Zoning board postpones Birdies and Brews decision after questions over parking agreement and occupancy

The Frasier Zoning Board of Appeals on May 7 postponed action on two variances requested by Birdies and Brews at 34860 Udica Road, citing unresolved parking shortfalls and legal concerns about the form of a proposed shared‑parking agreement.

City planners told the board the applicant had reduced the proposed maximum occupancy for the indoor golf‑simulator and mini‑golf facility from 252 to 156, which changes the parking calculation to one space per three occupants and requires 52 spaces. Planner presentation materials and an engineering review showed 24 existing spaces on the parcel, one of which is occupied by a dumpster, leaving 23 usable spaces — a deficit of 29 (23 provided vs. 52 required). The planner recommended conditional approval only if the applicant provides clear vehicle‑circulation signage, a life‑safety egress plan and a recorded, enforceable parking agreement.

Why the board paused: city attorneys and staff flagged the applicant's submitted document as a private lease that is not in a recordable form at the register of deeds. "This is a lease — it is not in recordable form and could be terminated tomorrow," the city attorney stated, explaining why a recorded easement or other instrument that "runs with the land" would protect future owners and the public interest. Staff also noted the draft lease contained no clear cap on how many parking spaces could be used by the applicant, which could allow the plaza owner to allocate more spaces than were represented to the board.

Applicant comments and neighbors: the applicant, Jonathan Giuliano, said he had negotiated a perpetual lease and expected to secure about 20 overflow spaces from the adjacent plaza to the north, and argued his typical business use would be far below maximum capacity. "I'm never going to have 250 people in the building… Being at 150 is just a buffer," Giuliano said, describing his operational assumptions and a plan to use text messages and signage to direct customers to overflow locations. Neighbors and nearby business owners pressed the applicant on turning radii, dumpster placement, and the practical effects of employee vs. customer parking, and pointed to photos and prior observations showing different counts of available spaces.

Board decision and next step: after extended discussion about occupancy math, engineer notes, and the enforceability of private parking agreements, a motion to postpone the matter "to give the applicant time to get the proper agreement to our council for our council to fully review and approve" was made and seconded. The board voted unanimously to postpone; members voting yes were Burley, Kmentei, Fina, Green, Mendez, Sassic and Wall.

What happens now: the postponement is conditioned on the applicant producing a city‑attorney‑approved, recordable parking agreement (staff identified a recorded easement as preferable to a private lease). If the applicant secures and records an appropriate instrument, the matter can return for board action; regardless, the facility will still need special‑land‑use/site‑plan approval from the planning commission for the amusement/recreation use and appropriate life‑safety approvals from building and fire officials.

The board adjourned following other routine reports and updates.