Agenda - Council - 10/14/2025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

October 1, 2025 Page 2 standards for a variance from the two-mile separation requirement, it proceeded with the expensive and time-consuming process for securing the Site. This included negotiating and paying for a long-term lease with the owner of the property under the Proposed Sign, applying for and obtaining a permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and paying thousands of dollars for a site survey to complete its variance and CUP applications. In short, unlike the appellant, Kenjoh did its due diligence, worked with City staff to understand the applicable rules and procedures and then committed the time, resources, and expense necessary to secure the required variance. The appellant, in contrast, declined to undertake this effort or commit the resources required, and now seeks through appeal to block a competitor from exercising rights properly obtained under Minnesota law. II. Kenjoh's Variance Hearing Complied with City and State Notice Requirements. Kenjoh presented its application to the Planning Commission at its duly noticed public meeting on September 28, 2025. Kenjoh's representative, Scott Levine, appeared in person and explained in detail and demonstrated compliance with all of the criteria for securing a variance under Section 106-220(c). No one offered public comment in opposition to Kenjoh's variance or CUP applications. As confirmed by Planner Larson, in writing in the Planning Commission packet, mailed notification was provided in accordance with City Code requirements and the Minnesota Municipal Planning Act (Minn. Stat. 462). Legal notice was published in the Anoka Union Herald on August 15. Beyond these requirements, a proposed development sign, required by the City but not by Minnesota law, was also posted on the Site to provide supplemental notice. Although iDigital objects to an alleged "lack of personal notice" regarding the variance hearing, the notice provided was in full compliance with the City Code and exceeded the requirements of Minnesota law. III. iDigital Is Not An "Affected Person" and Lacks Standing to Appeal Under Section 106-220(f) of the City Code, the Planning Commission is the final decision - making authority for variance applications; however, its actions may be appealed to the City Council by "any affected person" so long as notice of appeal is received by the zoning administrator within ten days of the Commission's final action. iDigital is not an "affected person" under Minnesota law and therefore lacks standing to appeal. iDigital neither owns property adjacent to the Site nor demonstrates any direct impact on its property rights. While the term "affected person" is not expressly defined in the City Code, a useful comparison is the right to appeal a variance decision to state district court. Minnesota Statutes § 462.361, subd. 1, grants that right to "any person aggrieved by an ordinance, rule, regulation, decision or order of a governing body or board of adjustments and appeals..." The Minnesota Court of Appeals has construed "aggrieved person" to mean an individual "upon whom the municipal action operates on his rights of property or bears directly upon his personal interest." Stansell v. City of Northfield, 618 N.W.2d 814, 819 (Minn. App. 2000). By that measure, iDigital does not qualify.