Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Board of Adjustment <br />Minutes of December 10, 1992 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />lot has approximately 35 spaces. <br /> <br />The new church will seat a maximum of 150 people as opposed to the 130 <br />persons that can be accommodated at the present building. <br /> <br />Notification of the request was mailed to 19 adjacent property owners. Two <br />were returned, both being in favor of the Special Exception Request. <br /> <br />Sidney Grant asked how the parking would be handled when the church held <br />special events which might bring in a capacity crowd. Mr. Griffith explained <br />that in addition to the available off street parking available at the school, <br />there is also on street parking which could be used for overflow crowds. <br /> <br />Chairman Bernay swore in Charlie T. Perry. <br /> <br />Mr. Perry spoke on behalf of Zion Hill Baptist Church reiterating the church's <br />intent to build a new facility. <br /> <br />John Armstrong stated that there is a specific joint parking provision noted <br />in the Zoning Ordinance where only 80% of a church's parking needs may be <br />met by a joint parking agreement. Therefore, 20% of the parking must be on <br />site. <br /> <br />Mr. Perry stated that it was his understanding that the church's 30 foot <br />setback on the Madison Street side and the 30 foot setback on the 6th Street <br />side could be used for parking. <br /> <br />There was some confusion among the Board and staff over what exactly the <br />Board should be acting on. <br /> <br />Mr. Griffith explained that the only issue before the Board was a reduction <br />in the required number of parking spaces from 48 to 35. Seven parking <br />spaces would have to be located on site. The 20% on site required parking <br />spaces would be dealt with through the Planning and Zoning Commission and <br />City Council by a Conditional Use Request. <br /> <br />No proposed on site parking was indicated on the plans submitted by the <br />church which would seem to be the basis for the confusion on the issue. If <br />the required on site parking can be provided, then the Board would not need <br />to take any action on this item. <br />