PL PACKET 06182002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP Mr. Michael Mornson May 20, 2002 Page 2 . essential character of the locality; and(4) economic circumstances alone are not the basis of the hardship. In addition, your Zoning Code requires that the circumstances causing the hardship are unique to the individual property under consideration. Under these standards, it is unlikely that Mr. Brama would be able to establish an undue hardship allowing him to finish the "bonus room" over the garage. The more difficult question is whether Mr. Brama needs a variance at all. As Mr. Brama explained in his letter, he believes that a variance is not necessary. After reviewing the City's Zoning Code, Jerry and I came to the conclusion that the Code is ambiguous in regard to the definitions of"Accessory Building" and"Garage"as they relate to the definition of"Floor Area Ratio." The definition of"Garage" states that it is an"accessory building"the "primary purpose of which is to house automobiles." The Code_does not differentiate between attached and unattached garages. "Accessory Building" is defined as a"subordinate building on the same lot as the primary building on a lot, the use of which is incidental to the use of the primary building." Therein lies a problem. By definition, a"Garage" is an"Accessory Building" although the definition of"Accessory Building" suggests it must be a subordinate or separate building. Presumably, only an unattached garage could be an"Accessory Building" although the strict definition of"Garage" suggests otherwise. As these definition relate to "Floor Area Ratio," it becomes an important distinction. The "Floor Area Ratio" is defined as the "ratio of the maximum permitted floor area of the principal building or buildings to the area of the lot...." (Emphasis added) An unattached garage would clearly not be included in calculating the floor area ratio. An attached garage presents a more difficult question. One could argue, that the attached garage is part of the principal building and therefore its square footage should be included in determining "Floor Area Ratio." Conversely, there is a valid argument as made by Mr. Brama, that a garage, even though attached, should be treated as an"Accessory Building" and therefore not included in calculating the "Floor Area Ratio." Greg Schmidt, a building official for the City, has taken the position that the floor area should include the garage. Although this position is certainly defensible, it is difficult to'say what a court might do if the City enforces this position and Mr. Brama chooses to contest the enforcement. Where there is an ambiguity in the ordinance, a court will be more inclined to construe the provisions against the draftor, in this case the City. Thus, I think the City might have some difficulty in defending its position.