My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2018 12 18
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2018 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2018 12 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2022 3:14:35 PM
Creation date
1/9/2019 9:28:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
9C1
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2018 12 18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 18 2018 <br />Page 13 of 14 <br />fiscal impact to the community We don't do that in other circumstances Then there is <br />the consideration of negative impact or the loss of property value Councilmember Leh <br />believed the criterion is met. We have to evaluate each piece of evidence ourselves. <br />The realtor noted in the public comments is stating his opinion given how it is phrased <br />and stated The other information is not about columbaria, it is about cemeteries There <br />is legitimate concerns about property values and he is weighing that. If denied the <br />church could put ums inside and never tell anyone and it would have the same effect. <br />This design does not appear to have an adverse effect on property values He noted <br />churches do lend economic stability to the city and to the neighborhood It is compatible <br />with the existing church The term cemetery connotes a lot of things for a lot of people., <br />we still have the same criteria This project being labeled as a cemetery has driven the <br />debate, but does not drive the decision He felt the criteria have been met. <br />Councilmember Stolzmann stated she has not heard any evidence this will contribute to <br />economic stability; that proof is absent. She feels the definition as cemetery was <br />decided and has to be considered as such with the process <br />Mayor Pro Tem Lipton made a motion to approve Resolution No 62, Series 2018, <br />seconded by Councilmember Maloney <br />Mayor Muckle asked staff about the changes requested from the Planning Commission <br />Ritchie stated all Planning Commissions conditions have been met and staff is <br />recommending approval with no conditions <br />Discussion of the motion <br />Mayor Muckle thanked everyone their engagement in this process. He hoped people <br />feel the process is fair and objective <br />Mayor Muckle stated he thinks in five years no one will know what is there behind the <br />wall and there is no need for the neighbors to disclose that to prospective home buyers. <br />City Attorney Kelly noted the zoning remains intact and this is not a variance This is a <br />Special Review Use to allow what is in the application <br />Roll CaII Vote 4-2 Mayor Pro Tem Lipton and Councilmember Stolzmann voting no <br />CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT <br />No report. <br />COUNCIL COMMENTS, COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND IDENTIFICATION OF <br />FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS <br />After a 5-minute recess the Mayor reconvened the meeting <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.