My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 2019 01 08
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
2010-2019 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
2019 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 2019 01 08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:12:30 PM
Creation date
1/16/2019 2:50:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Original Hardcopy Storage
8D6
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 2019 01 08
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
717
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 urns 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 Call 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 />26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.