Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ridgeline Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Leavenworth council weighs draft ridgeline resolution amid public debate over proposed illuminated cross
Summary
Council members discussed a citizen‑sponsored draft resolution asking Chelan County to limit development on ridgelines after a proposal to erect an illuminated cross drew public attention; speakers debated whether the draft targets a religious symbol or a landscape policy.
City staff introduced a draft resolution at the Feb. 25 study session asking Chelan County to apply its code carefully when reviewing proposed development on mountains and ridgelines near Leavenworth. The draft was prepared in response to community concern about a private proposal for a large cross on a ridgeline above the city.
The staff presentation said the resolution was revised after council direction to focus on Chelan County code and to highlight the community’s concerns for ridge and ridgeline protection; staff emphasized the resolution is intended as a neighborly statement, not a legal finding.
Council members debated the scope and language. Some expressed concern that certain draft wording — for example references to regional visitation and wildlife species — read as unnecessary or potentially inflammatory. Others urged moving forward with a concise statement asking the county to apply its code and to consider light and visual impacts. Councilmember comments repeatedly noted that the county will make the legal interpretation and any final permitting decision.
Public comment included sharply contrasting views. Resident Ron Duncan argued the draft was “super hostile to the cross” and said the cross can be a cultural, not solely religious, symbol in Bavarian tradition. He cited examples in Europe where summit crosses are part of local heritage and legal challenges in Bavarian courts that upheld such practices. Duncan said the city’s expressed opposition risked appearing religiously non‑neutral when the proposed structure is on private land outside city limits.
Another speaker, BJ Robinson, urged the council to use precise, non‑religious language. “When you read the resolution language, it uses the term cross, it definitely would be — that’s not a religious term. … You’re defining the shape of the structure. Nothing religious about that,” Robinson said.
Councilmembers asked staff to refine the draft to focus on code interpretation, visual and light impacts, and the county’s review process rather than on religious or cultural judgments. Staff confirmed the council will hold a public hearing on the resolution at an upcoming meeting (the council indicated March as the next discussion). No action or vote was taken on the resolution at the Feb. 25 session; staff said they will return with a revised draft and schedule the public comment forum.
Ending: The council directed staff to refine the draft to emphasize applicable Chelan County code sections, to avoid inflammatory or unnecessary language, and to place the matter on a future agenda for public hearing and comment.
