Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Parking Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fraser Zoning Board postpones vote on 'Birdies and Bruise' parking and buffering variances after neighbors raise parking, enforceability concerns
Summary
The Fraser Zoning Board of Appeals postponed consideration of two variances for Birdies and Bruise (Udica Road) after neighbors and board members questioned a large parking shortfall and whether a shared-parking agreement would be enforceable; the planner had recommended conditional approval if occupancy and a recorded parking agreement were secured.
The Fraser Zoning Board of Appeals postponed action on an application for two variances from a Udica Road business after sustained objections from neighboring businesses and discussion about enforceability of a shared-parking arrangement.
City planner Lauren, who briefed the board, said the applicant seeks a parking variance to provide 23 spaces where 66 would be required at the proposed maximum occupancy and a variance to allow indoor commercial recreation within 100 feet of residential. Lauren told the board the building’s prior industrial configuration and an irregular parcel shape constrain on-site parking and said the planner’s office “recommend[ed] granting that as well” if the applicant lowered maximum occupancy to 198, provided a recorded/shared parking agreement for 15 or more nearby spaces, and added signage and circulation controls.
The applicant, Jonathan Giuliano, urged that the business model relies on reservations and memberships and described plans to restripe the front lot and use a recorded overflow agreement with the adjacent plaza owner. He said the latest drawings show 24 spaces before accounting for a screened dumpster and that many visits would be by reservation.
Several neighboring business owners urged the board to require stronger protections. Joseph Khaliba, owner of Free Play Pinball Arcade, said the proposed plan would leave the site with “one‑third less” parking than needed and described narrow rear aisles and circulation problems that make patrons unlikely to use overflow parking. Christine Velasco, owner of Ruffinet Pet Resort, said her business depends on immediate customer access throughout the day and warned she could lose customers if customer parking is taken by a new entertainment venue. Avito Manzella, who operates an office in the same building, also stressed that staff and transient visitors need reliable spaces.
The city attorney explained the difference between a lease and an easement and said that “if it’s an easement, then it would potentially run with the land,” a recorded mechanism that can make a shared-parking commitment durable. Board members recalled a prior instance of a delayed shared-parking agreement and debated whether to require a recorded instrument before voting. Several members said they preferred to see a form acceptable to the attorney before approving a variance.
With one regular member absent, the chair told the applicant that approvals require four votes from the full seven‑member board and offered the option to postpone. The board voted to postpone consideration of both variance requests; roll call recorded votes of Yes from Fina, Green, Mendez, Sassic and Wall, with Burley absent.
Next steps: the applicant will work with staff and the city attorney to finalize a recorded/shared‑parking instrument, provide any additional requested site details (including accurate seat/chair counts used to compute parking demand) and return to the Zoning Board of Appeals when the materials are complete. The planner noted that planning commission special‑land‑use review and the building official’s authority to set maximum occupancy would remain part of subsequent approvals.
