HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A Variance on Oakland Beach Ave Report
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2015
AGENDA #: 7A
PREPARED BY: JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER
PRESENTED
BY:
JEFF MATZKE
PUBLIC HEAR-
ING:
YES
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FROM THE MINI-
MUM LAKESHORE STRUCTURE SETBACK FOR A PROPERTY IN THE R-1
(LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT
DISCUSSION: Introduction
Highmark Builders, on behalf of the owner, Chris Dahl, is requesting a variance
from the minimum lake setback on a property located at 14640 Oakland Beach
Avenue. The property is located along the shore of Lower Prior Lake, north of
Seven Acres Street. The property is currently vacant. The following variance is
requested:
A 50 foot variance from the required minimum 75 foot structure setback
from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) elevation of Prior Lake (Section
1104.302 (4)).
Regulation Requirement Proposed Variance
Requested
Variance Approved by
Planning Commission
Lake Setback 75’ 25’ 50’ 45’
History
On September 8, 2015 the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding
the variance request. A nearby property owner and his representative expressed
concern with the variance application since they believed an unresolved issue in
adding fill below the 904 high water mark elevation exists on the property. They felt
the variance should not be considered for judgment by the Planning Commission
until the other issue was resolved. A separate neighbor expressed concern with
whether the property was indeed buildable for a residential home.
While the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) did provided a brief
email comment of support for the variance request, the Planning Commission ta-
bled the decision of the variance directing City Staff and the applicant to seek a
written response from the DNR as to the status of the alleged fill issue.
On October 5, 2015 the Planning Commission again considered the variance re-
quest after receiving a response from the DNR (attached letter) and approved a 45
foot variance from the lake setback to allow for a 30 foot required structure setback
for the proposal.
2
On October 12, 2015 the City received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s
decision from BNT Development to the City Council in accordance with Ordinance
Section 1108.409.
Current Circumstances
The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential), and is guided R-LD (Urban
Low Density) on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The property is
currently vacant.
The applicant proposes to construct a new 2-story home and attached 3-car garage
onsite with a 5,159 square foot footprint.
The gross area of the property is 84,781 square feet with 38,899 square feet in total
area above a 904 elevation. It was determined by the DNR that the area of the
pond (as identified on the survey) is hydrologically connected to Prior Lake thus
creating the requirement of 75 feet from the 904 elevation of the pond as well as
the main lake. However, the DNR also recognizes the possible need for a variance
from the 75 foot lake setback requirement from the pond area do to the limited
buildable area which the setback creates.
The applicant proposes a new house that would be 25 feet from the 904 elevation
of the interior pond/lake but does maintain over a 100 foot setback distance from
the 904 elevation bordering the main part of Prior Lake. This 100 foot setback
distance is similar to the lake setback of other houses along Oakland Beach Avenue
in the neighborhood.
Conclusion
The DNR provided a written response as directed by the Planning Commission
which details a permit that was acquired for the placement of fill in 2014. In the
letter the DNR also expressed continued support for the variance request.
The Planning Commission and City Staff do not believe the issue of fill placement
below the 904 elevation to be related to this variance requested. The Planning
Commission and City Staff believes the evaluation of the variance using the listed
criteria to be exclusive to the location of the proposed structure and not previous
activities of fill placement in a separate area on the property.
The Planning Commission and City Staff believe the variance requested is war-
ranted due to the lot constraints unique to the property and practical difficulties as
stated above in the findings. Attached to this report is a draft resolution upholding
the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a 45 foot variance subject to the
following conditions of approval:
The variance resolution shall be recorded at Scott County. An acknowl-
edged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Community & Economic
Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit
The survey shall be revised to indicate one driveway access onto Oakland
Beach Avenue.
A grading plan shall be submitted for the project along with the building
permit
ISSUES: This project includes a request for a variance. Section 1108.400 states that the
Board of Adjustment may grant a variance from the strict application of the provi-
sions of the Zoning Ordinance, provided that:
3
There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the
Ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the
granting of a Variance, means the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning
Ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical
difficulties.
Practical difficulties exist for the applicant in this case. This residential
property has some unique characteristics including the pond and lake fea-
tures that minimize the buildable area of the property to a linear area aver-
aging approximately 30 feet in depth. The variance would allow for the
home to be placed at least 30 feet from the 904 elevation surrounding the
pond while the home would be over 100 feet from the main part of Prior
Lake.
The granting of the Variance is in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the
Comprehensive Plan.
Two purposes of the Zoning Ordinance are to “promote the most appropriate
and orderly development of the residential, business, industrial, public land
and public areas” and “enhance the aesthetic character and appearance of
the City.” The approval of the variances as requested would allow the appli-
cant to construct a reasonable residential lake home plan on the site in an
orderly fashion within the confines of the upland area of the property.
The practical difficulty is due to circumstances unique to the property
not resulting from actions of the owners of the property and is not a
mere convenience to the property owner and applicant.
The property has unique characteristics including the pond and lake
features that minimize the buildable area of the property to a linear area
averaging approximately 30 feet in depth. The variance is required to allow
a reasonable building area on the property.
The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of the public
welfare.
The granting of the variances will not alter the existing character of the
neighborhood. As visible on the submitted survey, the proposed house would
maintain similar front yard and main lake body setbacks as adjacent
properties along Oakland Beach to the north.
The granting of the Variance will not result in allowing any use of the
property that is not permitted in the zoning district where the subject
property is located.
A single family residential dwelling is an allowed use within the R-1 (Low
Density Residential) Zoning District.
4
ALTERNA-
TIVES:
1. Motion and a second to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to ap-
prove a resolution approving a 45 foot variance for 14640 Oakland Beach Av-
enue, or any variance the City Council deems appropriate in these circum-
stances.
2. Motion and a second to table or continue discussion of the item for specific
purpose.
3. Motion and a second to deny the variance because the City Council finds a
lack of demonstrated practical difficulties under the zoning code criteria.
RECOM-
MENDED MO-
TIONS:
Alternative #1
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 15-XXPC
2. Location Map
3. Survey dated 8/12/15
4. Conceptual Building Plans dated 8/7/15
5. September 8, 2015 Planning Commission meeting minutes
6. October 5, 2015 Planning Commission meeting minutes
7. Planning Commission Approval Resolution 15-17PC
8. DNR letter dated 9/30/15
9. Attorney letters on behalf of appellant dated September 8th, Sept. 17th, and Oct
5th, 2015
10. City Attorney memorandum dated 11/4/15
1
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RESOLUTION 15-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION
TO GRANT APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LAKE SETBACK, FOR A PROPERTY IN THE
R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SHORELAND) ZONING DISTRICT
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, Highmark Builders, on behalf of the property owner, Christopher Dahl, is requesting a variance from the
minimum lake setback to construct a new home on a property in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning
District at the following property:
14640 Oakland Beach Avenue NE Prior Lake, MN 55372
That part of Government Lot 6, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota, described
as follows: Starting at a point 100.0 feet due south of the southeast corner of Lot 16, Oakland Beach;
and running due north 100.0 feet to said southeast corner; thence due west 100.0 feet to the southwest
corner of said Lot 16; thence North 63 degrees 40 minutes West about 189.0 feet to the water edge of
Prior Lake; thence southwesterly along said water edge to a point due west of the point of the beginning;
thence due east about 550.0 feet to the point of the beginning.
And Lot 9, SEVEN ACRES, Scott County, Minnesota; Except that part of said Lot 9, SEVEN ACRES
lying westerly of a line drawn perpendicular to the southerly line of said Lot 9, SEVEN ACRES from a
point distant 475.42 feet westerly of the southeast corner of said Lot 9, SEVEN ACRES;
Also commencing at the southeasterly corner of Lot 16, Oakland Beach, Scott County, Minnesota;
proceeding thence South 100 more or less to the northerly line of Seven Acres, Scott County, Minnesota;
proceeding thence at right angles to the last described line in an easterly direction along the northerly
line of Seven Acres to the northeast corner of Seven Acres, Scott County, Minnesota; proceeding thence
in a northwesterly direction along the northwesterly extension of the easterly line of Seven Acres to the
point of beginning, the same consisting of a portion of Government Lot 6, Section 30, Township 115
North, Range 21 West, Scott County, Minnesota
(PID 25-930-115-0, 25-930-112-0, 25-118-008-0)
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, reviewed the application for
variances as contained in Case #DEV15-001016, held a public hearing thereon September 8,
2015, and continued their discussion of the item on October 5, 2015; and,
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission concluded the a variance was consistent with the criteria set forth in
Section 1108.406 of the Zoning Ordinance, and approved a variance subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, On October 12, 2015, BNT Development LLC, a property owner within 350 feet of the affected
property, appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council; and
2
WHEREAS, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision, and the
information contained in Case # DEV15-001016, and held a hearing thereon on November 9,
2015
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA as follows:
1. The above recitals are fully incorporated herein as set forth above.
2. The City Council finds that the requested variances are consistent with the criteria set forth in Section
1108.406 of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to conditions.
3. The City Council upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the variances subject to
conditions.
4. The City Council makes the following findings:
a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Ordinance. “Practical
difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a Variance, means the property owner
proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance.
Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
It appears practical difficulties exist for the applicant in this case. This residential property has some
unique characteristics including the pond and lake features that minimize the buildable area of the
property to a linear area averaging approximately 30 feet in depth. The variance would allow for the
home to be placed at least 30 feet from the 904 elevation surrounding the pond while home would be
over 100 feet from the main part of Prior Lake.
b. The granting of the Variances are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City
Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan.
Two purposes of the Zoning Ordinance are to “promote the most appropriate and orderly development of
the residential, business, industrial, public land and public areas” and “enhance the aesthetic character and
appearance of the City.” The approval of the variances as requested would allow the applicant to
construct a reasonable residential lake home plan on the site in an orderly fashion within the confines of
the upland area of the property.
c. The practical difficulty is due to circumstances unique to the property not resulting from actions
of the owners of the property and is not a mere convenience to the property owner and applicant.
The property has unique characteristics including the pond and lake features that minimize the buildable
area of the property to a linear area averaging approximately 30 feet in depth. The variance is required
to allow a reasonable building area on the property.
d. The granting of the variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or be
detrimental to the health and safety of the public welfare.
The granting of the variances will not alter the existing character of the neighborhood. As visible on the
submitted survey, the proposed house would maintain similar lake and front yard setbacks to adjacent
properties along Oakland Beach to the north.
e. The granting of the Variances will not result in allowing any use of the property that is not
permitted in the zoning district where the subject property is located.
A single family residential dwelling is an allowed use within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning
District.
5. The contents of Case #DEV15-001016 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record
and the record of decision for this case.
3
6. Based upon the findings set forth herein, the City Council hereby approves the following variance to allow a
construction of a single family dwelling in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District:
a. A 45 foot variance from the required minimum 75 foot structure setback from the Ordinary High Water
(OHW) elevation of Prior Lake (Section 1104.302 (4))
7. The variances are subject to the following conditions of approval:
a. The variance resolution shall be recorded at Scott County. An acknowledged City Assent Form, shall
be submitted to the Community & Economic Development Department prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
b. The survey shall be revised to indicate one driveway access onto Oakland Beach Avenue.
c. A grading plan shall be submitted for the project along with the building permit.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 9th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015.
VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson
Aye ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
______________________________
Frank Boyles, City Manager
mndnr.gov
An Equal Opportunity Employer
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 1-888-646-6367 651-296-5484 1-800-657-3929
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Ecological and Water Resources Division
Central Region Headquarters
1200 Warner Road, Saint Paul MN 55106
Telephone: (651) 259-5845
Fax: (651) 772-7977
September 30, 2015
Jeff Matzke
Community & Economic Development Dept.
City of Prior Lake
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Dahl Variance – 14640 Oakland Beach, Prior Lake, MN
Dear Mr. Matzke:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Dahl – Oakland Beach variance request dated
8/10/2015. I provided a brief comment in support of this variance via email on 8/19/2015.
In May 2014, the DNR issued a permit to Chris Dahl and his contractor, Tim Latterner, to perform the
following actions: 1) Place riprap along the shoreline on the lakeward side of the delineated Ordinary
High Water Line, 2) Grade and construct swale with small rock or vegetation with a bottom elevation
of 903.5, a width of at least 5 feet and a slope no greater than 3:1, and 3) Place native plantings on the
pond/wetland side of the OHW (Ordinary High Water). I visited the site in December 2014 and found
the work to be compliant with the authorized actions, although I did not measure the elevation of the
rock swale or notice native plantings on the pond side of the construction.
DNR records show that the pond area on and adjacent to the parcels owned by Chris Dahl has
historically been hydrologically connected to the main body of Lower Prior Lake. The 1977 survey by
DNR staff show an area approximately 80 feet wide connected to the lake at elevation 922. Over the
years, DNR staff have received reports of landowners on this parcel pulling material from the lake and
a small ridge was built up between the lake and the pond. However, the DNR contends that there has
been an ongoing hydrologic connection between the pond and the lake.
Through the DNR public waters permitting process, Mr. Dahl agreed to place a swale to maintain the
hydrologic connection to the lake below the OHW as part of the shoreline work that was being
planned. Thus, the hydrologic connection to Prior Lake places the pond area under DNR regulatory
jurisdiction and the pond has the same OHW as Lower Prior Lake (903.9 ft NGVD 29). Although local
residents may know best, our records indicate that this area has historically functioned as a wetland,
not as a navigable area of water, unlike some of the other bay areas of Prior Lake. Thus, any physical
work within the wetland remains subject to Minnesota Statute 103G.245.
The City of Prior Lake has jurisdiction over land use decisions through its shoreland ordinance. We
support approval of the setback variance proposed by the Dahl family.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 651-259-5790.
Sincerely,
mndnr.gov
An Equal Opportunity Employer
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 1-888-646-6367 651-296-5484 1-800-657-3929
Jennie Skancke
Area Hydrologist
c: Christopher Dahl, Mark Vyvyan
EWR Regional Manager, Terri Yearwood
EWR District Manager, Jeanne Daniels
DNR Land Use Specialist, Dan Petrik
Lake Byllesby File #19-6P
GREGERSON, ROSOW, JOHNSON & NILAN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DAVID H. GREGERSON*
RICHARD F. ROSOW+
MARK J. JOHNSON*†
JOSEPH A. NILAN*†
DANIEL R. GREGERSON*
JOSHUA A. DOROTHY†
SARAH E. SCHWARZHOFF
DANIEL A. ELLERBROCK#
JENNIFER M. SPALDING
T. JAMES POWER
MARGARET L. EVAVOLD
JACOB T. MERKEL
100 WASHINGTON AVENUE SOUTH
SUITE 1550
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401
TELEPHONE: (612) 338-0755
FAX: (612) 349-6718
WWW.GRJN.COM
ROBERT I. LANG (1922-2012)
ROGER A. PAULY (RETIRED)
#Also admitted in Illinois
*Also admitted in Wisconsin
†Also admitted in North Dakota
+MSBA Board Certified Real Property Specialist
Writer’s Direct Dial: 612-436-7471
Writer’s E-mail: mjohnson@grjn.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
Frank Boyles, City Manager
Jeff Matzke, City Planner
FROM: Mark Johnson
DATE: November 4, 2015
RE: Dahl Variance
At the November 9, 2015 Prior Lake City Council Meeting, the Council will consider an
appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision granting a variance from setback requirements for
property located at 14640 Oakland Beach Avenue. The Planning Commission, acting as the Board
of Adjustments, granted the variance at its meeting on October 5, 2015. A neighboring property
owner has appealed this decision to the City Council. This memo details the procedure and
standards prescribed by City Code and state law for the Council’s consideration of this type of
variance request.
Planning Commission Proceedings
City Code Section 1108.400 sets forth the procedure and standards for considering a
request for a variance from “the literal application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.” A
variance may be granted “when the applicant for the Variance establishes that there are practical
difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. When practical difficulties unique to the
individual property would result from strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance, the owner of the . . . property may apply for a Variance to the provisions of the
Ordinance.” City Code § 1108.400; see also Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6(2). As noted in the
Code, “[t]he statutory authority to grant a variance is permissive and not mandatory.” City Code §
1108.400.
The Board of Adjustment considers and decides all variance applications. City Code §
1108.403. The Planning Commission acts as the Board of Adjustment. The Commission must hold
November 4, 2015
Page 2
a public hearing on the application “to hear arguments for and against the proposed Variance.”
City Code § 1108.405. The Commission may grant a variance if it finds that certain criteria are
satisfied.
If it grants the variance, the Commission may “impose such reasonable and appropriate
conditions and safeguards as may be necessary to accomplish, to the extent possible under the
circumstances, the purposes of the regulations or provisions which are to be varied or modified
and to ensure compliance and protect adjacent properties, the character of the neighborhood, and
the health, safety, and general welfare of the community.” City Code § 1108.408; Minn. Stat. §
462.357, subd. 6(2).
Appeal to City Council
The Code provides that “[a]ny aggrieved person situated wholly or partly within 350 feet
of the affected property . . . may appeal the decision of the [Commission] to the City Council
pursuant to subsection 1109.400. City Code § 1108.409. Section 1109.400 requires the appeal to
be in writing and filed with the Zoning Administrator within five business days after the
Commission decision.
Section 1109.400 provides that “[w]hen an appeal is received by the City, the applicant
will be notified of the date and time the City Council will hear the appeal. No appeal will be heard
until all owners of property within 350 feet of the subject property are notified of the date
scheduled for the appeal hearing. Notice shall be provided in the manner set out in subsection
1109.200.” City Code § 1109.400. The City Council must hear the appeal within 30 days of when
the appeal was filed, unless this time is extended with the appellant’s consent. City Code §
1109.400. The Council may affirm the Commission’s variance decision or may reverse “by an
affirmative vote of the majority of its full membership.” City Code § 1109.400. The Council must
make its decision “within 30 days of the conclusion of the appeal hearing.” Id.
The Code requires that the City Council hold a hearing on a variance appeal. Subsection
1109.200 identifies “the general procedures applicable to all public hearings conducted in the
administration” of the Zoning Ordinance. As with any public hearing, the Mayor may “exclude
any evidence, testimony or comment which is incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial or unduly
repetitious to preserve the issue before the [Council].” City Code § 1109.205. Further, “[a]ny
affected parties may offer evidence or testimony in explanation or rebuttal only with respect to
evidence or testimony which was not presented at a previous review proceeding, and the [Mayor]
may determine that testimony for such purposes shall be limited in duration.” Id.
The Code requires that the Council review the Commission’s decision, considering the
same criteria addressed by the Commission. See City Code § 1108.406 (“The [Commission], or
the City Council upon appeal, may grant a Variance from the strict application of the provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance, if it finds all of the following criteria are satisfied . . . .” (emphasis
added)); City Code § 1108.400 (“The [Commission], or the City Council upon appeal, may
approve a Variance if it finds the variance meets all of the criteria in Subsection 1108.406, and is
not restricted by the limitations in Subsection 1108.407.” (emphasis added)). The Code therefore
November 4, 2015
Page 3
requires that, in considering an appeal, the City Council must consider the same criteria as the
Commission and make independent findings as to whether a variance should be granted.
Legal Standard – Practical Difficulties
A city has “broad discretionary power” in considering whether to grant or deny a variance.
VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N.W.2d 503, 508 (Minn. 1983). The central
inquiry in making a variance decision is whether the applicant has established “that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance.” City Code § 1108.400; Minn. Stat.
§ 462.357, subd. 6(2). Economic considerations alone are insufficient to establish practical
difficulties. City Code § 1108.400(1); Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6(2). The City Code sets forth
the following criteria that must be satisfied before the Council grants a variance:
1. Reasonableness
The property owner must propose to “use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by the Zoning Ordinance.” City Code § 1108.406(1); Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6(2). “This
factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but
cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to any
reasonable use whatsoever without the variance.” LMC Information Memo – Land Use Variances
(“LMC Memo”), at 2.
2. Uniqueness
The applicant must also show that “[t]he practical difficulty is due to circumstances unique
to the property not resulting from actions of the owners of the property and is not a mere
convenience to the property owner and applicant.” City Code § 1108.406(3); Minn. Stat. §
462.357, subd. 6(2). This factor generally relates to the physical characteristics of the property, not
to the preferences of the landowner. “When considering the variance for a building to encroach or
intrude into a setback, the focus of this factor is whether there is anything physically unique about
the particular piece of property, such as sloping topography or other natural features like wetlands
or trees.” LMC Memo at 2.
3. Essential Character
The applicant must establish that “[t]he granting of the variance will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of the public welfare.”
City Code § 1108.406(4); Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6(2) (“[T]he variance, if granted, will not
alter the essential character of the locality”). This factor considers whether the structure will be
“out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area.” LMC Memo at 3.
4. Harmony with other Provisions
The fourth criterion requires the Council to consider whether the variance is “in harmony
with the general purpose and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the
Comprehensive Plan.” City Code § 1108.406(2); Minn. Stat. 462.357, subd. 6(2).
November 4, 2015
Page 4
5. Permitted Use
Finally, the Council’s grant of a variance may not “result in allowing any use of the
property that is not permitted in the zoning district where the subject property is located.” City
Code § 1108.406(5).
P:\home\4209.001 - Community Development - General\Dahl Variance\Memos\2015 11 02 - MT MJJ - Variance Procedures.docx