City Council Agenda and Packet 2019 01 08

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes December 18, 2018 Page 10 of 14 Councilmember Leh stated this is a difficult conversation. This is a quasi-judicial hearing with rules and evidence. It is not just the LMC but also Federal law that is important here. He stated there are factors that are not relevant, but Criteria 1 and 2 are. Criteria 3 is met by the proposal. Criteria 4 is met; the traffic study shows it will be negligible. Criteria 5 is about pedestrian access and is met. Criteria 1 notes compatibility of the neighborhood; Criteria 2 speaks to economic stability. Councilmember Leh felt the principal difficulty is the characterization of this as a cemetery, but he thinks it is essential to look beyond the label to what it is: a structure not visible to the community; looks just like the church. Churches are a part of the community and serve a purpose to the community. Whether this use supports the general welfare and economic prosperity is hard to know. The way this looked in the first version faced out and faced homes; the revised version makes it not look like a cemetery. The fact we have to use this word does not make it look like a cemetery. It is a wall to the community with only inert remains on the inside. He found it difficult to believe that will have an adverse impact to property values when you won't know what it is unless you go inside it. He didn't find it contrary to economic prosperity at best it is neutral. Councilmember Leh didn't think this economic criteria requires adding positive revenue to the city. Ritchie stated the criteria stands on its own, but does not include having to provide revenue for the city. Councilmember Leh stated he feels the criteria is met and didn't think the information provided showed it would decrease property values as opposed to an actual graveyard. Using this label alone he didn't think it will affect property values. At this point he supports the application. Councilmember Maloney stated the Planning Commission 4-3 vote is because they were deliberative in their process. He thanked the church for amending the original design. The citizen input is both pro and con and taken into consideration. Looking at Criteria 2 he feels this is not a cemetery in a normal sense, it is enclosed within the church building and is very much within the structure of the church. He didn't believe property values will be affected by 12% and agreed with staff it meets criteria 2 and will support the application. Councilmember Maloney asked how RLIUPA should be considered in the decision - making process. City Attorney Kelly stated the federal law underlies the city's application to the facts of the city criteria. RLIUPA would come into play if the city's application of the facts substantially burdened the practice or expressions of religion or treated a church applicant less favorably than any other applicant. She didn't feel she had heard any of the concerns RLIUPA is there to prevent. Councilmember Keany thanked the public for their input and interest in this process. After listening to all the information he noted he tried to come to this with an analytical point of view. He agreed with Councilmember Leh that if the application were for a physical cemetery with tombstones it would be different consideration. What is being 23