Laserfiche WebLink
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 18, 2018 <br />Page 9 of 14 <br />Mayor Pro Tem Lipton asked if a Council member were a member of the church if <br />recusal would be required as a conflict of interest. City Attorney Kelly stated not <br />according to the State conflict of interest laws, but in the spirit of transparency, each <br />Council member should decide if a disclosure were appropriate Mayor Pro Tem Lipton <br />stated he had no affiliation with this church but was a little uncomfortable with Council <br />members having to disclose church affiliation <br />Councilmember Leh asked the applicant if this is a money making proposition as some <br />have described, he asked how the money that comes in would be used, is it related to <br />the cost of the project. Lord stated the church is a non-profit entity and income is <br />dependent on the offerings of the congregation Currently, she doesn't know the cost for <br />a niche, but the financial plan has the money in a dedicated fund to be used for <br />construction, engraving of the niche and then the maintenance of the columbarium <br />Mayor Muckle asked if the remembrance garden will be only for the church members <br />Lord stated yes, it will be for church members Originally thought to have it open to <br />others, but changed that after the neighborhood meeting Mayor Muckle asked if there <br />would be marketing or signage about the columbarium Lord stated no <br />Mayor Muckle asked if approval of this would allow for any expansion or another <br />cemetery on site Ritchie stated nothing other than what was presented is allowed It <br />does not set a precedent in town as each application is reviewed on a case by case <br />basis <br />Councilmember Keany asked if this is a rezoning application as one commenter stated <br />Ritchie stated the zoning will stay RE this is only a Special Review Use (SRU) <br />Mayor Muckle stated the planning commission voted 4-3 finding it met the SRU criteria <br />and staff feels it meets the criteria. People feel strongly for different reasons, but he felt <br />it does meet the criteria. He can't answer the property value question but as it will be <br />unadvertised and behind a wall, he had a hard time understanding how it will affect <br />property values in this situation with this design with no public presence or use The <br />church's effort to disguise the use made him agree with staff <br />Councilmember Stolzmann thanked everyone for their input. She stated some things <br />are allowed by right in zone districts, but others require Special Review which has <br />factors that might need to be considered or mitigated so it would. be consistent in the <br />zone district. She stated she does not dispute the designation this is a cemetery by the <br />zoning administrator but there is an appeal process if someone wants She stated the <br />second criteria is where she has pause, "That such use/development will lend economic <br />stability, compatible with the character of any surrounding established areas" She finds <br />compelling evidence was presented that property values are lower near a cemetery It <br />has not met criteria two so it does not meet the criteria of the special review <br />