Boundary County Planning & Zoning Commission

MINUTES April 16, 2009

Members present: Jake Negley, Doug Reoch, Henry McMahon, Matt Morgan, Jan Christenson, Rod Barcklay, Matt Cossalman. Members absent: Bruce Behrman, Steve Shelman. Staff present: Mike Weland.

1. Reoch opened the meeting, introduced members and called for reading of the February and March minutes. Negley made motion to waive reading and approve as presented, Christenson seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Reoch read the public hearing procedure and opened public hearing on application 09-011, no member cited conflict of interest.
2. Applicant Mike Sheppard Jr., Porthill, gave an overview of his proposal, and said the primary purpose of the proposed sign was to advertise to improve business at the Porthill Mercantile. He stated the plasma sign would provide time and temperature, a Welcome to Idaho message and promote weekly store specials. In addition, he stated that space would be made available to public entities, including the county, the sheriff, the Border Patrol, etc., for publication of community interest messages, to include Amber alerts, emergency road information, warnings against drinking and driving and other safety information. He stated that he’s not locked in to the size of the sign as proposed, stating that the dimensions in the application were the largest sign possible, but the final design would depend on financing. He stated the sign was to be professionally engineered by Yesco. He said that the sign was expected to capture more traffic southbound from Canada, and said that an analysis he’d had done in 2006 indicated a 25% population growth in Creston and an increase of about 40 families per year in Boundary County. He said the sign was not only intended to serve his business, but up to one-quarter of the space available would be offered affordably to other businesses so as to benefit the local economy. He stated he was aware of the neighbor’s concerns and that he was willing to accept mitigative steps, such as shielding the east end of the sign and reducing illumination by 70% at night. The applicant passed around photos showing placement of the proposed signs and other billboards in the county, though he conceded that no county signs were of the type being proposed.
   1. Cossalman asked about night-time display, Sheppard said the sign could be turned off at 11 p.m., as that was when the Port closed. McMahon asked about luminosity, Sheppard stated he did not have specifications. McMahon asked about proximity to the airport at Porthill, Sheppard said it was approximately 8,000 feet away.
   2. Cossalman said he’d walked the property two days earlier, and said the trees and the power lines were approximately the same height as the proposed sign. Discussion was held regarding ex parte contact. Cossalman stated he did speak to the applicant and several neighbors. Barcklay said he felt this constituted ex parte contact and he made motion that Cossalman recuse himself and sit in the audience without a vote. McMahon seconded and Cossalman stepped down.
   3. Christenson asked about variables such as night-time dimming, and asked if there was a reason such details had not been included in the application. Sheppard said those details had not been determined as yet. Christenson asked about how the sign was programmed, and surmised that programming was done from a computer keyboard; he asked about security and how the content of the sign could be controlled and monitored. Sheppard said he did not have those details.
3. There being no further questions for the applicant, Reoch opened the hearing to public testimony.
   1. Speaking in favor, Trevallyn Sheppard, co-owner of the Porthill Mercantile, stated the sign proposed would have economic benefits throughout the community, providing local businesses affordable advertising they needed to survive and grow. She said it would also benefit the Mercantile, and said she hoped that with increased traffic to increase staff from 4 employees to five or six.
   2. Speaking uncommitted, Matt Cossalman, Copeland, said he’d visited the property, concerned that “Las Vegas was coming.” He stated he’d researched the internet on such signs, and found a study from the Michigan DOT that indicated such signs in 60-mph areas increased traffic accidents by approximately one percent. He said he was concerned that such a sign would be erected in the back yard of neighbors, but said he found that the applicants had purchased the property from the residents most effected, who were in the process of moving. He stated that traffic within sight of the proposed sign traveled at 35-mph or less. After his review and study, he said, he said he now believes such a sign would not be as bad as he at first worried. He stated that the commission could establish conditions if approved, such as night-time light reduction, forbidding animation within individual frames, and limiting change rate to one frame per six seconds. He stated he was still concerned that advertising space made available to other enterprises would be used to finance the sign, and said he agreed with providing local businesses an affordable means to advertise, but said he was worried that the Coeur d’Alene Casino or other big enterprise outside the area would become the main advertisers. McMahon asked if the sign proposed would have adverse impact on wildlife, Cossalman stated that the area was primarily commercial and not a place frequented by wildlife. He said that seven homes were visible from the site; one in Canada, six in the US, and said shielding would block the view from three homes on the US side.
   3. Speaking in opposition, Claine Skeen, Porthill, stated that he lived on the adjoining property, and presented photos showing views from his house that would be impacted by the sign as proposed. He stated he had no problem with the Sheppard’s conduct of their business, but said a 24-26’ tall illuminated sign would ruin his view and lower the value of his property.  He was asked if there were any factors, such as size or nighttime light reduction that would mitigate his concerns, he stated that he didn’t see how, as even a smaller plasma sign would have an impact.
   4. Teresa Skeen, Porthill, stated that she, too, had no problem with the business, but said that sitting on her deck enjoying the view would be destroyed. Even shielded, she said the sign would be visible and intrusive, adversely affecting her enjoyment of her property. She said that should they decide to sell, the value would be reduced by the presence of the sign. She said she has not had the chance to talk to the applicant, but said she couldn’t think of any steps to mitigate her concerns. She stated she’d have no concern if the sign weren’t visible from her property. She stated that the port of entry was down the hill from her home, and said they do see the lights, but that the lights weren’t flashing, and in the summer they were considerably obscured by foliage.
   5. Dennis Ponsness, Porthill, stated the proposed sign would be situated approximately 250 yards from the north end of his property, and would be in clear view of his deck. He stated the sign would also be about 25 yards from the airport and near the north end of the runway. He stated that such signs were a nuisance which devalued surrounding properties, and that the sign proposed was huge; if it were smaller and used solely for the Mercantile, he could support it, but based on the size proposed it appeared that outside advertising would be used to offset the cost of the sign, which would be expensive. He said granting the sign would open the way for similar signs throughout the county. He said that based on testimony, it was apparent that the applicant was willing to work with neighbors, but said it was not the task of the commission to establish or set limits, but the obligation of the applicant to return with an amended proposal setting out specific information on the proposal.
   6. Pam Ponsness, Porthill, said her view property would be adversely impacted, and would limit her enjoyment of the property.
4. There being no further public testimony, Reoch called for a closing statement from the applicant. Mike Sheppard said he was open to ideas, and wanted to do all he could to mitigate the concerns expressed. He said that traffic is slowed to 25 mph in both directions within the area of the roadway from which the sign would be visible, and thus would not impede traffic safety. He stated that he, like his neighbors, did not want a flashing, gaudy sign, and said the frames would segue from one to another smoothly, without flashing. He said the luminosity on the sign could be adjusted from 0 to 100%. He said that there was already considerable lighting in the area from the businesses, the port and homes, so the addition of the sign would have minimal impact on wildlife. He stated that the shield mentioned would be mounted to the sign, and those exposed to that view would see only an eight-foot black shield. He said that he was willing to consider having a static, standard billboard visible to north-bound traffic, the side of the sign most visible to neighbors, stating that southbound traffic was most critical and beneficial to his business. He stated that he understands the sign proposed sounded extreme, but reiterated that he doubted they would be able to afford that size and so would likely erect a smaller sign.
5. There being no further comment, Reoch closed the hearing to public testimony, and asked staff to read the letter from Northern Lights into the record. Following the reading, the applicant confirmed that the proposed sign was not located within the power line right of way. Reoch called for discussion among members.
   1. Barcklay recommended that the application be tabled for further information, saying they needed more definition and specifics on the size of the sign, shielding, luminescence and other data.
   2. Christenson concurred, and stated that concerns over the proximity of the airport deserve a response. He brought up the new comprehensive plan, which would prohibit billboard signs within county jurisdiction, and expressed concerns over the proposed sign’s impact on the Selkirk Loop. He concurred that the site plan and information in the application was insufficient and that a specific, hard proposal was needed.
   3. Morgan agreed that a concrete proposal was needed, and said in his opinion, the sign as proposed was too big. He agreed with the surrounding neighbors, saying that specifics were needed on on/off times, lumens, etc. He said that the neighbors appeared will to work with the applicant, and said the applicant should take advantage of that, and work with them to resolve the issues and present a proposal that would mitigate the concerns raised.
   4. Henry concurred with other members, and stated that he didn’t like flashing signs, even in the city. He also expressed concern over potential impact on flight operations at the Porthill Airport.
   5. Reoch said he felt the commission needed a written response from the Idaho Department of Aeronautics.
6. There being no further discussion, Barcklay made motion to disapprove application 09-011 as the site plan and documentation were inadequate, that the sign as proposed was too big and annoying to neighbors and posed a potential hazard to the Porthill Airport. Negley seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
7. Discussion was held on Idaho’s open meeting law, with members concurring that they felt Cossalman’s action was likely in violation, but they agreed that his actions were understandable in that visiting the property and talking to those involved enabled him to resolve questions in his mind. Staff stated that when such questions arose, members could direct staff to get answers to specific questions, as that data would be included in the public record and made available to each member. He said he could provide preliminary word to members when an application was received so they had time to raise such questions instead of only sending the notice after the deadline for written comment passed. Dennis Ponsness, a former county commissioner, said he felt that the open meeting law had been violated and the correct action taken; and concurred that directing staff was the proper way to get answers to questions. Staff was directed to relate the incident to counsel for a determination as to whether or not such contact violated Idaho’s open meeting law, as well the statutory provisions involved.
8. There being no further business before the commission, Christenson made motion to adjourn, Negley seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7 p.m.