Phoenix Temple passes another hurdle

[RanMan]

That picture kind've says it all, doesn't it? So the church leaves the building at 30 ft, steeple same height, plants trees, what other excuses will the opponents have?

If the Church were to put the building at the 30 ft height, there could be no protest by the neighbors, because it would be in full compliance with the zoning laws. The only thing that applies here is the height variance of the building itself.

:)

[bytebear]

That picture kind've says it all, doesn't it? So the church leaves the building at 30 ft, steeple same height, plants trees, what other excuses will the opponents have?

Actually, it's quite deceptive. Compare it to the various mega churches out there. I live about 5 blocks from Rick Warren's Saddleback Church compound, which is massive. It has shuttle stops from its many parking lots. Almost directly across from the Newport Beach temple is the Mariner's church which is also a massive compound which many very large buildings. They have a baptismal pool on the grounds that can service hundreds of baptims simultaneously.

LDS temples and their lots are far smaller and attract far less traffic. I just recently went to the St, Paul Minn Temple, and it was smaller than the adjacent chapel.

Trying to sell the temple as a mega church is also misleading the usage of the building. The temple itself does not accommodate thousands, and in fact, because the services are spread out over the week with several sessions a day, the attendance at any given time is only a few hundred, less than a typical Sunday church service.

So, to do a fair comparison, you really should compare temples with mega churches. Of course, that doesn't bode well for the opposition who are perfectly comfortable with a massive compound, as long as it services their brand of Christianity. At least, that has been my experience here in California.

[bytebear]

If the Church were to put the building at the 30 ft height, there could be no protest by the neighbors, because it would be in full compliance with the zoning laws. The only thing that applies here is the height variance of the building itself.

:)

Most states have exemptions on religious buildings. I don't know about AZ, but look up the Dover Law of Massachusetts for how it affected the temple there.

[bytebear]

Here is a better comparison of size. I chose the two largest temples. All other temples are far smaller.

[bytebear]

Here is a more accurate comparison of churches. Scale is the same according to Google Maps. Notice the residential housing to the south of Saddleback to see how it dwarfs the neighborhood. The second picture shows both the Newport Beach Temple compared to the Mariner's church which is just down the road. Even if you include the chapel next to the temple, it is still dwarfed in size.

Edited January 3, 2010 by bytebear

[Moksha]

I wonder if the opposition would be so high if a tavern or gentlemen's club were proposed on the lot instead?

In Utah it would be much higher. Never get a tavern built in the middle of a swanky Draper neighborhood.

[RanMan]

Most states have exemptions on religious buildings. I don't know about AZ, but look up the Dover Law of Massachusetts for how it affected the temple there.

As I understand it, this surpasses the zoning regulations for churches if the main portion of the building is taller than 30 feet. However, the zoning commission has already passed the variance. They don't believe anything that has been protested about will be a problem.

It isn't about the neighborhood being disrupted. There is a big, ugly water park on the same street, not too far away. I think just about any complaint they have is much more of a problem with the water park. Although, it may be under 30 feet. I don't know how the zoning laws apply to it.

:)

[bytebear]

As I understand it, this surpasses the zoning regulations for churches if the main portion of the building is taller than 30 feet. However, the zoning commission has already passed the variance. They don't believe anything that has been protested about will be a problem.

It isn't about the neighborhood being disrupted. There is a big, ugly water park on the same street, not too far away. I think just about any complaint they have is much more of a problem with the water park. Although, it may be under 30 feet. I don't know how the zoning laws apply to it.

:)

Actually, the US Supreme Court has sided with churches over zoning restrictions so if the church wanted to, they could fight it (and win). but, they are being good neighbors and working with the city, and they essentially made a deal that they would reduce lighting, move the building further back from the road, and limit the time of the open house. If you think about it, those are all things they can do without having to redesign the building, which is a fixed plan for several temples, and therefore much harder and more expensive to alter. So, they made a deal, which they didn't have to do. The neighbor's complaints are not about the height of the building. Their own literature says "STOP THE TEMPLE" giving a clear indication of their desires. If it weren't the height, it would be something else, believe me.

[RanMan]

Actually, the US Supreme Court has sided with churches over zoning restrictions so if the church wanted to, they could fight it (and win). but, they are being good neighbors and working with the city, and they essentially made a deal that they would reduce lighting, move the building further back from the road, and limit the time of the open house. If you think about it, those are all things they can do without having to redesign the building, which is a fixed plan for several temples, and therefore much harder and more expensive to alter. So, they made a deal, which they didn't have to do. The neighbor's complaints are not about the height of the building. Their own literature says "STOP THE TEMPLE" giving a clear indication of their desires. If it weren't the height, it would be something else, believe me.

It sounds as if we are saying about the same thing. I agree that these are excuses for the most part and not legitimate problems. However, they have gotten the requisite number of votes to have it put on the ballot. Wondering how that will work out.

:)

[bytebear]

It sounds as if we are saying about the same thing. I agree that these are excuses for the most part and not legitimate problems. However, they have gotten the requisite number of votes to have it put on the ballot. Wondering how that will work out.

:)

I have a feeling the other religions will side with the church on this one. They did in Boston, simply because they knew if it could happen to the Mormons it could happen to them, and they would rather have more religious freedom than less. Hopefully the voters will think the same.

[Saguaro]

Mormon Church will lower height of Phoenix temple

Good news. This means that the temple will fit under existing zoning laws, so the application and approval process that the Church went through in the last year or so is irrelevant, the church can proceed with the temple and no opposition can stop it.

It will be interesting though to see how much more this will delay the temple and I'm sure it will cost more as well to redesign it.

I wonder too what the opposition thinks of this, as it does nothing to allay their primary concerns about traffic, the environment, lighting, etc. Ten feet will be little consolation to them as well as they complained about the 78 foot spire on top of the 40 ft building (now to be 30 foot building).

[talisyn]

The church is not asking for any special consideration with the redo, so the critics should be silent...assuming they follow logic.

The steeple should get an added 10 feet to it, because the height of church steeples cannot be restricted, but that would be petty

[talisyn]

I've been reading the comments on the article cited, and you can really tell who the former members are. What a bunch of bitter fruits.