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

Home

October 1, 2025 Page 3 Other courts addressing similar challenges to billboard approvals have reached the same conclusion. In Arcadia Osborn Neighborhood Association v. Clear Channel Outdoor (attached) the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a neighborhood association and individual residents who attempted to challenge variances granted for the relocation and digital conversion of billboards. The court held that the individual plaintiffs lacked "a sufficient particularized palpable injury to confer standing," and that the association had "neither representational nor organizational standing." The court explained that to qualify as a "person aggrieved," a plaintiff must allege a concrete, particularized harm resulting from the decision, and further emphasized that "pure advocacy" efforts to limit billboard conversions do not satisfy the standard. Likewise, in this case iDigital has no property interest adjacent to or near the Site that will be affected by the variance approval. The variance decision does not bear directly upon iDigital's personal interest in any tangible manner. Indeed, iDigital is a competitor, who is belatedly complaining about losing out on a business opportunity, which it might have secured years ago by utilizing the same type of diligence and effort successfully demonstrated by Kenjoh.1That is not a cognizable injury under Minnesota law and does not confer standing to appeal the variance. IV. The Planning Commission Properly Exercised Its Authority in Granting the Variance While iDigital lacks standing to pursue an appeal, the Planning Commission's decision to grant Kenjoh's variance application was objectively appropriate on the merits. Resolution 25-196 correctly identifies and justifies the practical difficulties that necessitate Kenjoh's variance, aligning with both legal and factual bases for approval. iDigital's appeal offers no convincing bases for overturning the Planning Commission's decision. a. Proper Legal Notice was Given. iDigital objects to the lack of notice for the variance hearing and meeting. But, as discussed in detail above, Mr. Larson unequivocally confirmed all of the City's notice requirements under Section 106-220(b) were strictly met. b. The Application Complies with the Comprehensive Plan The Proposed Sign is within the designated Off -Premises Digital Billboard Overlay District. The Planning Commission found that Kenjoh's Proposed Sign does not contravene the intent and purpose of the City's Comprehensive Plan. c. The Planning Commission Correctly Found That Kenjoh's Application Meets the Practical Difficulties Standard iDigital argues that Kenjoh failed to demonstrate "practical difficulties." "Practical difficulties" is a statutory standard that cities must apply when considering applications for variances. An applicant must show that they propose to use the property in a reasonable manner, that the requested flexibility is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the applicant and lastly, that the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The Planning Commission discussed each factor in turn. The Proposed Sign complies with all prescribed design, height and dimensional requirements. Planning Commissioner Bauer observed that as adopted the ordinance permits three signs 1 iDigital failed to complete its application and abandoned its pursuit of a similar project in 2022.