Laserfiche WebLink
<br />circumstances and not to make up for planning mistakes. He added that land owners east of this <br />site were not notified of this rule change, which would allow billboards in this area. He asked the <br />Council to deny the variance request and allow all interested applicants to apply for a variance. <br /> <br />Megan Rogers, attorney with Larkin Hoffman, representing Kenjoh Outdoor Advertising, came <br />forward and shared that Kenjoh requested a variance to the Sign Code as it allows up to three signs <br />throughout the City; however, there was no space for a third sign, given the requirements. She <br />explained that they went through the variance and survey process while undertaking this expense <br />before presenting it to the Planning Commission. She noted that the Planning Commission <br />considered all facts presented to them and how this could affect future development before making <br />a decision. She added that notices were sent to the property owners in the surrounding area of the <br />sign, as required under Minnesota law. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak explained that the Council is being tasked with reviewing the Planning <br />Commission’s decision and determining if they believe there was an error in facts or interpretation <br />of the City Code. <br /> <br />Councilmember Stewart asked if iDigital submitted a formal application with the application fee <br />when they were interested in this site in 2022. <br /> <br />Planning Manager Larson said iDigital sent an application form, which was unsigned by the land <br />owner, with no application fee. He added that the plans in the application were not sufficient. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht shared that he does not believe that the Planning Commission approved <br />this variance correctly based on the variance criteria. He said he does not believe that this variance <br />request should be granted. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley agreed with Councilmember Specht and added that he does not believe that <br />there were practical difficulties that were met to approve this variance. He noted that this will also <br />affect the character of the locality. <br /> <br />Councilmember Buscher asked if the Council needs to find that the Planning Commission erred in <br />all four criteria for a variance. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak stated that finding an error in any of the four criteria would suffice. <br /> <br />Councilmember Buscher shared that she believes the Planning Commission made the correct <br />decision, as she believes this request met all of the criteria for a variance. <br /> <br />Mayor Heineman asked if they were to deny this variance, if it would affect the ability for a <br />billboard to go on this site, regardless. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak noted that they should not be considering any future implications with this <br />request, only considering the Planning Commission’s decision. <br /> <br />City Council / October 14, 2025 <br />Page 7 of 13 <br /> <br /> <br />