the vacation request shows that there is a storm sewer easement along the south side of the property for an existing storm water main for which the owners have agreed to provide a public storm sewer City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 13, 2011 easement; therefore staff believes that the property in question is not necessary for any public purpose at this point in time. Planner Pogge stated that the second condition is whether any term, condition, reservation, or dedication of any easement or interest in the property is necessary or desirable for public purposes and permitted by law. He stated that other than obtaining an easement over the existing storm sewer main, City Staff does not believe any other terms, conditions, reservation, or dedication is needed. He stated that the street vacation has to have a public benefit and is not being vacated for the sole benefit of an adjacent property owner and that it is the staff's belief that as proposed for this property there are other benefits for the public and not just for the requesting property owner. He informed the commission that with the proposed vacation the property owner is dedicating an easement over an existing storm sewer main which is currently outside of any easement or right-of-way and that the staff finds that the public is benefiting and the vacation is not for the sole benefit of the adjacent property owner. He stated that the staff's suggestion is that the commission recommends approval of the vacation with the condition that the owners provide the storm sewer easement as shown on the documents. Commissioner Siess stated that it is her understanding that if the owners are vacating we are basically giving them the property. Planner Pogge responded that this is correct. In this case there is an exchange with the easement of like amount of property, one for one. At one point in time, prior to subdivision, this was their property. Basically the land is now reverting back to the original property owner. Dan Thurmes, son of the applicants, introduced himself and was available for questions. Vice Chair Spisak opened the public hearing. No public comments were received. Public hearing closed. Motion by Commissioner Buchanan, seconded by Commissioner Malsom to approve the right- of-way vacation request as conditioned. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2011-15. A variance request to the front yard setback for the construction of a porch located at 1018 7th Avenue South in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Terrene Holdings, LLC, applicant. Planner Pogge presented the variance request of Terrence Holdings, LLC, the owner of 1018 7th St S who is in the process of renovating the property and as part of the work, the addition of a front porch to the existing home is planned. He stated that the original home was constructed in 1894, is situated on a corner lot and the home currently sits approximately 19.5 feet from the property line with 7th St S and 26 feet from the property line with Hancock St W. He reviewed the request by stating that the new porch is proposed to extend five feet off the front of the home toward 7th St S, which will cause a 5.5-foot encroachment into the required front yard setback and the new porch is proposed to extend 6 feet closer to Hancock St W, which will remain inside the required 20-foot setback, which does meet the setback required. Page 2 of 7 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 13, 2011 Mr. Pogge stated that In order to allow for the applicant to proceed with the project as requested, they need approval of a variance from City Code which requires a 20-foot front yard setback (14.5 feet requested). In this case, the applicant is requesting approval to encroach 5.5 feet into the required front yard setback in order to construct the porch. Planner Pogge reviewed and explained that with any variance there are 3 criteria. Mr. Pogge continued by stating that this is a rectangular lot with regular topography and that the home's location was set when it was originally constructed around 1894 so therefore the location of the home was not created by the property owner. The right-of- way between the front property line and 7th St as noted is excessive for what we normally see, so with 20.5 feet there is extreme setback that is created. Overall the neighborhood conservation district has the goal that they like to see front porches in the City's historical areas, and without the variance the owners would not be able to add a reasonably sized front porch. He noted that this property is an RB two-family residential area and all other city code requirements will be met. Staff believes that the front yard setback variance requested is acceptable and that the proposed change will not have a negative impact on adjoining property owners and that authorizing the variance will not be a detriment. He stated that staff recommends approval with the two conditions included in the staff report. Commissioner Kocon stated that with regard to the setback issues, he didn't know where the lot line and street line truly were, and that it appeared the porch was being built on a 35 foot setback. Planner Pogge responded that this is correct. Commissioner Seiss asked if notification had been given to the neighbors. Planner Pogge responded in the affirmative and that notices went out to neighbors within 350 feet of the property, including the school district. Commissioner Seiss asked if the law before. the Krummenacher case was a consideration, and if that law were in effect would that have played any role in this issue. Mr. Pogge responded that the legislature passed new variance criteria about 1-1/2 months ago. The property owner waited for the new legislation to be passed, and based on the new criteria, staff recommends approval of this request. Sarah Curtis, the applicant representing her father, stated that she is available for questions. The Commission had no questions for the applicant. Public hearing was opened and comments requested. Seeing none, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Buchanan stated that this case seems very straight forward, with all criteria met and the presentation accurate. The porch is in scale with houses in the neighborhood and the setback is reasonable Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner MaIsom, moved to approve the variance including the two conditions as stated. Motion passed unanimously. Page 3 of 7 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 13, 2011 Case No. 2011-16. A special use permit for a food cart located at 225 Main Street North in the CBD, Central Business District. Andrew Whalen, applicant. Community Development Director Turnblad informed the Commission that Andrew Whalen would like to operate a vending cart which is considered outside sales. Outside sales are allowed on private property in the CBD, Central Business District, only if a Special Use Permit is issued for the business. He stated that Mr. Whalen has requested the Planning Commission to approve a Special Use Permit for his business and that the cart will be located on private property and not the sidewalk, at the corner of North Main and Mulberry, in the northwestern corner of the parking lot of the former Ace Hardware store, kitty corner to Stillwater Mills on Main. Mr. Turnblad continued by saying that the Planning Commission may grant a Special Use Permit when the following findings are made: 1. The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of City Code Chapter 31-1, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful regulations. Since the vending cart is to be located in a privately owned parking lot, and not on public property or the sidewalk, City staff believes this finding can be made. 2. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed; a. The vending cart shall not be parked on the site when not open for business. b. A garbage can shall be provided by the business for customers. The garbage can must be located on private property and must be removed from the site when the cart is not open for business. c. The business owner shall be responsible for obtaining a permit from the Washington County Health Department prior to beginning operation. d. The Stillwater Fire Department must inspect the vending cart prior to initially opening for business each season, and at other times as deemed necessary by the Fire Department. e. The Stillwater Police Department is granted the authority to close the vending cart operation down on a particular day if the public's safety so warrants. 3. The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Director Turnblad reiterated that the proposed vending cart location is a well -lit parking lot on an open and clearly visible corner of Mulberry and Main Street which aids in public safety. However, because of the site's openness, it may cause concern for the residents of Stillwater Mills. He stated that with the many downtown activities, a balance will need to be found between allowing business to operate while being sensitive to the needs of downtown residents. Staff feels that in order to accomplish this, the hours and days of operation should be specified. Staff recommends approval with the conditions mentioned above. Commissioner Seiss asked how the public will know that the fire department has inspected the cart. Director Turnblad responded that there is a safety inspection conducted, the goal being to keep the business owner and its customers as safe as possible, and an inspection sticker is placed on the machinery. Page 4of7 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 13, 2011 Commissioner Kocon asked if this falls under regulations that have been in place for some time or if it is part of what was changed with outdoor sales. Director Turnblad responded that the changes have not yet become effective, so this is still under the old Special Use Permit running with the property. He also stated that it is expected that with the round of annual reviews that occur beginning January 1, the City will offer the option of going with a permit system rather than an annual review. Andrew Whalen, applicant, was available for questions. Commissioner Kocon asked about his intended hours of business. Mr. Whalen originally said that he was looking at after -bar hour sales, and then stated that when he submitted an application to Washington County for a Food Certification sticker, his application fell under Special Event permits, allowing him to run his business for 10 days. He does not intend to operate into night time hours, so should present no conflict with neighbors. When asked for clarification, Mr. Whalen stated that he is no longer looking at after -bar hour sales; he will now be doing just two events, Lumberjack Days and 4th of July weekend, and will not be operating after 8 p.m. He plans to be on location 4 hours at a time, which is the maximum time allowed because he does not have mechanical refrigeration; he will use dry ice as a coolant. He understands that since this is an annual permit, a change in hours can be discussed when renewal of the permit is requested. Commissioner Malsom asked what Mr. Whalen was selling. Mr. Whalen responded hot dogs and brats and he expects customers to come from foot traffic. Mr. Turnblad informed the Commission that they had the following options: 1. Approve the requested Special Use Permit with the following conditions: a. The vending cart shall not be parked on the site when not open for business. b. The vending cart shall be parked and operating entirely on private property. c. A garbage can shall be provided by the business for customers. The garbage can must be located on private property and must be removed from the site when the cart is not open for business. d. The business owner shall be responsible for obtaining a permit from the Washington County Health Department prior to beginning operation. e. The Stillwater Fire Department must inspect the vending cart prior to initially opening for business each season, and at other times as deemed necessary by the Fire Department. f. The Stillwater Police Department is granted the authority to close the vending cart operation down on a particular day if the public's safety so warrants. 2. Deny the Special Use Permit. 3. Continue the public hearing until July 11, 2011 for additional information. The 60-day decision deadline for the request is July 19, 2011. He stated that City staff recommends Alternative 1, adding the condition that hours of operation would be limited, at the request of the applicant, to up to 10 days during the summer, no later than 8 p.m., and is valid during 2011. Page 5of7 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 13, 2011 The public hearing was opened. As there were no comments from the audience, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Kocon stated that he likes the ambiance of vendors in the streets — the fun idea of "grab and go." He is concerned that 4 hours per day for 10 days may not be enough to float the business. Commissioner Buchanan asked if there would there be other days Mr. Whalen might want to sell if given the opportunity. Mr. Whalen responded that he would, however this case is based on the criteria set out by the Washington County Special Event Permit. Commissioner Malsom asked staff in the application that was made, was there a specific number of days requested, or just the use. Staff answered that it was just the use and that days and hours were not specified. When asked if the specification of not going beyond 8 p.m. would be a detriment to the business, Mr. Whalen responded that it would not, but he would like more days of operation. Commissioner Seiss would be in favor of stipulating the closing time of 8 p.m., and not stipulating the number of days, and allowing the hours of operation to be part of the Washing County application. Commissioner Buchanan asked Director Turnblad if there is another cart that is open until 2 a.m. Director Turnblad replied that one hot dog cart which is located in the area of Water Street south of Chestnut, buried deeply into central business, with noise projecting toward the river and not toward residences, is open until 2:30 a.m. Commissioner Kocon stated that it does not appear that a hot dog cart will create that much noise, and he is in favor of the applicant operating his business whenever he wants. General consensus among the Commissioners was that they were comfortable with the closing at 8 p.m. and stated that the applicant can apply for a change in hours at another time. The Planning Commission is also willing to grant an unlimited number of days of operation. Mr. Whalen said that he has asked the owner of the Green Room about operating the cart behind his restaurant. He stated that at this time the bank that owns the property where he is now may be selling it and asked if it is sold would his application have to come forward again if he moved to the other property. Mr. Turnblad said that it would because the application is tied with the land and not necessarily with the business. If either of them separates, the applicant would have to go through the process again. Commissioner Seiss, seconded by Commissioner Kocon, moved to approve Mr. Whalen's application with the five conditions included in the staff report plus the additional condition that the food vending cart would close at 8 PM each day that it operates. Page 6 of 7 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 13, 2011 Commissioner Kocon stated that he felt that the business should be allowed to remain open later than 8 p.m. unless there is a problem or a complaint and that a business that has the potential to be a good neighbor should be allowed. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. 2011-04. Special use permits for properties related to the Comprehensive Plan rezoning. City of Stillwater, applicant. Case No. 2011-04. Future land use map amendments related to the Comprehensive Plan rezoning. City of Stillwater, .applicant. RE: Public Hearings Case Nos. 2011-04, Special Use Permits and Future Land Use Map amendments related to the Comprehensive Plan Message: The above mentioned public hearings will be continued to the July 11, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. Both are related to the same planning case, 2011-04, the City's comprehensive planning rezoning project, making our zoning districts and land use map consistent. Since the public hearing notice was published for tonight, but reports are not complete, Staff requested that the public hearing be opened, and then continued until July 11. Vice Chair Spisak opened the public hearing and continued the continued the hearing until July 11, 2011. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Seiss asked staff about parking for the new bike shop cafe (bikery), as signs for two-hour parking had been discussed for the Special Use Permit and variance. Planner Pogge said that the City Council had discussed the Special Use Permit, and based on the request from the property owner and adjourning property owner, they chose to remove the condition of two-hour parking. Commissioner Seiss asked why, and Director Turnblad responded that the adjourning owner seemed to be in approval of two-hour parking originally, then changed his mind and did not express a problem with it at the Council meeting. Commissioner Seiss asked about the Krummenacher vs City of Minnetonka case, and since the case was reversed by a legislative change, can a landowner whose variance application was denied this past year come before the Commission again. Director Turnblad responded that they can come before the Commission again but must wait a year unless they are submitting a revised request. The reason for the one-year wait is that over time things change -- facts relating to the case may change, laws may change. Motion by Commissioner Kocon, seconded by Commissioner Seiss, to adjourn at 7:50 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Carol Danielson Interim Recording Secretary Page 7 of 7 Memo Community Development Department To: Planning Commission From: Michel Pogge, City Planner Date: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 Re: Work session to discuss the SUP request from The Bradshaw Group, Inc. related to on -site bio-cremation. Message: The Bradshaw Group, Inc. has made application for a SUP related to conducting on -site bio-cremations at 2800 Curve Crest Blvd. City staff from our engineering, public works, building, and planning departments along with staff from the Metropolitan Council's Environmental Services division have been reviewing the proposal for approximately a year. At this point staff is satisfied that the proposal will not have any adverse impacts to our systems and the Metropolitan Council has issued a permit for the proposal. Since the bio-cremation process is new to the community, staff felt it was important hold a work session to give the Commission the opportunity to review, ask questions, and better understand the bio-cremation process before the formal public hearing. Briefly, unlike traditional cremations that use combustion, the bio-cremation process uses a process known as alkaline hydrolysis. The alkaline hydrolysis process involves breaking down organic molecules to their basic components using a combination of water, alkali, heat, and pressure. At the end of the process bone fragments will remain and can be returned to the bereaved similar to a traditional cremation. Additionally, unlike traditional cremation there is little to no air emissions association with the bio- cremation process. Nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2) and mercury vapor (Hg) emissions which are common with traditional cremations are nonexistent with the bio-cremation process. The attached material from The Bradshaw Group, Inc. provides additional information about the bio-cremation process in general and plans for the use of it at the Bradshaw Celebration of Life Center at 2800 Curve Crest Blvd. From the desk of... Michel Pogge, AICP • City Planner • City of Stillwater 216 N. 4th Street -Stillwater, MN 55082 651.430-8822 -Fax: 651.430-8810 email: mpogge@ci.stillwater.mn.us June 17, 2011 Project Summary It is the goal of The Bradshaw Group, Inc. to modify our SUP at 2800 Curve Crest Boulevard to accommodate a Resomator which performs the process of Alkaline Hydrolysis (a.k.a. Biocremation). Over the past number of years, the rate of cremation has increased dramatically from 30% in the 1990's to over 50% today. During this time, Bradshaw has outsourced the process of cremation; however, this has been a competitive disadvantage as more families ask where the cremation takes place and whether their family member ever leaves our care. It has become apparent that we must be able to handle this process internally as the families we serve expect that we do so. It is important to note that Bradshaw provides cremation services to over 400 families per year. At our Celebration of Life Center, we have consistently worked toward being as "green" and environmentally responsible as possible through our use of geothermal heating and air conditioning, GrassPave parking, management of our own water run-off, prairie grass landscaping, etc. Installation of crematories into funeral homes has become commonplace and expected however, as we have investigated possible crematory installation, we realized this has serious drawbacks including high energy use, high CO2 emissions, and significant levels of vaporized mercury which is becoming increasingly scrutinized here and in Europe. We believe that adding a traditional/fire-based crematory would only continue a process which is increasingly being seen as having a negative environmental impact. We became aware and began to investigate a process that was added into Minnesota state law as a third form of disposition in 2006 and was developed for human use by the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. The process is known as Alkaline Hydrolysis and also known as Biocremation, resomation, aquamation, water cremation, and green cremation. The process uses water, heat, alkali (potassium hydroxide), and pressure, to reduce a human body to skeletal remains and a sterile, amber colored, translucent liquid. The process uses 85% less energy through reduction of electric and gas usage compared to traditional fire based cremation, and has an equally large reduction of emissions. There is a 300-400X reduction in mercury and heavy metal emission. Alkaline hydrolysis is seen as being far more green than cremation and arguably more than burial as there is no untreated waste or chemicals released into the environment or consumption of land. We see this process as being consistent with the environmentally responsible design and intent of the Celebration of Life Center and surrounding Bradshaw addition, and would have no impact on our neighbors. Based our experience, we see a maximum increase of 3 cars per day to our facility, however, there are no air emissions (outside of a small amount of CO2 for the steam boiler), no odor using the Resomator (some other large scale machines have produced a slight soapy odor which this unit does not), and no sound (machine operates at the same level as a Bosch dishwasher). From a city standpoint, the process does release a liquid waste in to the sanitary sewer system. The effluent has been extensively studied and has received a permit from MetCouncil for waste water discharge. The effluent is sterile, has a viscosity similar to water, and is translucent. The effluent is safe, as this process was originally developed to neutralize some of the most resilient pathogens, some which were not even neutralized by fire - based cremation. MetCouncil will provide ongoing monitoring of the effluent. The machine itself is licensed through the Minnesota Department of Health, Mortuary Science division. Regarding activity per day, there is amaximum number of cycles of 5, however we are basing our numbers on 2 cycles per day which is assuming growth of our company, as our current case volume would necessitate approximately 1 cycle per day or Tess. Given approval of the process, installation and operation would begin in Fall of 2011. We feel this process and service offering will be an asset and benefit to the community. Through a series of focus groups conducted with people from Stillwater we found the process to be very well received with a high number of people who would normally select cremation indicating they would choose this for themselves or a family member. Given that Stillwater has a high percentage of families who choose cremation and that the green image of this process matches that of the Celebration of Life Center, we do believe this is a good fit. We hope this overview is of help as you consider our request. Attached we have included supporting material regarding the machine, the process, waste water permit, and our design plans. Please let us know if there isadditional information that would be of help. 32' 32' 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Matthews Cremation Cdumbarlum Deportment Contact: 1-800-327-2831 Pete Mueacchlo: ext-133 or Cory Ffrenah: ext-131 Mony Twee to Choose From Bronze Faceplate', Close Faceplate', and Granite Faceplate" 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r enre,esr never 10' WATER SOFTNER Mw COMBO CONDENSATE/ PREHEAT TANK BIO—CREMATOR ,HYDROLYSIS marr.1CHAMBER NIL alliNie ACCUMULATION TANK 16' 0 0 w s E Matthews CREMATION DIVISION 2045 Sprint Boulevard Apopka, Florida 32703 I1CA BRADSHAW STILLWATER PROPOSED SAMPLE LAYOUT WITH BID —CREMATION EQUIPMENT DRAWN: Jorrod Gogel APRVD: DWG FILE: DATE: 12-17-10 SCALE: 1 "=1' PLOT SCALE: 1:1 SHEET: 1 OF: 1 BradshawStillwaterLayout DWG #: nnnna9a. The Resomator — General Specification Model Number: S750 Overall Resomator Footprint: 3070mm (120") x 1280mm (50") nominal (1445mm (57") widest point) x 1940mm (76") tall Approximate dry weight (empty): 2500Kg (5500 Ibs) Approximate maximum weight: 3300Kg (7275 Ibs) Internal Chamber Length: 2050mm (80") Internal Chamber Diameter: 746mm (29 Yz") Maximum Cadaver Weight: 180Kg (400Ibs) Maximum Internal Temperature: 180°C (355F) (May be limited by Pressure) Maximum Operating Pressure: 10 Bar (145 psi) Safety Valve Lift Pressure: 11 Bar (160 psi) Door Lock Mechanism: QuicklockTM pneumatic actuation Heating Mechanism: Internal coil Heating Medium: Steam Cooling Mechanism: Internal coil Cooling Medium: Cold water Materials of Construction: Wetted components: 316L Stainless Steel Frame: 304 Stainless Steel Recommended* Utility Requirements Electricity: 230V, 3 Phase, 60 Amp Steam: 300 Kg/hr @ 14 bar (660 Ibs/hr @ 200psi) Water: 25mm connection, 3 — 6 bar (1" connection, 40 — 90 psi) Vent: 75mm (3") with fan extraction to atmosphere Drain: 75mm (3") open drain with air extraction Modem: Dedicated direct dial phone line for remote diagnostics * The above requirements are recommended to allow the Resomator to complete Resomation cycles as fast as is practical. Lesser requirements may be acceptable but will result in slower Resomation cycles. Please consult Resomation Ltd if your facility cannot offer the above utility requirement. 2 Cremation of Human Remains: A Comparison of Alkaline Hydrolysis versus Combustion by Craig Sinclair, Engineering Manager - Resomation Ltd Background The combustion of human remains is commonly known as cremation. It has served the funeral industry well for the last 100 years or so and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. However, with a rapidly growing population and an ever increasing environmental awareness, the time has arrived to consider other alternatives for the disposition of human remains. At the forefront of this consideration is the process of "High Pressure Alkaline Hydrolysis", also known as Bio CremationTM. This technology was originally developed for the decontamination and disposal of infected animal tissues and later reengineered to assist teaching hospitals with the disposition of donated cadavers. Today, the alkaline hydrolysis process has been perfected as a commercially viable alternative to traditional cremation and burial. This article gives a basic description of the Bio Cremation process and evaluates the various environmental, social and logistical aspects of the technology in relation to traditional cremation. Basic Description of the Process Unlike traditional cremation which uses a combustion reaction to reduce the cadaver to bone fragments, the Bio Cremation process utilizes a reaction known as alkaline hydrolysis. Due to the extensive research and development to date, and the considerable knowledge attained through studies in both Europe and North America, this article primarily considers high pressure alkaline hydrolysis. Low pressure systems are also available but are generally deemed not to be commercially viable as an alternative to cremation due to the significantly longer processing times (up to 24 hrs), odor issues and lack of data/testing. The alkaline hydrolysis process involves breaking down organic molecules to their basic components using a combination of water, alkali, heat and pressure. The cadaver is placed inside a stainless steel chamber which is then filled with water. A small amount of potassium hydroxide alkali (KOH) is then added and the contents heated to around 350°F. After a specified period of time the vessel is cooled and emptied leaving behind bone fragments that can be returned to the bereaved as with traditional cremation. From start to finish the entire process is automated and controlled using a simple touch screen operator interface and PLC. The liquid from the process is a sterile aqueous solution of basic organic molecules and is directed to a water treatment facility, a topic covered in more detail later in this document. Emissions and Carbon Footprint The primary disadvantage associated with the combustion reaction used in traditional cremation is that it creates gaseous emissions, primarily in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), which are associated with global warming and climate change. With growing awareness of climate change, regulators are coming under increased pressure to reduce CO2 emissions in all areas of industry and as a result it has become more challenging to gain planning permissions and operating permits for crematoria. Although there are CO2 emissions resulting from the Bio Cremation TM process (generating steam for heating), these are significantly Tess than for traditional cremation. In fact, looking at the both processes in their entirety, a recent UK independent study concluded that the carbon footprint associated with traditional cremation was approximately 4 times larger than that of Bio Cremation. Other harmful emissions which can be created from the combustion of human remains include nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2) which again contribute to climate change and, of particular concern in recent times, mercury vapor (Hg). Although less popular today, mercury has historically been a main component of the amalgam used in dental fillings. When exposed to the combustion temperatures involved in cremation this mercury will vaporize and travel into the atmosphere where it will mix with water vapor, cool, condense, and fall to the earth as rain. Recent studies have shown that even trace amounts of mercury can contaminate lakes and rivers and have toxic effects on fish and other animals or humans who consume them. In many parts of Europe this has led to the compulsory introduction of expensive filtration equipment to separate the mercury vapor from the other combustion gases prior to exiting the crematorium. As for the Bio Cremation process, it operates at significantly lower temperatures than traditional cremation which prevents the mercury from vaporizing. Instead the amalgam is separated from the bone fragments in solid form at the end of the process. As a result of the factors mentioned above the Bio Cremation technology has the potential to be installed in built-up commercial and/or residential areas without creating a nuisance or hazard to the surrounding population, something which would be strictly forbidden with traditional cremation due to strict zoning regulations. Energy Consumption Due to the high temperatures involved in traditional cremation (approximately 1500° — 1800°F), and the need to pre -heat the cremator chamber, it can be a highly energy intensive process. In contrast, the Bio Cremation chamber does not have a pre -heating requirement and operates at significantly lower temperatures (approximately 350°F). Studies have indicated that the combined electrical and gas energy requirement for the Bio Cremation process is approximately 85% less than traditional cremation. Based on a rate of 40 cremations/month and natural gas consumption figures taken from an independent environmental study, the cost savings on gas achieved by adopting Bio Cremation TM over traditional cremation are in the region of $1,700 - $2,220 per month. Efficacy and Sterilization Both alkaline hydrolysis and high temperature combustion have been proven to be highly efficacious in the destruction of all pathogens, bacteria and viruses. Studies have shown that the corresponding wet and dry heats and exposure times involved in both processes ensure that the resultant products from each are sterile. TSEs/Prions Unlike other kinds of infectious disease which are spread by microbes, the infectious agent in TSEs is a specific protein called the prion protein. This makes them notoriously difficult to destroy/inactivate as they can survive much harsher conditions. Some examples of TSEs are BSE in cattle, Scrapie in sheep and CJD in humans. The most common method for the destruction of TSE infected material is incineration (combustion). However in the last 10 to 15 years there have been numerous papers written by leading scientists in both the UK and the US stating that alkaline hydrolysis is a suitable alternative treatment in the destruction of TSE's. In Europe extensive research was commissioned by the European Scientific Steering Committee and carried out over a number years at the Roslin Institute in Scotland, one of the top research centers globally in this field. , Dr. David Taylor, a world leading expert in the field of TSE contamination, and a team of other researchers concluded that alkaline hydrolysis at elevated temperature and pressure was indeed a suitable method for the destruction of prion infected material. This is reflected in the official EU Animal By -Products Regulation (92/2005 amendment to 1774/2002) which lists alkaline hydrolysis as an acceptable method for the treatment of Category 1 (confirmed and high risk TSE) material. The USDA APHIS (United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) also recognizes alkaline hydrolysis as an approved method for the disposal of prion infected material and in some cases has documented this as the preferred method to be applied. Liquid During a traditional cremation the combustion gases are emitted into the atmosphere. Once in the atmosphere much of this gas will mix with water vapor, cool, condense into liquid and fall as rain. During a Bio Cremation, the hydrolyzed liquid produced is typically sent to a water treatment facility. This liquid contains no DNA or genetic material but instead is a simple bio- chemical mix of small organic molecules. Due to the nature of its origins, this liquid is obviously significantly higher in organic content (known as Biological Oxygen Demand or BOD) than the typical material flowing into the water treatment facility and is also typically higher in alkalinity (pH). Historically, when alkaline hydrolysis has been used on a larger scale in veterinary schools and research laboratories it has proven difficult on occasions to obtain permission from the water authorities to receive this liquid. However, where permission has been granted it has also been proven to have little or no effect on the operation of the water treatment facility. In addition, given the process developments achieved in the new Bio CremationTM system and the fact that the process is taking place on a smaller scale, the liquid produced from the Bio Cremation process will be less concentrated and of a much smaller volume than that of previous animal systems. As a result this liquid will not have any impact on an average sized water treatment facility. In addition the alkalinity (pH) of the liquid can be reduced to any desired level prior to discharge. The fact that the starting material is a human cadaver, rather than infected research animals will certainly make water authorities more amenable to accepting this liquid. The viscosity of the alkaline hydrolysis liquid from animal systems has been an area of concern from water treatment companies in the past. It is essential that the liquid going to the treatment plant does not impede the flow through the pipes in any way. This concern has been raised due to the fact that older animal alkaline hydrolysis systems used sodium hydroxide (NaOH) as the alkali in the process which often resulted in a highly viscous liquid. As mentioned above, the newer Bio Cremation systems use potassium hydroxide instead of sodium hydroxide which prevents this viscous liquid being formed. In 2009 United Utilities (one of the largest water companies in the UK) carried out tests on the liquid derived from a potassium hydroxide based Bio Cremation. These tests demonstrated that there are no issues with viscosity and/or gelling of the liquid even when added to cold, raw sewage. In remote locations or where it is not possible or desired to release to the water treatment plant there are other potential routes for the liquid. It can be collected and sent to an anaerobic treatment plant where it will be converted into a soil nutrient for land application and biogas for green energy production. This option has many benefits for the environment and is likely to become more popular as the anaerobic treatment technology becomes more available across the US. There is also the potential to apply the liquid directly onto cemetery/memorial gardens to fertilize the ground as the liquid is rich in potassium, nitrogen and phosphorus, the nutrients essential for plant life. However further research is required for this option to determine where it may be suitable, in what quantities and the benefits/overall environmental impact. Worker Safety Worker safety is a key consideration for all employers and crematoria operators are no different. The primary dangers associated with traditional cremation are exposure to the extreme heat and light (infrared/UV) involved in the process as well the potential to inhale harmful dust/emissions. These workers are supplied with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as heatproof gloves, face shields and dust masks and given the necessary training to use the equipment safely. Similarly, workers in a Bio Cremation TM facility will also be required to be trained in the safe use of the equipment and given suitable PPE chemical resistant gloves and aprons to protect them from exposure to alkali. Potentially dangerous chemicals are used in many industries and must always be treated with care and all OSHA guidelines followed regarding spill procedures, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) etc. However, as the Bio-Cremation unit is fully automated, manual handling of the alkali is not required at any time during normal operation and when the alkali supply does need to be replenished this can often be carried out by the supplier, not the equipment operator. Materials That Can Be Processed The Bio Cremation technology generally does not allow for synthetic fabrics to be processed. Therefore the bodies of the deceased are dressed in respectful gowns made from organic fibers such as silk or wool. Unlike traditional cremation, pacemakers do not have to be removed prior to the process and medical implants such as titanium hip or knee joints are not damaged or charred in any way. Another advantage of Bio Cremation is that items of jewelry can be recovered in pristine condition following the process. Remains In traditional cremation the body is converted to bone fragments via the process of combustion. It is then crushed and returned to the bereaved. Similarly, in Bio Cremation the body is also converted to bone fragments and is crushed and returned to the bereaved in exactly the same way. The only difference is that bio-cremated bone fragments have a smaller particle size and are pure white in color. Caskets Unlike traditional cremation a wooden casket is not used in the Bio Cremation process. Instead a silk or wool container is preferred offering a sustainable option for the environment and further reducing carbon emissions to the atmosphere. As with traditional cremation a wooden rental/transfer casket can be used for the purposes of the ceremony and viewing. Funeral Ceremony There is little change, if any in the funeral service for a Bio CremationTM versus traditional cremation. Both are dignified and respectful. The differences between the two processes only occur after the body is committed from public view. Costs In North America the capital cost of a Bio-cremation unit can be significantly greater than that of a traditional cremator. In Europe, where mercury filtration is mandatory, the cost of the Bio-Cremation is typically less than that of traditional cremator plus filtration equipment. Overall operating costs for the Bio-cremation unit are expected to be similar, if not less than that of a traditional cremator. Company Information Resomation Ltd was formed in Scotland in early 2007 to promote Resomation as a real alternative to burial and cremation. The basic technology behind the resomation process has been well established for many years. However, the vision of Resomation Ltd, to make the process widely available to all is relatively new. Resomation Ltd have expanded and developed the resomation process to make it useable and potentially available to all. Resonation Ltd Resomation Ltd 125 Honeywell Avenue I Glasgow, Scotland I G33 6HS +44 (0)141 882 3868 I craigsinclair@resomation.com I www.resomation.com AAA Metropolitan Council Ai Environmental Services May 18, 2011 Bradshaw Celebration of Life Center 2800 Curve Crest Blvd Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE PERMIT NUMBER 1504 FOR FACILITY LOCATED AT 2800 Curve Crest Blvd Stillwater. MN 55082 ATTN: Jason Bradshaw TRANSMITTED HEREWITH is the Industrial Discharge Permit for the above referenced facility. This Permit has been issued by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for the period specified, and it supersedes any temporary or draft permit which may exist. The discharge of Industrial Waste into the Metropolitan Disposal System is hereby allowed, subject to any and all provisions of the Waste Discharge Rules for the Metropolitan Disposal System, and this Permit. THE INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE PERMIT contains Discharge Limitations, Monitoring and Reporting Requirements, General Permit Conditions, Specific Permit Conditions, and a Compliance Schedule (if necessary). Any failure to submit the required Industrial Waste Discharge Reports, or any reports required by a Compliance Schedule, is a violation of this Permit. The Permit Number shall be included on all correspondence regarding this Permit. THE PERMITTEE is reminded that renewal of this Permit is not automatic; the Permittee must apply for renewal at least 60 days prior to the Permit expiration date. If questions arise, contact Peter Berglund at (651) 602-4708 or via email at peter.berglund@metc.state.mn.us. Sincerely, Leo H. Hermes, P.E. Industrial Waste Manager MCES Industrial Waste Section www.metrocouncil.org 390 Robert Street North o St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 • (651) 602-1005 • Fax (651) 602-1477 • TTY (651) 291-0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer Page 1 of 11 Permit No. 1504 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (MCES) INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE PERMIT Pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473 as amended and the Waste Discharge Rules for the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS) permission is hereby granted to Bradshaw Celebration of Life Center 2800 Curve Crest Blvd Stillwater, MN 55082 for the discharge of Industrial Waste into public sewers within the community of Stillwater tributary to the Metropolitan Council's Saint Croix Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant. This permit is granted in accordance with the application filed on November 23, 2010 and in consideration of the plans, specifications, and data contained in the application. Discharge Limitations, Monitoring and Reporting Requirements, Compliance Schedules, General Permit Conditions, and Specific Permit Conditions are contained in following sections of this Permit. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 18, 2011 EXPIRATION DATE: April 30, 2014 Issued by METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES it/ General Manager, or duly authorized representative Keith J. Buttleman, Assistant General Manager Envirornnental Quality Assurance Department Date Page 2of11 Permit No. 1504 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES A. Discharge Limitations 1. Local Pretreatment Standards The following Discharge Limits are based on Local Pretreatment Standards applicable to the total facility discharge, including non -process waste streams. See Attachment A. These Discharge Limits apply directly at the monitoring point specified in Section B.1. of this permit. Any difference between these limits and the Local Pretreatment Standards listed in Attachment A is due to adjustment of the limits based on the ratio of total facility discharge volume to monitoring point discharge volume. Discharge Limits at Sample Location(s): Sample Location Parameter Standard (mg/L) SP-01 Accumulation Tank Cadmium 1.3 Sampling Port Chromium 7.7 Copper 5.1 Cyanide, total 5.1 Lead 1.3 Mercury 0.003 Nickel 7.7 Zinc 7.7 pH Max (Std. Units) 11.0 pH Min (Std. Units) 5.0 Local pretreatment standards for metals and cyanide are the maximum for any 24 hour period. pH standards are continuous and apply at all times. 2. Prohibited Waste Discharges Prohibited wastes are specified in Waste Discharge Rule 406 and include, but are not limited to the following: (a) Flammable, explosive and corrosive wastes, gasoline, fuel oil, lubricating oil, hydraulic oil, motor oil, or grease; (b) Wastes that are likely to obstruct the flow within public sewers: grease, fat or oil of animal or vegetable origin, solid wastes, garbage, guts, bones, ash, sand, rags, lime, metal, wood, plastic, glass, or yard wastes; (c) Wastes that are likely to cause interference, pass -through, or operational problems: slug discharges, toxic chemicals, poisons, dyes, or inks; (d) Wastes that are likely to cause a public nuisance: noxious, malodorous, or foam producing substances; (e) Hazardous wastes, as defined by Minnesota Statutes; and (f) Wastes generated outside of the Metropolitan Area. Page 3of11 Permit No. 1504 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES B. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 1. Following is the specific monitoring point location, sample collection frequency, volume determination, sample compositing, and the calculation methods required by this Industrial Discharge Permit. Representative wastewater samples shall be collected at each sampling point (SP) by the Permittee in accordance with these requirements and Waste Discharge Rules 212, 213, and 215. These samples shall be collected once each reporting period on normal operating days. See Permit Section F (Compliance Schedule) for additional monitoring requirements. i) Monitoring Point: SP-01: The sampling port on the alkaline hydrolysis process accumulation tank. The accumulation tank shall be well mixed at the time of sampling. ii) Collection Frequency: A minimum of one grab sample shall be collected during each discharge cycle (each body processed) on the monitoring day. iii) Volume Determination: Total wastewater volumes for the monitoring day and reporting period shall be determined by the incoming city water meter minus the lawn irrigation city deduct water meter. Industrial wastewater volumes shall be the volume as recorded by sensors on the process equipment. Lawn irrigation deduct volumes shall be determined by the lawn deduct water meter. Domestic wastewater volumes shall be based on the incoming water volume minus the lawn deduct water volumes and minus the industrial wastewater volumes. iv) Compositing Method: All grab samples (if there were multiple discharge cycles) from an operating day shall be combined using an equal volume from each discharge cycle to form one composite sample. Results from the analysis of the daily single grab sample, or the composite sample shall be compared to Discharge Limits listed in Section A.1. for compliance determinations. Page 4of11 Permit No. 1504 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES B. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements (continued) v) Estimation of Total Facility Discharge Characteristics: The MCES Strength Charge is based on total facility concentrations for Chemical Oxygen Demand and Total Suspended Solids, and the total facility discharge volume for each reporting period. The Permittee may calculate the strength characteristics to estimate the applicable Strength Charge as follows: The total facility strength characteristics may be determined by mathematically factoring together the analytical results for the process wastewater and domestic wastewater characteristics. Domestic wastewater is assumed to contain 500 mg/L Chemical Oxygen Demand, and 250 mg/L Total Suspended Solids. The domestic waste volumes are calculated using the method described in B.l.iii. above. The reporting period process and domestic wastewater volumes shall be used for mathematical factoring to compute the total facility strength characteristics. Page 5of11 Permit No. 1504 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 2. Parameters Chemical analysis, in accordance with Waste Discharge Rule 216, of the sample(s) representing the waste discharged through the specified monitoring point(s), shall be performed for the following parameters: pH and Temperature of each grab sample; Chemical Oxygen Demand, Total Suspended Solids, and Mercury of the grab sample, or the composite sample if multiple grabs are composited. 3. Reporting Requirements a. The Peiinittee shall submit a complete Industrial Waste Discharge Report 1 time per year, according to the following schedule: Reporting Period January 1 — December 31 Report Due in MCES office by January 30 b. Permittees subject to EPA Categorical Pretreatment Standards shall submit an EPA Categorical Compliance Report with each Industrial Waste Discharge Report. C. Compliance Schedule The Permittee shall install additional pretreatment equipment and/or conduct necessary operation and maintenance to comply with the Discharge Limitations in accordance with the schedule set forth in: Section F D. General Permit Conditions 1. All discharges into public sewers by the Permittee shall be in accordance with applicable provisions of the Waste Discharge Rules for the MDS and this Permit. 2. The Permittee shall not knowingly make any false statement, representation or certification in any record, report, plan or other document submitted to MCES. 3. This Permit shall not release the Permittee from any liability, duty or penalty imposed by local, state or federal statutes, regulations, ordinances or license requirements regarding waste disposal. Page 6of11 Permit No. 1504 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 4. The Permittee shall take all reasonable precautions to minimize all accidental discharges including prohibited slugs, spills, and bypasses. Plans for the prevention and control of accidental discharges shall be submitted to the Industrial Waste Section for approval within a specified period of time when required by MCES. In the event of any significant accidental discharge, spill, or bypass, the Permittee shall IMMEDIATELY notify the Minnesota State Duty Officer at (651) 649-5451 and report the facility address, and other pertinent information. In accordance with Waste Discharge Rule 412, the Permittee shall post a permanent notice on an employee bulletin board or other prominent place advising employees how to notify the Minnesota State Duty Officer in the event of an accidental or prohibited slug discharge. 5. The Permittee shall notify the Industrial Waste Section within 24 hours of becoming aware of any violation of the Discharge Limitations in Section A. of this Permit. 6. The Permittee shall pay applicable Permit fees, Strength Charges and self -monitoring report late fees assessed by MCES. 7. In accordance with Waste Discharge Rule 211, the Permittee shall not assign or transfer an Industrial Discharge Permit to a new owner, or a new location, without the written approval of MCES. The Permittee shall provide a copy of this Permit to the new owner. S. In accordance with Waste Discharge Rule 214, the Permittee shall allow MCES personnel to enter the Permittee's premises for the purposes of inspection, monitoring, records review and other actions, as necessary, to verify information received by MCES and to determine compliance with the Waste Discharge Rules and this Permit. 9. The Permittee shall retain its waste disposal records, in accordance with Waste Discharge Rule 214, for a period of not Iess than three years. 10. The analytical results for all wastewater monitoring conducted during each reporting period, at the monitoring point(s) specified in this Permit or at points representing the industrial discharge through the monitoring point(s), including in-house sampling and analysis, shall be submitted with each Industrial Waste Discharge Report. All analytical results shall include the operating day discharge volume. Permittees conducting more than one sampling event, in accordance with Permit requirements in Section B, during a reporting period, shall compute an arithmetic average for all parameters subject to EPA Categorical Pretreatment Standards. The average operating day discharge volume shall also be included. For pH, the minimum and maximum value in the range of measured values shall also be listed. Page 7of11 Permit No. 1504 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 11. If applicable, the Permittee shall install, operate, and maintain sampling and monitoring devices in proper working order at the Permittee's expense. 12. The Permittee shall notify the Industrial Waste Section at least 60 days prior to making changes, such as: • moving, adding, or replacing processes or equipment, or • modification of the wastewater monitoring point, or • installation or modification of wastewater pretreatment equipment, or • any other operational changes that would significantly affect the volume or characteristics of the wastewater discharged. This Permit shall then be subject to modification or re -issuance in accordance with Waste Discharge Rules 206-209. 13. The Permittee shall be subject to civil liability as a result of discharges which violate the Waste Discharge Rules, applicable federal pretreatment standards or requirements, or any requirement or condition contained in this Peiiiiit. Further, any violation may also result in the Permittee being subject to civil and/or criminal penalties in the amount of $1,000 per day, 90 days imprisonment, or both. Page 8 of 11 Permit No. 1504 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES E. Specific Permit Conditions 1. Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) is a "connection" fee levied by MCES since 1973 for new connections or increased volume discharged to the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS). For industrial purposes, one SAC unit equals 274 gallons of maximum noinial daily wastewater flow volume for process areas and maximum potential flow volume for commercial areas. MCES will be evaluating the SAC history for this facility in the near future to determine SAC liability, if any. 2. The Permittee shall take appropriate measures to ensure that all wastewater resulting from the alkaline hydrolysis process is properly neutralized to a pH between of 5.0 and 11.0 Standard Units, prior to discharge. 3. The Permittee shall take appropriate measures to ensure that the temperature of all wastewater resulting from the alkaline hydrolysis process is less than 150 degrees Fahrenheit, prior to discharge. 4. The Permittee shall not use sodium hydroxide (NaOH), and shall use potassium hydroxide (KOH) as the alkaline hydrolysis chemical. 5. If the Permittee tests its new processing equipment and generates wastewater, with or without the use of KOH, the Permittee shall notify MCES a minimum of 14 days prior to such testing. If KOH is used during the testing, the pH of each test run shall be measured, recorded, and reported to MCES. 6. The Peunittee shall not discharge bone shadow material, medical devices, dental amalgam, mechanical implants, plates, screws, prosthetics, pacemakers, defibrillators, or any other solids that are expressly prohibited by this Permit or the Waste Discharge Rules. 7. The Pelniittee shall ensure that any material exhibiting a half-life or having radioactive properties are in compliance with limitations and requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Minnesota Department of Health, and any other applicable local, state or federal statutes, regulations, ordinances or license requirements. 8. The days in which self -monitoring is conducted shall be selected as to produce representative samples of the process discharge occurring during the reporting period. Page 9 of 11 Permit No. 1504 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES F. Compliance Schedule Task Task Completion Date 1. The Permittee shall complete and submit to MCES an accurate and complete Spill Control Plan. (See Attachment B on page 11). July 15, 2011 2. In addition to the routine monitoring requirements, the 21 days after Permittee shall collect and analyze samples in accordance the initial third with the Monitoring and Reporting Requirements in Section day of alkaline B. for the initial three operating days in which bodies are hydrolysis processed. The analytical results shall be submitted to MCES processing within 21 days after the third day of operation. These results may be used to fulfill the routine sampling requirements for the corresponding reporting period. Page 10of11 Permit No. 1504 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Attachment A MDS Limitations on Discharges 1. Local Pretreatment Standards (Applicable to the total facility discharge) Parameter Standard (mg/L) Cadmium (Cd) Chromium — total (Cr) Copper (Cu) Cyanide — total (CN) Lead (Pb) Mercury (Hg) Nickel (Ni) Zinc (Zn) pH — maximum (Std. Units) pH — minimum (Std. Units) 1.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 0.002 6.0 6.0 11.0 5.0 Local pretreatment standards for metals and cyanide are the maximum for any 24 hour period. pH standards are continuous and apply at all times. Page 11 of 11 Permit No. 1504 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Attachment B Spill Control Plan Requirements: 1. A list of the name(s), titles, and phone numbers (office and home) of the persons assigned to coordinate spill response actions. 2. A general description (including volumes) of stored chemicals and process tanks. Also, describe areas where chemicals are transferred or pumped. 3. A description of controls and procedures to prevent the entry of chemicals, other materials or wastes into the sewer. Examples of such controls are: dikes, permanently sealed floor drains, specialized valves, and procedures and record keeping related to routine facility inspections. Also, note other procedures or equipment (if any) used for emergency response. 4. A description of procedures for immediate MCES notification, in the event of a spill. For example, post the Minnesota State Duty Officer at (651) 649-5451 spill phone numbers in numerous locations. Also, a description of employee training regarding MCES notification, in-house notification, and other emergency response action. 5. As part of the revised EPA General Pretreatment Regulations requirements, the spill plan should also include a list of periodic batch discharges that may constitute a "slug" discharge to the MCES treatment plant or cause your facility discharge or the MCES treatment plant discharge to violate standards. Therefore, if you conduct batch discharges of wastes, you must include them as part of your spill plan. All "significant" quantities of chemicals must be included in the spill plan. What is considered a significant quantity will vary, case by case; however, if you are storing chemicals such as solvents, oils, acids, caustics, dyes, or concentrated metal bearing solutions in containers equal to, or greater than 5 gallons, then you must include these in your plan. This volume also applies to facility areas where these types of materials or wastes are pumped or transferred in or out of containers. If you store a raw material or product such as corn syrup, milk, etc., in tanks of 500 gallons or more, you must include this in your spill plan. Large volumes of materials which seem harmless have the potential to overwhelm the biological treatment process of a wastewater treatment plant and must be included in any spill plan. A pre-existing spill plan may be used to fulfill this requirement, if it is current and if it addresses the five elements above. Please note that, in the event of a spill or uncontrolled discharge, you may be held liable for damages to the collection system, and the wastewater treatment plant, and for enforcement action taken against MCES by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or the U.S. EPA. Planning Commission DATE: July 7, 2011 CASE NO.: 11-18 APPLICANT: Daniel Schwarz, Lift Bridge Brewing Company PROPERTY OWNER: Stillwater West, LLC REQUESTS: 1. A zoning text amendment to City Code Section 31-325 entitled "Allowable uses in non-residential district" in order to permit bottling works as a Special Use Permit in the BP-0 zoning District. 2. A special use permit for a bottling works at 1900 Tower Drive West. LOCATION: 1900 Tower Drive West COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: C - Commercial ZONING: BP-O, Business Park Office PC DATE: July 11, 2011 PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Plannei ) REVIEWERS: Community Development Director BACKGROUND Lift Bridge Brewing Company began operating their office, warehouse, and limited specialty beer production at 1900 Tower Drive West in the Spring of 2010. At that time, City Staff classified the limited production as an accessory use since it comprised less than 10 percent of the total floor area and was limited to no more than 2,000 barrels of beer production annually. Currently all of their on -site production is kegged for distribution. Their main production currently occurs off -site. Lift Bridge Brewing Company approached the City recently asking to increase on -site production over the current limit of 2,000 barrels annually and to add a manual/ semi - automated bottling line to the facility. The applicant has indicated that they would prefer to continue to produce most of their beer off -site; however, due to production constraints with their current contract brewers they desire the ability to produce their beer on -site when they are faced with capacity challenges. 1900 Tower Dr W Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUESTS To proceed with on -site beer production the applicant has made application for the following items: 1. A zoning text amendment to City Code Section 31-325 entitled "Allowable uses in non-residential district" in order to permit bottling works in the BP-0 zoning district. 2. A special use permit to permit a bottling works operation at 1900 Tower Drive West. DISCUSSION Zoning Text Amendment The purpose of the BP-0 zoning district is to provide "a district for office uses". While a bottling works itself may not lend itself well in an office oriented zoning district with some restrictions the use could be compatible with the surrounding office uses. From staff's perspective, the real impact from a potential bottling works operation comes from the noise it generates and the potential for a number of large vehicular traveling to and from the site. One way to address this is to limit the type of bottling equipment that can used. This approach will physically limit the number of bottles that can be realistically produced on the site thus limiting the amount of traffic. With the equipment restriction the bottle works use itself likely would remain a small component of the overall use that would occur on the site. The applicant has agreed to use only a manual or semi -automated bottling line without a conveyer system, which should address concerns with noise and traffic. Special Use Permit As outlined in the proposed ordinance, bottling works in the BP-0 zoning district will require a special use permit. Sec. 31-207(d) of the City Code states that a Special Use Permit can be approved if the Planning Commission finds that: (1) The proposed use conforms to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and any relevant area plans. • With the proposed ordinance, the proposed use meets the requirements of the zoning code. • The site currently complies with all other zoning code requirements. 1900 Tower Dr W Page 3 (2) Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. • Plans will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. • All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. • The site shall comply with the City's noise ordinance. (3) The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. • Staff finds this criterion to be satisfied with the conditions/requirements in the proposed ordinance. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Recommend approval of the proposed zoning text amendment for bottling works in the BP-0 zoning district and approve a special use permit for a bottling works operation at 1900 Tower Drive with the following conditions: a. All changes to the approved plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Any major changes will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and approval. b. Plans will need to be approved by the engineering, fire and building officials before the issuance of a building permit. c. The site shall comply with the requirements City's noise ordinance. 2. Recommend denial of the proposed zoning text amendment for bottling works in the BP-0 zoning district and deny a special use permit for a bottling works operation at 1900 Tower Drive. 3. Continue the public hearing until the August 8, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends alternative 1. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE CHAPTER 31, ENTITLED ZONING ORDINANCE, BY ADDING "BOTTLING WORKS" IN THE BUSINESS PARK OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT AS A SPECIALLY PERMITTED USE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER DOES ORDAIN: 1. Amending. City Code Chapter 31, Section 31-325 by replacing the Industrial/Bottling works section of the use table with the following: CA CBD VC BP-C BP-0 BP -I CRD PA PWFD Industrial Bottling works 20 SUP 16 SUP 20 The bottling machinery is limited to manual/semi-automated bottling line without a conveyor system associated with the bottling line. 2. Savings. In all other ways City Code Chapter 31 shall remain in full force and effect. 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance will be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication according to law. Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this day of , 2011. CITY OF STILLWATER Ken Harycki, Mayor ATTEST: Diane Ward, City Clerk Lift Bridge Brewing Company Dan Schwarz, CEO 1900 Tower Drive Stillwater, MN 55082 June 22, 2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: Zoning Amendment /Special Use Permit To Whom It Concerns: We respectfully request the following special use be added to the Business Park — Office (BP-0): Craft brewery producing not more than 25,000 barrels per year. This will allow our small operation to add a manual/semi-automated bottling line to package our product. It is a very small piece of equipment and is very manual. Please see the attached pictures and building layout drawing. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly. Best regards, sc Daniel J. Schwarz, CEO Lift Bridge Brewing Company Phone: 888-430-2337 x55 Mobile: 651-226-5223 Email: Dan@LiftBridgeBrewery.com Pictures of the bottling equipment follow: Lift Bridge Brewing Company June 22, 2011 Page 2 PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 V-- Special/Conditional Use Permit Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Case No: Date Filed: Fee Paid: Receipt No.: ACTION REQUESTED Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance Lot Line Adjustment *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees. The fees for requested action are attached to this application. The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application. All supporting material (i e., photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater. Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material are required. If application requires City Council review then a total of twenty-eight (*copies ere required to be submitted. Review the Checklist to the Planning Administration Application Form for the complete list of required items that must be submitted. Any incomplete application or supporting material will cause your application to be rejected by the City. Required — Applications will be rejected without a legal description. A legal description is found on the deed to the property. Attach as an exhibit if necessary. After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period. Once the 10-day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project I 1100 I Owe( brj jc e .t Assessor's Parcel No. 3Z 0 50 2-0 5 (GEO Code) Complete Property Legal Description* Lo+ 12 , 6 ipGk 2 11-Ecr><- .yy ift`c,,, (*Required — Applications will be rejected without a legal description) Tax descriptions and property descriptions from the county are not acceptable. Zoning District BP-0 Description of Project C , j rj "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify l will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." p Required Property Owner L.L 6ride.?(-44'I-l€5, Ll Mailing Address HD()[ v De►r e Wt5i- City - State — Zip SiillWa.-(ev ('YIN S50`62_ Telephone No. (CS1-ZZ6-5 ZZ3 Email I 4.1- bractprdpz.rii-t,C gmoo (�Lb,v‘ V <.J Signature 1 (Sigwired) If other than property owner Representative atkoa. Mailing Address I DZ`/ L.00ert/ M/ud City - State — Zip Silly i- /"f1N �OFSZ Telephone No. Co51 Email I f4 br.d (/operfio e Mard i c o •,-, Signature C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\SWIEGAND\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\CONTENT OUTLOOK\K6SUFJRY'\PLANAPP DOCX July 22, 2010 quired) 41.1111116. -7; DJ'S to- /-// ;66:4,,A4,44: 46 1'7 S n'6!rt,, 1-4.2„eT4 1 4,4 rt -6 6 —7/4 4-4 le4;: • 7•74•• ir64z2) t •t• r„;., • — MB 1-6 Z-k 711 c 7'24'77 /4ik16 B6iii fiikr 1' THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT DATE: July 7, 2011 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater CASE NO.: 2011-04 REQUEST: Special Use Permits for 9 Rezoned Properties PUBLIC HEARING: July 11, 2011 REPORT AUTHOR: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Directofg r. BACKGROUND To create consistency between the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Map, 369 properties were recently rezoned. For nine of these properties, the new zoning district classification allows the existing uses found on the properties only by Special Use Permit (SUP). Therefore, the rezonings were approved but will not become effective until the City approves Special Use Permits for each of the properties. These nine properties are found in three separate areas of the -City. 1. North Owens Street a. 1203 N Owens (36 unit apartment complex) 2. North 3rd Street a. 209 N 3rd Street (single family home) b. 215 N 3rd Street (single family home) 3. South Greeley Street a. 1601 S Greeley (single family home) b. 1602 S Greeley (single family home) c. 1603 S Greeley (single family home) d. 1609 S Greeley (single family home) e. 1048 W Orleans Street (duplex) f. 1656 S Greeley (single family home & towing company) SPECIFIC REQUEST Grant Special Use Permits for each of the nine properties identified above. Comp Plan Rezoning Special Use Permits Page 2 of 11 EVALUATION OF REQUEST The nine subject properties are found in three separate areas of the City. Each of the properties is included in the attached maps and reference table. 1. North Owens Street a. 1203 N Owens (Map ID #58) is a 36 unit apartment complex on property rezoned from RB, Two -Family Residential to RCM, Medium Density Residential. 2. North 3rd Street a. 209 N 3rd Street (Map ID #5) is a single family home on property rezoned from PA, Public Administration/ Institutional to RCM, Medium Density Residential. b. 215 N 3rd Street (Map ID #4) is a single family home on property rezoned from PA, Public Administration/Institutional to RCM, Medium Density Residential. 3. South Greeley Street a. 1601 S Greeley (Map ID #374) is a single family home on property rezoned from RA, Single Family Residential to RCM, Medium Density Residential. b. 1602 S Greeley (Map ID #376) is a single family home on property rezoned from RB, Two -Family Residential to RCM, Medium Density Residential. c. 1603 S Greeley (Map ID #370) is a single family home on property rezoned from RB, Two -Family Residential to RCM, Medium Density Residential. d. 1609 S Greeley (Map ID #369) is a single family home on property rezoned from RB, Two -Family Residential to RCM, Medium Density Residential. e. 1048 W Orleans (Map ID #377) is a duplex on property rezoned from RB, Two -Family Residential to RCM, Medium Density Residential. f. 1656 S Greeley has two uses. i. The first use is a single family home on property rezoned from RB, Two -Family Residential to RCM, Medium Density Residential. ii. The second use is a non -conforming towing service. Rezoning the property from RB to RCM has no impact on the non -conforming status of the towing service, since it is not a conforming use in either zoning district. The Planning Commission may grant Special Use Permits when the following findings are madel: 1. The proposed structure or use conforms to the requirements and the intent of this chapter, and of the comprehensive plan, relevant area plans and other lawful City Code Ch. 31-1, Subd. 30(1)d Comp Plan Rezoning Special Use Permits Page 4 of 11 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE SECTION 31-1, SUBDIVISION 5 ENTITLED ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS The City Council of the City of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota, does ordain: Section 1. Purpose. On June 1, 2010 the City Council adopted Stillwater's new 2030 Comprehensive Plan. By Minnesota law the city's zoning map must be consistent with the new Comprehensive Plan's future land use map. A number of properties in the city are not zoned consistently with the new Comprehensive Plan. This ordinance rezones those properties to be consistent. The current uses within the principal structures on nine of the properties being rezoned are allowed only by Special Use Permit. Consequently before this rezoning ordinance becomes effective, Special Use Permits must be approved by the City Council. If the Special Use Permit for one or more of the subject properties are not approved, the rezoning for those specific properties will not become effective. Section 2. The City's Official Zoning Map is amended by changing the zoning district classification for the properties described in Exhibit A. The same properties are graphically depicted in Exhibits B - C. This proceeding is known as Planning Case Number 2011-04. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect for the subject properties when the City Council approves Special Use Permits for the subject properties and this ordinance is published. Section 4. effect. In all other ways the Stillwater City Code shall remain in full force and Adopted by the City Council this day of May, 2011. CITY OF STILLWATER Ken Harycki, Mayor ATTEST: Diane Ward, City Clerk Comp Plan Rezoning Special Use Permits Page 3 of 11 regulations. In each case the underlying reason for the Special Use Permit request is to create consistency with the future land use classification of the property as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. 2. Any additional conditions necessary for the public interest have been imposed. Since the buildings and uses on all nine properties have been in existence for quite a while and staff is not aware of complaints on any of them, no conditions are being suggested by staff 3. The use or structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. As mentioned above, each of the buildings have been in use for many years and public nuisance issues do not seem to exist. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has at least the following options. 1. Approve the Special Use Permits for all or some of the nine properties. 2. Deny the Special Use Permits for all or some of the nine properties. 3. Table the case until the next Planning Commission meeting. Since the City is the applicant, there is no 60 day approval deadline to influence the proceedings. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving the Special Use Permits for all nine of the properties. Attachments: Adopted Rezoning Ordinance Reference Table Location Maps Comp Plan Rezoning Special Use Permits Page 5 of 11 Exhibit A Properties to be Rezoned with SUPs (ID numbers correspond to ID numbers on attached maps) Comp Previous Current ID GEOCODE Address Street Suff Suff Plan Zoning Zoning Land Use Units Use detail Use note Current or Recent Owner 4 2803020130149 215 3RD ST N HDR PA RCM RES 1 UNIT 1 Private 5 2803020420070 209 3RD ST N HDR PA RCM RES 1 UNIT 1 Private 58 2103020330042 1203 OWENS ST N HDR RB RCM RES MORE THAN 4 UNITS 36 APARTMENT BUILDINGS STILLWATER COUNTRY CLUB APTS 369 3303020320009 1609 GREELEY ST S HDR RB RCM RES 1 UNIT 1 Private 370 3303020320008 1603 GREELEY ST S HDR RB RCM RES 1 UNIT 1 Private 374 3303020320011 1601 GREELEY ST S HDR RA RCM RES 1 UNIT 1 Private 376 3303020320036 1602 GREELEY ST S HDR RB RCM RES 1 UNIT 1 Private 377 33030203200380041 1048 ORLEANS ST W HDR RB RCM RES 2 UNITS 2 CONDOMINIUMS Private 379 3303020320021 1656 GREELEY ST S HDR RB RCM RES 1 UNIT 1 COMM LAND & BLDGS TOWING SERVICE Private Comp Plan Rezoning Special Use Permits Page 6 of 11 EXHIBIT B 111 Special Use Permits Required by CPA Rezoning North 3rd Street Future Land Use Low Density Residential Low/Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential I*gh Density Residential I Neighborhood Commercial ___11] Commercial - Downtown Mixed Use - Research 8 Development Park Industrial Institutional I Park. Rec. or Open Space - Marina Road R-O-W Surface Water Wetland Comp Plan Rezoning Special Use Permits Page 7 of 11 EXHIBIT C Special Use Permits Required by CPA Rezoning North 3rd Street Zoning Districts A-P Agiculturol Preservation RA- dingle Family RezKkntial RR - Two Family TR. Traditional Residential - LR. Lakeshore Residential CR. Cottage Residential - CTR. Cow Traditional Residential - CCR, Coo Cottage Residential ▪ CTHR. Cave Townhouse Residential NENTH. Townhouse ▪ RCM - Medium Density Residential - RCH - High Denzil/ Residential VC. Whig. Cammerdal - CA- General Commercial - CBD- Central Business District BP-C. Business Park - Commercial - BP-0, Business Park - Office BP -I. Business Park - Industrial ▪ IB • Heavy Industrial - CRD - Campus Research Development - PA - Public Adminish anon - PRO; - Park, Red ra OR, :pate Public Works Facility ROAD WATER 2030 City Limits Comp Plan Rezoning Special Use Permits Page 8 of 11 EXHIBIT D Special Use Permits Required by CPA Rezoning 1203 N Owens Future Land Use Low Density Residential Low/Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential ,_..e High Density Residential ` Neighborhood Commercial Commercial _ Downtown Mixed Use Research & Development Park 1 Industrial Institutional Park. Rec. or Open Space _ Marina Road R-O-W ace Water land Comp Plan Rezoning Special Use Permits Page 9 of 1 l EXHIBIT E _�ill�ter va lw! C! Or YIwai fora Special Use Permits Required by CPA Rezoning North Owens Zoning Districts A-P, Agricultural Pres€ivakon RA- Dingle Family Residential RB- Two Family TR, Traditional Reskfentiat Fel LR, Lakeshore Resicentiat CR. Cottage Residential - CTR, Cove Traditional Residential - CCR. Cove Cottage Residential CTHR, Cove Tatnnouse Residential TH. Townhouse RCM - Medium Density Residential RCH - High Dent{ Residential VC. Whims Commercial - CA- General Canmernal - CBD CMO al Business District BP-C, Business Park - Commercial - BP-O, Business Park- Office BP -I. Business Park - Industrial IB- Heady Industrial - CRD- Campus Research Development - PA• Prrblic Adnenistt aeon gig PROS - Palk. Rec or Open :pace• Public Wok Facility ROAD WIT ER E3 2030 City Limits Comp Plan Rezoning Special Use Permits Page 10 of 11 EXHIBIT F j Water. Special Use Permits Required by CPA Rezoning South Greeley Future Land Use Low Density Residential Low( ediutn Density Residential Ile Medium Density Residential FNgh Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Commercial 1111 Downtown Mixed Use - Research 8 Development Park Industrial Institutional Park. Rec. or Open Space _ Manna Road R-O-W Surface vVater Wetland Comp Plan Rezoning Special Use Permits Page 11 of 11 EXHIBIT G --_ --y- ,_ TRGTTER ,. — /ram _ ji1ltL wae ,� vwi a�ixn /ta4< Ot a�vwt SPi• { ' �','� ,°r � t,,,.,�r Special Use Permits / Required by CPA Rezoning South Greeley / _ •,,.M �.-` _ yi, A ��/� �� J r ! 4\ g I Zoning Districts 4P, AgicuRurnl Pt _ aa' atfon RA- Single Family Residential tjff r IDTR #376 ! IF I:_ RB. Two Family .Traditional Residential LR. Lakeshore. Residential ID 43/0 .: WEST—'ORL*AttS __Ji ---.. j .1, r � l K. 1 ID #3! 0 � / ".. CR, Cottage Residential _ CTR. Care Traditional Residential CCR. Cove Cottage Residential ( F'f ID#3r', t .. •.,,_. _.. _.,.... -w --.... ® CTHR, Cate Townhouse Rev-an1il .r,... TH T hau Townhouse r ID43•C j f RCM- Medium Dorsky Residential iµt tut : • i:. ,. ^ _r Ial R' - High Density Residential ' . Village Commercial � 1 EllGeneralCGenCommercialalCommercialI - CBD - Central Business Disdict ID #37 BP-C. Business Park- Canmetciai -- -� — BRO. Business Park - Office . _ R�� i I - I S'I'� ._..-- � ---..- -_-.. -- BP -I, Business Pink • Industrial IB- Heavy Industrial am 0• Campus Reseal ch Oa/elopment FAPu c Arkrinish Mien PROS- Park. KOt Open :{act 9 Public Works Facility ROAD VOTER zoaociryur,xs T.MEI ater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT DATE: July 1, 2011 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater REQUEST: Amend Future Land Use Map PUBLIC HEARING: July 11, 2011 REPORT AUTHOR: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director 7� CASE NO.: 2011-04 BACKGROUND On June 1, 2010 the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan was adopted. State law requires a City's Comprehensive Plan and its "official controls" to be consistent. Consequently, 369 properties were rezoned recently to be consistent with the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. However, for a dozen properties it was agreed by the property owners and the City to create consistency by amending the Future Land Use Map and leaving the zoning as it is. SPECIFIC REQUESTS 1. Amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan by changing the designation of all 10 lots on Linson Circle from MDR, Medium Density Residential to LMDR, Low/Medium Density Residential. 2. Amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan by changing the designation of property located at 1750 and 1778 Greeley Street South from Industrial to Commercial. EVALUATION OF REQUESTS 1. The 10 properties located on Linson Circle are all zoned RB, Two -Family Residential. Each lot has a duplex constructed on it, which is allowed in the RB Zoning District. The Comprehensive Plari s vision for this cul-de-sac is to encourage redevelopment from duplex to higher density housing, which would be consistent with much of the surrounding neighborhood. However, a number of the property owners on Linson Circle objected to the vision and would like the properties to be allowed to remain duplexes. The City agreed that this was acceptable and did not rezone the properties to RCM, Medium Density Residential. Page 2 of 5 Consequently, the RB zoning and MDR guiding are inconsistent. To resolve this, the City agreed to change the guiding to LMDR, Low/Medium Density Residential. 2. The two properties at the corner of Curve Crest Boulevard and Greeley Street South (SE- TAC and the Gulf Gas Station) are zoned BP-C, Business Park Commercial. The uses on the two properties are consistent with this zoning. The Comprehensive Plari s vision for this corner is to encourage redevelopment from commercial to industrial uses, which would be consistent with the properties south of Curve Crest Boulevard. However, the property owners would like the properties to be allowed to remain commercial. The City agreed that this was acceptable and did not rezone the properties to BP -I, Business Park Industrial. Consequently, the BP-C zoning and Industrial guiding are inconsistent. To resolve this, the City agreed to change the guiding to Commercial. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has at least the following options. 1. Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments. 2. Recommend that the City Council deny the proposed Future Land Use Map amendments. 3. Table the case until the next Planning Commission meeting. Since the City is the applicant, there is no 60 day approval deadline to influence the proceedings. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed Comp Plan amendments. Attachments: Reference Table Current Zoning Future Land Use Map Page 3 of 5 Future Land Use Designation MDR MDR Proposed Designation LMDR LMDR Reference Table: Land Use Map Changes Zoning Existing Land Use RB RES 2 UNITS Units Address Street Suff Suff Owner 2 1655 LINSON CIR Private RB RES 2 UNITS 2 1605 LINSON CIR Private MDR LMDR RB RES 2 UNITS 2 1600 LINSON CIR Private MDR LMDR RB RES 2 UNITS 2 1635 LINSON CIR Private MDR LMDR RB RES 2 UNITS 2 1650 LINSON CIR Private MDR MDR MDR LMDR LMDR LMDR RB RES 2 UNITS RB RES 2 UNITS RB RES 2 UNITS 2 1640 LINSON CIR VALLEY GROUP LLC 2 1645 LINSON CIR EQUITY TRS CO 2 1630 LINSON CIR Private MDR LMDR RB RES 2 UNITS 2 1620 LINSON CIR Private MDR LMDR RB RES 2 UNITS 2 1627 LINSON CIR Private INDUS INDUS COMM COMM LAND & BPC BLDGS COMM BPC COMM LAND & BLDGS 0 1778 GREELEY ST S SE-TAC 0 1750 GREELEY ST S LUCKY GAS STATION Page 4 of 5 bd Subject properties Outlined in Cyan f 1 Subject properties Outlined in Cyan ORf EANS-- STREET J Ct z 12 Land Use Map Changes Current Zoning Zoning Districts 1 1 A-P.Agricueural Reservation n RA - Single Family Residential j�R6-TWO Famty n TR. Traditional Residential LR. Lakeshore Residential Q CR, Cottage Residential CTR. Cove -ftadit on I Residential - CCR. Cove Cottage Residential • CTHR. Cove Tovmhouso Residential UTH. Tovmhouse t l RCM - Medium Density Residential n RCH - High Density Residential • vc. Village Commercial - CA - General Commercial - CBD - Central Business District nBP-C. Business Patti - Commercial - BP-O. Business Park - Office r 1 BP-1. Business Paik - industrial • R - Heavy Industrial ▪ CRD - Campus Research Develganent PA • Public Admaistralion PROS- Park, Roc or Open Space l 1-1 Public Works Facility ROAD - Railroad n WATER Page 5 of 5 ,VV E31 CRLLA;43 GTR R Subject properties Change from MDR to LMDR CURVE C_ Subject properties Change from Industrial to Commercial j 'water ..• ��.r. n..rF a. ��..�so�. ,J 12 Land Use Map Changes Future Land Use Designation Future Land Use Categories I Low Density Residential Low/Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential nle.ighborhood Commercial Commercial _ Downtown Mixed Use - Research & Development Park Industrial J Institutional Park. Rec. or Open Space _ Marina Road R-O-W Surface Water Wetland