Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/05/2002• Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. • \J CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Commissioners Agajanlan, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker - aW i STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Todd Weber, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Minutes: Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to approve the minutes of August 22 2002 as amended. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None Chairman Kiser then noted the maximum seating of the building due to the size of the crowd. Public Comments: Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission agenda was posted on Friday, August 30, 2002. INDEX Minutes Approved None Posting of Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 SUBJECT: Taste of Napa (Continued from 611 E. Balboa Blvd. Request for Use Permit No. 2002 -013 to establish an Alcoholic Beverage Outlet (ABO) with Type 20 and Type 42 licenses to permit both retail wine sales and limited, ancillary on -site consumption and wine tasting. The project also includes a request for a waiver of the off street parking requirements. Ms. Temple noted that the new plan provided by the applicant provided additional detailing on the retail display rack system to be used inside the establishment. Public comment was opened. Andra and Brad Sachs, owner /operator of 611 E. Balboa noted that some of the seating has been removed and have provided a detail of the displays. At Commission Inquiry, they agree to the findings and conditions in the staff report. They mentioned that the two-year reporting procedure was onerous, but they would abide by it. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Sachs noted that the store concept is that a customer will come in for a taste of wine and have the opportunity to listen to lectures regarding the making of wines. If a customer comes in to taste wines, there Is a wine menu • comprised of a group of wines with samples of white, red, etc. The customer will then be offered a half glass (2 -3 ounce taster) of these wines. If the customer likes a particular wine, they can order a glass of that particular wine (6 ounce). The intent is if the customer likes the wine, they would buy a case and bring it home. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Selich noted that the applicant has met our goal of the re- design of the floor plan; he then made motion approving the application with the findings and conditions as_contained in the staff report. Chairperson Kiser noted the following changes: • Condition 9 - '.....monitor the sound generated by the amity retail wine establishment to .... I Condition 10 - ...... wine establishment and bar wine tasting facility Condition 10 table - reverse the hours on the right hand side to show 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. Commissioner McDaniel clarified that there will be two parking spaces waived. Commissioner Tucker noted that he did not listen to the tapes and would therefore abstain from voting on this matter. Commissioner McDaniel noted he would not support this item as it looks more like a bar and he is not willing to give up the two parking spaces when everybody else in • the community has had to pay for those or do some accommodations. INDEX PA2002 -074 Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 Ayes: Agajanian, Kiser, Gifford, Selich Noes: McDaniel Abstain : Tucker SUBJECT: Newport Beach LDS Temple (PA2001 -208) 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive A Use Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the construction and operatation of a place of religious worship on an 8.6 acre site within the Bonita Canyon Planned Community. The Temple is planned as a 17,575 square foot building in the center of the property, surrounded by 5.5 acres of gardens, walkways, and water treatments in the western portion of the project site and parking in the eastern and northeastern perimeters of the site. The request also includes consideration of a 124 -foot high steeple that would exceed the maximum allowable height of 50 feet. Chairperson Kiser noted that because of the noticing requirements to the EIR the Planning Commission would not take action on this item tonight, that will be deferred to the October 3rd meeting. We are going to have a presentation from the • applicant, a summary presentation from staff and then public testimony. At the next meeting, we will open for brief public testimony and, if we are ready, will take action. We will have comments from the Planning Commissioners on the issues that have been raised during the public testimony tonight. Public comment was opened. Mr. Ralph Martin, president of R and M Architects and Planners, along with Ms. Leslie Lee made a Power Point presentation noting: • Location map - showing scale of the project on 8.6 acres; less than 5% of the project will cover the site; nearest homes to the project; shopping centers; recreational areas, educational institutions and other churches some of which are yet to be built, that are served by Bonita Canyon Road. • Landscape Site Plan - shows floor plate of the proposed Temple (17,700 square foot building) largely in the middle of the site at the northeast corner of Bonita Canyon Drive and Prairie Road. Due to the concern of headlights at night projecting out into the open space and beyond into the neighborhood, we are proposing to bend the entrance drive to the 156 parking spaces. Plant materials and trees that will grow to about 35 feet+ will screen the Temple. • A slide of the placement of the Stake Center to the adjacent roadways compared to the proposed Temple at 125 feet above the floor plate was viewed and explained. • The preference is for a Temple height that would be about 124 feet above the floor plate. A 35 -foot high Temple facility is not as high as many of the other churches that service this area. We would like to keep the proportions INDEX Item 2 PA2001 -208 Continued to 10/03/2002 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 that have been designed. The width of the steeple at the base is about 24 feet and there are three different elements to the steeple and atop there Is a twelve -foot statue of the Angel Moroni. Temple will be granite in two different textures, polished and flamed. The polished surface is proposed only for the 30° wainscot (the base of the building). The rest is to be clad in the flamed granite surface all the way to the top of the steeple. Comparisons were presented of the Temples at: Los Angeles, San Diego and Newport Beach. Site plan comparisons - potential for build out of the site with another use. Ron Zawadyzki, Consortium One, lighting consultant spoke for the applicant and noted: • Has worked with the City of Newport Beach in the past on lighting issues for the Fletcher Jones project and the Newport Beach library. • He noted the original light design was overpowering, the color of the light was wrong and the fixtures originally specified did not control the light well. • Our recommendations include warmer lighting and aiming fixtures. • He then presented a slide depicting comparisons to local buildings. • The lower part of the proposed Temple will be lit at 1.5 candles, the majority of the steeple is proposed at 6 foot candles and the angel at the very top will be at 12 foot candles. • The spots and fixtures to be used are louvered and will allow the control of light. Most of the light that misses the angel, will go upwards. On a foggy night, some of those light rays will appear on the fog and will be diffused and will be at 12 candles or less. The angle of the lights on the angel will be at approximately 60 to 75 degrees. Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner noted the following: • The General Plan permits governmental, educational and institutional facilities. • The zoning is Bonita Canyon Planned Community, religious worship is permitted with a use permit. • A site plan review application is required pursuant to the Bonita Canyon Planned Community, which acts as the zoning of the property. • One aspect of the use permit is for the height of the structure. The height limit for the district is 50 feet. However, with the approval of a use permit the height limit can be exceeded. Staff has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with assistance from our consultant LSA. That EIR addressed four major areas: aesthetics, hydrology and water quality, land use and traffic. The EIR concluded there are no significant impacts to the environmen. In the area of aesthetics, 15 view simulations were prepared relating to the existing conditions, the opening day conditions and the project after ten years. Simulations were validated on the crane that was installed in January that was certified as to the height and location. Urban Crossroads prepared a traffic study under the direction of the City's A INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 traffic engineer. The study concluded there would not be a significant Impact from traffic. The expected Temple traffic will be less than 1 % of the existing volume on the roadways. There are findings for the use permit and site plan for consideration by the Planning Commission. He then reiterated the listing contained in the staff report page 7 through 15 as well as mitigation measures. An edit was made to Item B on page 12 changing the distance of Seawind as 1200, not 600 feet from the project. He then presented the visual simulations prepared to provide a 'project opening' condition and a 'ten year' condition' in the EIR. A map of the area that the project would be visible from was presented. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell answered: • The Planned Community text refers to the Zoning Code if it does not give for guidance on a particular issue. Within the Code we go to the general heights limit chapter that provides an opportunity for a church to exceed the height limits. The Planned Community Text does not include any procedure for deviation from the standards. Commissioner Tucker clarified: There is a use permit requirement because of a church use. • There is a use permit requirement because of exceeding the 50-ft height limit. • There is a site plan review statutorily mandated for this particular PC zone. • CEQA review is a process that gets triggered anytime there is discretionary approval involved in a project. • The CEQA applicability is there, but it is primarily a disclosure law that says the City has to disclose and discuss potential impacts of a project that staff has identified. There were four of them In the EIR. The EIR concluded there was no significant impact, but that just discharges the CEQA part of the puzzle. • Even though there may be no issues under CEQA, we still look at the discretionary approvals that are involved with the use permit or conditions. • Even if the EIR Is adequate and changes can still be made to the project. Ms. Temple added that even If an EIR finds no significant effect, doesn't mean you have to approve the project as submitted. Conversely, if there were significant effects left unmitigated, the Planning Commission would not be precluded from approving it. Commissioner Tucker noted that the purpose of CEQA is to have the disclosure and the discussion to inform the decision makers as to what all the possible impacts are. At that point the Planning Commission can reach their conclusions under the rest of the ordinances. • Chairman Kiser asked for representative speakers from the various associations or INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 commissions. He then explained the Planning Commissioners have reviewed a comprehensive staff report and in addition have received written communications from members of the audience including email, faxes, memorandum and letters. These have been received through the Planning Department as well as directly in our offices and at home. We read all of them. I estimate that since last January, I have probably received 800 communications. Additionally, the draft EIR and the Response to Comments to the EIR have been reviewed by the Commissioners. When you do come up and speak, please focus your comments on the issues that are before us: aesthetics, traffic and parking, air quality, hydrology and water quality or general land use matters. We are not here to talk about things other than those particular issues. Each speaker will have two minutes to present his or her testimony. With the number of speakers here tonight, the important part is to give the Planning Commissioners information. Aesthetics is an important part of what we are doing. Public comment was opened. The first speakers will be: Bob Wynn, Steven Brombal and Weatherford Clayton Bob Wynn, 1617 Port Abbey Place noted in favor: • This project is a good land use. The experts who prepared the EIR have said it is. • The zoning PC text says that churches are a permitted use per Chapter 20.91 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code with three findings. • Also, Chapter 20.65.070G speaks to churches being exempt from height limits except if the steeple is higher than 35 feet, then you need a use permit. • He then handed a copy of a prepared statement to the Assistant City Attorney who may have an opinion by the 3rd of October. • If a use permit is granted consistent with this application we will be in full compliance with the three required findings. • Some letters received by the City have concluded that the Temple must meet the 50 -foot height requirement or seek some kind of special favor or variance. This is not correct. • All churches built in Newport Beach must first obtain a use permit. The EIR states that no variance or other special permit of any kind is required for the LDS steeple. • By satisfying our basic requirements for a use permit, our project will meet or exceed all city requirements. We are not asking for anything outside the Code. The project will comply with all city regulations and policies, restrictions and conditions if the normal church use permit is issued. Commissioner Tucker noted that in the use permit findings, we must find that a use will not be detrimental to the properties or the improvements in the vicinity or the INDEX City of Newport Beach is Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 general welfare of the City. The Planning Commission has that discretion. Mr. Steven Brombal, 21 Regents spoke as the president of the Bonita Canyon Homeowners Association in opposition: • The church Is building something of lasting prominence. • If the applicants would agree to abide by the 50 -foot height limit that everyone else must abide by, we certainly would not be here tonight. • We acknowledge that the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) generally stated that the EIR is woefully inadequate. • A survey done in our community of 287 homes by Councilmember Bromberg had a 45% response rate. 86% of those respondents disapprove of this project, 14% approved. • Lighting - EQAC suggested having a study done on a foggy night. Staff comments regarding light responses was due to the variable with the nighttime view simulations not providing clouds or moisture in the area and are not conclusive. • We feel the project is totally Incompatible with the neighborhood. • The Board has a Resolution that unanimously opposes the project as it is currently presented. He then clarified for the Commission that there are a number of specific characteristics of the project that the Association is not in favor of: color, lighting from 5 a.m. to dawn, etc., but are not opposed to the use of the Temple. Mr. Weatherford Clayton, President of the Newport Beach Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ Later Day Saints noted in favor: • The Stake has eight congregations. • Temples are not regular church houses and are superior In all aspects to the meetinghouses. • Only the President of our Church, whom we hold as a Prophet, has authority to designate the location and design of our Temples, including the steeples. • He has visited this site and we feel the plans he has designated for this Temple ore just right. • Lighting and steeples serve as symbols of our faith on our Temples. • The EIR and the Planning staff report have found our lighting acceptable. • Newport Beach has no regulations restricting the hours of lighting. • Many local churches light their facades until 11:00 p.m. and some stay on all night. • We claim the same privileges as other churches in our City. • We agree to turn off the fagade lighting at 11:00 p.m. • The height of the steeples designates the Temples and not the regular meeting houses. Commissioner Tucker asked if the plans that were revealed to the president of the church showed a 200 foot tower, at what point does the City get to become involved in that decision making process. 9 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 Mr. Clayton answered that there are Temples that have steeples that are significantly higher. Within the framework of this Temple, its size would not fit with what this should be and would never be the case. The Temples in Los Angeles and San Diego are significantly higher. Commissioner Tucker asked where the 124 foot height came from Mr. Clayton answered that as the architects worked to put a plan together that was approved by the Prophet, this is what has been deemed to be the right size and the right height. In that framework we support it. Commissioner McDaniel asked if the Planning Commission were to approve something at a lower height, would you make any change? Mr. Clayton answered this proposed plan is what we'd like approved Kenneth Wong, 2264 Port Dueness Place noted in opposition: • Chose the location of his home for the low key, unobtrusive character of the neighborhood. When the LDS Stake President told our Seawind group the 125 -ft lighted steeple would be a 'showcase' it was precisely what we did not want to hear, let alone permanently have in our midst. • The issue has never been that our Mormon friends should not use the land they own or should not build a Temple or not have a steeple. • The proposed height is two and a half times greater than the 50 foot height limitation, night time lighting and if not negotiable, perhaps the LDS could consider other parcels of land elsewhere where this showcase gift would be welcomed. Religious belief and justification no matter how sincere, never trumps either reasonable building restrictions or the broad and heartfelt objections of local residents. Commissioner Tucker stated that there is an 86 foot steeple on the current Stake House, St. Andrews church has a 97ft cross, why shouldn't the new Temple be able to flit somewhere in that range? Mr. Wong answered that the height limitation in our area is 50 feet. I am aware of the steeple on the Stake House that has not been a major issue to anybody. The building and facility has co-existed peacefully with the community for untold number of years. If the Mormon leadership had come to us and said that 86 feet Is what we have now, we would like to ask for at least that plus a little more due to the Temple requirements, it is possible that none of us would be here tonight to protest this 124 -foot steeple. Mr. Joseph Bentley 61 Montecito, chairman and counsel of the local interim Newport Beach Temple Committee noted in support: . Involved with acquiring the land and all the entitlement of the land that is INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 there for the facility. • A steeple reduction would impair one of our foremost project objectives, which is that of high visibility to the faithful who attend our Temples. • In our faith, the Stake Center is subordinate and should look subordinate. • Our Temple is a one -story building with an unoccupied steeple. • The Temple will disappear when the landscaping matures. • The President of our Temple designated the site for a small Temple. • A reduction of the steeple height would put the building out of balance and be disproportionate symmetrically. • As our holiest structure with the steeple as a religious symbol, it should not be re- designed. • He then submitted a written summary of his speech. Commissioner Gifford asked if the project objective is discretionary? Is it part of the overall religion? Mr. Bentley answered that the second project objective in the EIR is that it appear to the faithful as a superior facility, not only visible but superior to our other facility. That is part of our religious beliefs. It is part of our overall religion. Commissioner Tucker noted that staff indicated that a lower steeple of 100 feet would be visible from all the locations from which the proposed 124 -foot steeple would be visible. If the Church requires high visibility, it is still just as highly visible, is it not, from a lower steeple from the some places as the visibility would be available from the highest steeple? The problem we have is the high visibility for the faithful is also high visibility to others, that is where our problem is. Mr. Bentley answered that it would be visible. Visibility is a comparative thing. If it seems to be less significant than the other building, then that would impair our project objective. Commissioner Selich noted that in the correspondence he has received, there seems to be predominance of listed Temples that have square footages of 10,700 and a steeple height of 78 feet, is that a standard plan that is used in different areas. Mr. Bentley answered that there are many styles, sizes and heights according to the local and the particular vision the present president has. There are Temples without steeples designed by the president at that time who felt that was right for that place. The president today is responsible for more than half of the Temples built, all of them have steeples with the angel figure at the top. In terms of this particular height, there is no mathematical formula to arrive at that, it's what seemed proportional and right in his design capacity. Commissioner Selich asked if the president sketched out a design concept and gave it to the architect, or did the architect do a design or a series of designs and then the president picked one out of the series? How did that whole process occur? Does the president tell the architect what to do? Does the architect INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 draw Mr. Bentley answered that there are other Temples being built at this time that are quite similar to ours, Redlands has one that has a similar building but a considerably taller steeple. Because of some of the input given about this area and some possible opposition, the president may have designated something smaller. It is a combination of his confirming what is brought to him by the architect. I do not know, in some cases the presidents have told the architects. The president has been here twice and is familiar with the site and I suspect he took the setting and locality into account. John Long, 2745 Hillview Drive, president of Harbor Knoll Community Association noted opposition: • His association is the closest to the Temple site. • He then handed a visual simulation to the Commission. • The major concern is the lighting from the Temple and the light pollution into our neighborhood. • The additional lighting on the fagade, security and parking lot going on all night will create significant light pollution to our homeowners. • The lighting in the evening on my patio Is prevalent. The Temple lights will impact my bedroom windows. He suggested limiting the hours of lighting. A possible compromise could be when the Temple is occupied. 10 0 In the EIR the trees do not block the views because it is an emergency entrance to our property for the Fire Department. • I had worked with a number of people on the Stake Center and it was a smooth process. However, that did not happen with the current project. Donald Turner, 3839 Ocean Birch Drive spoke in favor of the project. • He Is In charge of gathering petitions in support of the Temple project including the steeple. • In reading the staff report, we discovered that a negative petition was included as Exhibit 8. • He then submitted nearly 1,000 (not verified) signed petitions in support of the project. Commissioner Tucker commented that the Planning Commission is not a political body, we are not a policy setting body, we work for the City Council. We exercise our best judgment to administer codes, whether they are State or City Ordinances. Petitions don't mean much to me because that is not the business that I feel I am in. I am looking just at the technical aspect of an application. read all the comments to the EIR. Staff includes in the staff report whatever the City receives. Mr. Michael Arrigo, 67 Wentworth spoke in opposition representing the Newport Beach Conservancy: • A sports park could not be built because of the lighting, why is the lighting . that is proposed for this project allowed? 10 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 If the steeple were not lit at all, a similar height to the Stake be more acceptable. Height and lighting are very significant to us. Richard Fuller, 45 Canyon Island distributed a worksheet on economic impact study and spoke in support of the project: • As an MAI real estate appraiser I am here to suggest to you that any estimate of diminution in real estate value should be quantified by market evidence. • He then explained his economic impact study handout that compared three Temples using polls, housing trends, economic analysis, property assessments and sales and resales. • He concluded by stating the proposed Temple would not have a negative impact on property values. Marion Bergeson, 1721 Tradewind Lane spoke in favor of the project noting the diversity in our suburban environment, beauty, workmanship and continuing high standards of maintenance. Mitigation concessions have provided extensive property line setbacks, landscaping, the reduced lighting intensity and the hours of usage. The EIR has been considered to be fair and thorough. The steeple is in balance with the architectural design of the facility that symbolizes the spiritual value of upward ascendancy. It will be tall and slender and is very important to a . sizeable LDS population residing in the Newport Beach area. Robert Dyess, 8 Seabluff spoke in opposition and referred to a letter that was presented to the Commission that had statistical information on the existing LDS Temples. This information was obtained from the Internet. He noted the hours of operation and the steeple heights. He concluded asking for a compromise on the hours of operation and lighting. Jim DeBoom, 208513ristol, #201, spoke as the Executive Director of the Interfaith Council and stated that the Board adopted a resolution supporting this project. Peggy Stair, 2240 Port Durness spoke in opposition due to the proximity of the project, the height and lighting. Rabbi Allen Krause, Temple Bethel in Also Viejo speaking for himself noted that the opposition is not in terms of religious issues. The LDS have been a support in our community. They have shown that they are good citizens. Allen Murray, 2330 Port Lerwick Place spoke in opposition noting the height and lighting. The Stake House was built when the property was first governed by the City of Irvine, the surrounding neighbors had no input on the construction whatsoever. The angel on top of the steeple is advertising and I would like to see some mitigation such as a height reduction and some way to switch off the lights. Jill Money, 1842 Port Barmouth spoke in support of the project. As a member of the homeowners association stated that the board decided to take no stand on the 11 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 Mormon Temple, neither support nor opposition Gordon Benhard, 2301 Port Carlisle spoke in opposition of the proposed project for similarly stated reasons. The following speakers were in support of the project for reasons stated by previous speakers: Gwen Vieau, resident of Bonita Canyon. Peter Vidmar resident of Coto De Casa - will be taking the toll road and will be carpooling. Ken Everson, Jr., presented a featured article in the Architectural Digest dated September 2002 and noted that the well- designed Temple will create warmth and a sense of place and enhance the views and values in the surrounding community. Rick Nicholson, resident of Bonita Canyon, which is not a view community; the church had an existing right to build another structure; this is not a religious issue. Any dominance of light coming into the community is due to street lighting. • Mr. Jamie White, resident of Seaview community favors the proposed project due to religious expression. The following speakers were not in support of the project for reasons stated by previous speakers: Laurie Kaiden, 5 Anondale - traffic and height concerns Vahid Ordoubadian, 2238 Port Aberdeen Raymond Piantanida, 2109 Yacht Daphne - head of the architecture committee for Seaview community. Barry Allen, 1021 White Sails Way - spoke as counsel on the threat of a lawsuit by the Temple if their plans were not approved as mentioned in meetings and in the press. He noted the Planning Commission should make their decision based on the information presented and not on the fear of any lawsuit. John Fransen, 2345 Port Carlisle Place - asked for a larger venue for the next meeting to accommodate the large crowd. Lewis Garber, 2706 Hillside Drive - concerned with the architectural features, height and lighting. He distributed a visual simulation taken from his driveway • based on the crane height. 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 Following a brief intermission the meeting resumed. Chairperson Kiser noted that the Commission would not be taking action on this item tonight but would hopefully be able to at the continued meeting of October 3rd, Speaking in favor of the proposed project: Ron Hanson, 190 Newport Center Drive stated that this is a small building with a large landscape area that will be open to the public. The Temple in San Diego does not close until 11:00 p.m.; the first patrons go in at 5:00 a.m. Tacey Clausen, 320 h Sapphire - freedom of use of property. Robert Eichenberg, One Collins Island noted the aesthetics of the proposed project. A shorter steeple would denigrate the project. Speaking in opposition of the proposed project: Imran Currim, 2300 Port Aberdeen not against the project but is opposed to the height and lighting. The proposed project will become my view as I am directly across from It. Dan Kassel, 10 Seabluff noted his objection to the way the LDS presented the plan to the community. The development is out of character to the neighborhood. Land planning is a process. The Planning Commission as a responsible steward of the land must keep the public's interest in mind. Melissa Lyn Hicks, 27 Marble Sands, questioned the aesthetics qualifications used by LSA. A structure can be overwhelming even though it looks very simple in a picture. Steve Brahs, 2208 Port Lerwick one of the closest homes to the Temple. The facility as proposed was designed for Redlands, CA and brought to our community. The Redlands Temple is under construction now. When the land was purchased, the PC text clearly determined that there was a 50 -foot height restriction, so when the applicants purchased this property they knew they were going into a 50-foot height restriction. David Wolf, 14 Seabluff concerned with holiday lighting and traffic especially during the open house. Asked for something in writing that no extra lighting during the holiday would happen to alleviate possible traffic /parking impacts. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Kiser then asked the Commission for their comments on the EIR. 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 Commissioner Tucker noted: • The EIR document is adequate. • The EIR sets forth the issues, which is the purpose of CEQA. • The Final EIR is the Draft EIR with the response to comments and adequately describes the project. Chairperson Kiser noted: The EIR notes that the issues are steeple height, lighting and proposed color of the structure. • These matters are aesthetics considerations. • I found no inadequacies in the EIR. Public comment was opened. Chairperson Kiser asked for the architect to approach the podium to answer specific questions. Commissioner Selich asked Mr. Martin to explain the process that he went through, did you come up with the design, were there parameters given to you by the Temple to come up with your design, and what are some of the design principles you used, is there some relationship to the height of the steeple to the length and width to the building, the size of the site? Educate us on this, because what we have is a situation where the basic height limit is 50 feet and beyond that the Planning Commission has discretion to evaluate whether the structure is proper in relationship to the surrounding environment. We need some further assistance from you in how you arrived at the height of the steeple. Mr. Martin answered: We are associated architects with a firm in Salt Lake City that is the primary building designer. We concur with the proportions and design that had been set forth by that process. 1 don't believe that any one said make this 124 feet. It was a design that evolved with the objective of trying to have the best and proper relationship with the size of the building that is below the steeple, recognizing this Is a subjective matter. • An analogy to make it easier to accept the subjective nature of proportion - there are a bunch of tall ships coming in the harbor this weekend. This is a tall Temple. If we were to take a tall ship which has proportions that are guided by their design and reduce the height of the sails on them to squatty little dimensions, we would not have tall ships, we would have other kinds of things. The same thing happens with respect to the proportion between the building itself of 35 feet high Temple and the steeple height. 1 have looked at an overlay reducing the height of that steeple to see what the affect would be. I was profoundly distressed that reducing that • height significantly would really make it look unpleasant. 14 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 No one could deny that the resistance to height or the approbation people have given the issue of height is all subjective comments. Commissioner Selich clarified that an architect in Salt Lake City gave you some general direction for the Temple. You came up with your design and then presented a series of alternatives to the Temple? Mr. Martin answered I presented what was the result of that discussion with the architect in Salt Lake City as well as those people who weigh in at Salt Lake City. Commissioner Selich noted that this is the lead design that the president of the Temple dictated as the right design for the site. Was he involved in these meetings in Salt Lake, how did he get involved with this? Who would be the person to ask? Mr. Martin answered, the affiliate in Salt Lake City. Chairperson Kiser noted the way in which the decisions were made for the structure, the internal workings of the applicant and how they make decisions and who is in charge and who has the authority and such, is in my mind completely irrelevant to what we are doing here. We have a proposed structure and we are looking to make planning decisions. The way in which the decision was made for • certain heights etc., If it has to do with internal Temple affairs, I don't think it is relevant and I don't think we should go that direction. We have a structure from a planning standpoint, we have a steeple and we have lighting. Staying with the Issues means staying with those very things. Commissioner Selich noted it is relevant to the way he is looking at the issues. If there is someone here who can answer, I would like to hear it. A brief discussion followed about the Issues of the design process and criteria. Ms. Clauson stated that she doesn't know if the question results from the memorandum that came from our office regarding the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The memorandum discusses the concept of individualized assessment in land use decisions. It is up to the applicant to show a substantial burden on its religious exercise if the City denies their request. In this particular case, I think if there is a decision that the LDS Temple has to be a certain height and that there would be a substantial burden on their religious exercise if It can't be that height. To the extent that is the consideration for which Commissioner Selich is asking his question, it might be relevant to his determination or understanding of the reasoning of the height that has been applied for in this use permit application. Mr. Russell Platt, architect, noted that he had met with Mr. Martin, stated: • Each of the Temples in the church is unique. • The Redlands structure differs in the floor plan and outside details. • The design of the structure is based on the site taken into consideration 15 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 and the landscaping that can be achieved on that site. • That basic scheme is presented to the Temple in Salt Lake, just the site plan with landscape form, not the whole building. • We went through 3640 site plan renditions before they were pleased with what we came back. We were working with Mr. Martin from your community for his input. Once that was laid out, we took the building and built it In three - dimensional form on a computer and then scale modeling. At that point it is presented to the Temple for their approval. • We keep working on it until it is presented to President Hinkley. He looks at the plans and he will let us know if it fits the site the way he pictured it. • We don't want to abuse anybody. The Temples are the most beautiful things we can make. Each time we have gone through this process it has been wonderful to go back when it is finished and have everybody come over for the open house and show them what is there. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Platt noted that the design is to the site. I was excited doing the pictures for the EIR with the landscape viewed from various points in the neighborhoods. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Weatherford Clayton noted that there are some large . Temples that have lighting displays on the large grounds during the Christmas holidays. Our Temple is small to medium size and I don't believe it will be one of those. We are reticent to give up the privileges that all Churches have in Newport Beach, we are not planning on doing anything but we don't want to give up that privilege. • Commissioner Tucker stated that he is referring to an elaborate holiday display as opposed to a simple display, for example the Trinity Broadcast display. There will be people going past the facility, so that is a legitimate concern. Mr. Clayton answered that he doesn't see that happening. Chairperson Kiser asked if there would be any flexibility in the hours of lighting for the morning and evening hours? Mr. Clayton answered the ultimate authority for determining what the Temple would be like is the head of the Temple. He has been here and knows what it is like and is a very busy individual. The lighting speaks that the building itself is sacred, As people leave the Temple having the light on it is appropriate to what we want the building to say. We feel that the evening hour is appropriate. There will be times people come to early sessions that start at 5:30 a.m. The Temple is small and has limited seating. There will never by times when huge numbers of people will be coming in after it is dedicated. The Temple is not opened Sundays or Mondays. We ask for the lighting times to remain as they are, as it is a symbol for us. 16 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 Chairperson Kiser stated his understanding is that Mr. Clayton is not the decision maker on these things and if there was something proposed to change hours, etc., he would need to take it to the Temple hierarchy to get those decisions made. Mr. Clayton answered, exactly. What I do as the Stake President and lay person, Temples are not our purview, they are a privilege and that comes from authorities higher than us. Chairperson Kiser asked if there would be any flexibility on the steeple height. That has been discussed quite a bit and has been a subject of many communications that we have received. What we are trying to do Is find a way on any of these issues that there could be movement by the applicant. Mr. Clayton answered that the steeple in Redlands is about five feet higher than what we have here. We feel the proportions are right, we will be pleased to pass on the concerns that have been expressed and that we have heard. Our desire is that it remain as it is. Commissioner McDaniel noted that when we come back to this, some flexibility and to what extent, might make the decisions easier to deal with. . Commissioner Selich stated that in looking at the Planned Community Text for Bonita Canyon, it says that, '.. in cases where sufficient direction for Interpretation of these regulations is not explicit in this text, the Zoning Code shall provide direction, as determined by the Planning Director....' If you look in the height limit section it says 50 feet, no exceptions. You made the decision to go to section G covering Churches that says that 'Churches shall be exempt from the height limit except they need a use permit when they exceed 35 feet in height. This section of Bonita Canyon Code goes on to say that in cases of difference between this Planned Community Development Plan and the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the Planned Community Development Plan shall prevail. It would seem that you are back to the 50 -foot height limit that would force you into a variance or an amendment to the Specific Plan. Ms. Temple answered that if there were specific parking rules for a particular use within the Planned Community that were different from those in the Municipal Code, then those provisions in the PC text would supercede. In this particular case, there is a height limit established for a broad range of land uses and no specific provisions for exceptions or changes to those. Within the Municipal Code there is a separate and different provision, which applies specifically to only one of the uses in the range of land, uses In that planning area, which is Churches which allow for the specific exception from the height limits. It was on that basis that the applicability of the Section in Title 20 applied in this case. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Clauson noted that this has not been specifically discussed, although the interpretation makes sense. That provision of the Zoning • Code applies to other Zoning Districts as well. It applies specifically to churches 17 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 not necessarily the Zoning Districts. Ms. Temple, at Commission inquiry, noted that the City of Irvine's zoning was their conventional zoning in the Zoning Code. This was a Planned Community Text developed to most nearly parallel their zoning regulations. The City of Irvine no longer uses the Planned Community system. The Stake facility was a use permit issued by the City of Irvine. St Mathews is the new church that is going in and as part of their use permit included the height of their yet to be built chapel with steeple under the same interpretation that we are using here. Commissioner Gifford asked the Assistant City Attorney to address some of these issues like the difference in the Municipal Code of 35 feet and the fact that the PC text doesn't say it will govern over the Municipal Code except in the case of churches or anything like that. I would like to have a good discussion of that at the next meeting. Commissioner Tucker noted he would like to see wording for a condition on holiday lighting that allows a certain level, but not too much. Chairperson Kiser agreed and added this is a situation that begs for a compromise. I personally would not support the proposal as it is without some modifications in the way of lighting and height. There is a disparity of interests • between the Church and its neighbors. The Church wants a bright and prominent beacon, and the neighbors want a facility that will be more in harmony with the neighborhood. • Commissioner Tucker agreed with the previous comments on the issue of compromise. He expressed disappointment that the parties had not resolved their differences among themselves. He noted that it would be better for the parties to figure out a solution than to have six commissioners who did not live in the neighborhood do so. But he noted that if a resolution was not reached by the parties, the Planning Commission would indeed decide and that decision could be a big disappointment to one side or the other. He declined to say how he was inclined to vote at this time. Commissioner Agajanian noted he supports the use. The project as proposed seeks to attract attention and is intended to become a highly visible symbol. Attracting attention is permitted in our city with appropriate restrictions. The location of the project is in a low -rise community without prominent architectural elements in the area, therefore, I feel the project is not in keeping with the character of the community as it currently stands. I believe with some modifications to steeple height and lighting, a suitable compromise can be met between the needs of the Temple and the community. I could support staff's recommendations in the staff report. Motion was made by Chairperson Kiser to continue this matter to October 3rd. 18 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September S, 2002 Ayes: Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None SUBJECT: Wetherholt Residence 217 30th Street A Variance request for 3 separate aspects of the proposed addition to an existing two -story residential structure: to exceed the floor area limit, to exceed the established maximum building height of 24 feet by 3 feet 3 inches associated with adding a third level to the existing structure, and to continue to provide only 1 on- site parking space for the residence. The subject property is located at 217 30th Street. Ms. Temple reported that the applicant has requested a continuance of this Item to September 19, 2002. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to September 19, 2002. Ayes: Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None SUBJECT: Design Guidelines for Balboa Village Amendment to the previously approved Central Balboa Specific Plan # 8 for the purpose of replacing the present design guidelines with the proposed Balboa village Design Guidelines. Ms. Temple noted that staff requests that this item be continued to September 19, 2002. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to September 19, 2002. Ayes: Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: None :xa ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood noted that at the last Council meeting of August 27th, Council approved on second reading the amendment to the . Hoag Hospital Planned Community District, approved Final Tract Map for the 19 INDEX Item 3 PA2002 -102 Continued to 09/19/2002 Item 4 Continued to 09/19/2002 Additional Business . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2002 Cannery Lofts project; Initiated the General Plan Amendment for Agate Avenue, changing the land use designation; the EZ Lube appeal was on the agenda and was continued to September 24th; the appeal of the Butler residence was denied and they supported the action of the Planning Commission. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. C) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Agajanlan reported that the questions were reviewed as well as the methodology. d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - no meeting. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Gifford noted a new mural. Ms. Temple noted that she would be looking at the Sign Code and the mural concept. 0 Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future • agenda for action and staff report - none. g) Status report on Planning Commission requests - none. 0 h) Project status - none. i) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Agajanian asked to be excused September 19th. ADJOURNMENT: 11:45 p.m. SHAM AGAJANIAN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 20 INDEX Adjournment