Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ridgeline Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates narrow, code-focused response to proposed Tumwater Mountain lighting
Summary
Councilors discussed whether to adopt a city resolution opposing ridgeline development proposals on grounds that Chelan County may not be enforcing its code; members urged a narrowly drafted, county‑focused request rather than an emotional, city-originated ban.
The Leavenworth City Council debated Feb. 11 how to respond to community concern about a proposed illuminated structure on Tumwater Mountain and whether to send a resolution to Chelan County asking for stricter code implementation.
Councilmember Shane Thayer opened the study-session discussion, noting a December citizen draft resolution opposing development on local ridgelines and asking whether the city should adopt, edit or write its own resolution. "I would love for us to write our own and not have it be something that is suggested by 1 of the parties," he said, urging the council to craft a city-originated statement.
Several council members argued the message should be tightly focused on county code implementation and procedure rather than on emotional or environmental claims. Councilmember Anne Hesper said the city should "eliminate anything emotional or arbitrary in the resolution" and should highlight where Chelan County code might not be implemented correctly, rather than attacking a type of structure or invoking broader concerns.
Legal and practical constraints framed much of the discussion: staff and council members noted Chelan County zoning for forest areas limits structure height (noting a 35-foot maximum in the forest zone), and that county classification of the proposed item—whether a structure, sign or off‑site sign—affects applicable rules. Council members also discussed dependent approvals the applicant would need, including a complete building permit and sign-offs the county may request from the U.S. Forest Service and the Federal Aviation Administration.
Opinions among council members differed on whether Leavenworth should intervene. Some said the city should stay out because the project is on private property and in county jurisdiction; others said the city has a duty as a neighbor to ask the county to enforce its own code when residents raise concerns. Councilmembers favored narrowing the draft and circulating a concise version for council review before the March 11 adoption date on the agenda.
Councilmembers agreed to aim for a narrow, code‑focused resolution and to circulate a pared-down draft so members could review it before a future study session. "Let's pair it down to what we're hearing is the nut of it and just circulate it," one councilmember said.
