Fraser ZBA approves cut to parking at 16945 Masonic Blvd.; driveway-width request withdrawn

The Fraser Zoning Board of Appeals on March 6 approved a variance reducing the minimum required parking at 16945 Masonic Boulevard from 26 spaces to 20 and acknowledged the applicant’s withdrawal of a separate request to reduce a driveway width from 30 feet to 22 feet.

The board’s approval of the parking variance followed a planning staff recommendation and a lengthy discussion about truck access, safety, and the property’s legal status. Lauren Sayre, Fraser city planner, told the board that planning reviewed the packet and "recommend[ed] approving the variance to reduce the parking from 26 to 20 spaces due to the spatial limitations of the site's legal industrial use in the CN District," while recommending denial of the driveway-width reduction because the applicant had not demonstrated the required hardship.

Why it matters: The property is a long‑standing industrial use within a Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zoning district and planning staff and the city attorney flagged two separate issues the board must weigh: (1) whether allowing front‑yard loading and backing onto Masonic Boulevard would expand a nonconforming industrial use and (2) whether the narrower driveway would create a public‑safety hazard for traffic, cyclists and pedestrians on Masonic. City Attorney Don Denault told the board those questions likely require further review and a Class A nonconforming‑use process through the planning commission.

Board debate and applicant response Members raised safety concerns about large trucks backing onto Masonic Boulevard near the post office, and about existing outdoor storage that has reduced usable parking. Chair Farina said she was "not inclined to give you a variance to 22 feet because I'm not sure that any semi is gonna be really able to do that." Planning staff and several members recommended the applicant either make the driveway 30 feet, make it one‑way, or revise the site plan so parking is re‑striped rather than eliminated.

The applicant told the board that deliveries typically arrive early, about 7–8 a.m., that some loads arrive on 40–50 foot semitrailers, and that moving an overhead loading door to the front would allow trucks to pull fully into the building to unload. The applicant said the recent move had left material outside the building and committed to cleaning up outdoor storage. He also told the board he would withdraw the driveway‑width variance and rework the site plan with city staff: "we'll withdraw the drive as soon as we have to redo the plans and go back to planning on that." (Applicant representative)

Formal action and vote The board split the two requests. The ZBA approved the parking reduction (from 26 to 20 spaces) and the record shows the motion carried in a roll-call vote. The roll call recorded "Yes" votes from Member Burley, Member Camenti, Chair Farina and Member Wall; Members Green and Stasic were recorded absent and another member was noted as absent during roll call. The board also acknowledged the applicant’s withdrawal of the driveway‑width variance; no vote was taken on the withdrawn driveway request.

Next steps Planning staff and the city attorney told the applicant that, regardless of tonight’s action on parking, the project will need additional review by the planning commission if the applicant pursues front‑yard loading or any change that could expand a nonconforming industrial use. The applicant was advised to revise the site plan, work with the planner on striping and accessible‑parking adjustments, and return to planning commission for any Class A nonconforming‑use approval and revised site plan.

Public hearing and participation The public hearing was opened and closed during the meeting with no members of the public speaking on the item. The board and staff noted neighbor outreach had occurred; a neighbor had expressed concerns about parking use of the shared access but indicated an intent to resolve the issue privately.

Ending The ZBA’s action makes the 20‑space parking plan effective as recorded in the meeting minutes; the driveway‑width question will be addressed in revised plans and further planning‑commission review before any front‑yard loading or backing onto Masonic can be allowed.