Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission held June 24, 2025, 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of City Hall.
Members present:
Mike Cook – Chairman
Kevin Asker – Vice Chair
Dan Gautney
Brian Perry
James Zehner
Yolanda Stout
Members absent: Lee Spencer
City Staff: City Administrator Kennedy
The meeting was called to order by Mike Cook at 6:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Dan Gautney, second by James Zehner to approve the corrected minutes of May 27, 2025, as presented. Motion carried.
Mike Cook asked what action was taken on the rezone application from the last meeting. City Administrator Kennedy stated it was approved.
PUBLIC HEARING #1: The public hearing was opened at 6:02 p.m.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Angela Poxleitner stated the proposed billboard location is 1027 Highway 13. It is currently the home of Extreme Auto as the primary business, and also includes U-Haul and Blue Tick Coffee, which has increased traffic to the area. A previous property owner requested annexation in 1994 and connected to water and sewer. The property is mostly disconnected from downtown. Main Street ends at the truck route, and all signs, décor and beautification ends at the park and/or the truck route. The property is a great location for the sign and would provide a unique opportunity for travelers. There is an LED Messaging billboard located at Highway 95 and Main Street that was recently approved. Angela is asking that the city restrictions be adjusted to better align with ITD regulations and she is asking for a variance on the following items.
• Maximum size – The proposed sign is 140 square feet with dimensions not to exceed 14 feet wide or 10 feet high. City code maximum is 64 square feet.
• Height limit – The proposed sign is approximately 16 feet at the bottom of the sign and 26 feet at the top. The current city code is 5 feet at the bottom and 10 feet at the top.
• Illumination levels – The proposed sign has automatic brightness controls and dimming features to remain within legal nighttime brightness limits. City code requires indirect lighting only.
Angela has researched with ITD and wants to follow state regulations for billboards. Highway 13 is a scenic byway, however there is an exception that allows billboards within 2.1 miles of the city limits. The property is currently within the city limits. Angela talked with Sarah Klement with the Idaho County Free Press who has received comments from both residents and travelers that the town is alive, more inviting and there is more to do than what they thought. Angela has also sat and watched the billboard and has learned of other local businesses that are advertising and in the area. She believes the community will benefit from the sign. She also realizes the city received a letter of opposition as submitted by Greenco II. She felt the property is located in the correct area.
Brian Perry questioned the size of the billboard. Angela stated it is 10’ x 14’ = 140 SF. The sign height has to be a minimum of 14’ above the payment as required by ITD. Dan Gautney asked if she has already been approved for the scenic highway exemption. Angela stated she hasn’t applied yet but she has been working with Mike Eilers in Lewiston. Yolanda Stout asked if she has already been approved through the state. City Administrator Kennedy explained the process starts at the local level. The permit through ITD requires that the city sign off that the applicant meets all local zoning requirements; then the applicant could submit the application. Kennedy could not sign off on the application because Angela needed to go through the variance application first. Angela has submitted the ITD application and building permit so if approved, Kennedy can sign off. Yolanda Stout asked how Sarah Klement had state approval before her variance was approved. Kennedy stated, she wasn’t sure; however at some point, someone called to verify commercial zoning and that note was stated on the application. The city didn’t sign off on the application.
STAFF PRESENTATION: City Administrator Kennedy reported all notices of hearing were delivered to those property owners within 300’ and published in the paper for the public at large.
WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE: The following written correspondence was received from adjoining property owners.
• USA Forest Service – The forest service has no comments, recommendations or objections to the proposed site proposal and stated as proposed the LED sign would have no effect on National Forest System Lands in the vicinity.
• Lance and Eve McColloch – Approve the proposed site plan.
• Tyler Harrington – Approve the proposed site plan.
• David Green for Greenco II, Inc. – Does not approve. The complete letter is in the file. In summary, they felt it would disrupt the community character and aesthetic quality and negatively impact the desirability and value of their property.
SUPPORTERS: none
NEUTRALS: none
OPPONENTS: David Green was present representing the family corporation that owns property adjacent to the billboard site. After writing the letter he did additional online research. It’s been discussed and litigated and in-depth studies have been completed on the result of electronic billboards. He stated just because there is a precedent that the city approved a previous billboard doesn’t mean it’s good. The city currently has a billboard at the most dangerous intersection in the state. Billboards are proven to cause a distraction. Just because it was allowed doesn’t mean we want to do it again. It may have some community advantage because people will see it. Billboards are suppose to be a distraction. The east side of town is not as visible to locals; not many community people head out that way. Billboards are unsightly and distract from beauty. They are not allowed to have a billboard on a scenic highway; the only reason there is an exemption is because it’s close to town. It would have a negative impact to his property and negative value. They hope to possibly develop property in the future and no one wants light pollution in the windows. A university study found homes within 500’ of an electronic billboard are worth less than those that aren’t. Their family feels bad about opposing the Poxleitner family but feel it is their job to protect their property.
Brian Perry questioned if the Greenco property is in the city or area of impact. Kennedy stated the property on the north side of Highway 13 is not in the city or the area of impact. A portion of the property on the south side of the highway is in the area of impact with the remaining portion outside the area of impact.
APPLICANT REBUTTAL: Angela stated a google search provides information both for or against and tonight, all of the information presented was negative but she believes there is information out there to support billboards too. As far as safety standards, look at ITD standards and trust that their studies are inline with today’s commuters. They have standards that must be met to maintain safety. She has talked to a lot of people about the new billboard at Main Street and Highway 95 and a lot of people don’t even see the sign. She stops at Green Acres to watch the sign. When she doesn’t stop, and glances up while driving, her review mirror is in the way. She felt her sign would provide community support. She questioned if it was measurable by dollars spent or by traffic counts? She felt community support could be someone buying coffee and seeing the advertisement for food and supporting the local business. As far as property values, maybe it could affect Greenco’s values; however when looking at future annexation that area extending along the highway might be commercial in the future, not residential. Values are subjective and it is unknown at this time. She asked P&Z to thoughtfully consider her request.
Brian Perry questioned if adjoining property owners were notified? Kennedy explained everyone within 300’ gets notified of the variance request. Specific to the billboard ordinance, adjoining property owners have a specific notice allowing them to provide comments. Brian Perry asked if the sign was two sided? Angela responded yes. Brian asked if in Angela’s personal opinion, would the sign be visible farther away than 300’. Angela felt the glow from the sign could be visible at 800-1000’ but legible at 300’. It is 975’ from the Grangeville Truck Route to the proposed sign location. Brian questioned the city limit line compared to the area of impact. When looking at the map, he asked if any of Poxleitner’s property was outside the area of impact. Kennedy explained that Poxleitner’s property is all inside the city limits. When annexed, the area of impact line was never moved to the east, so the map shows the line going through their property.
James Zehner questioned, if they wanted to put the billboard a couple feet to the east on Greenco’s property, would the commission even be here today. Kennedy stated no.
Hearing closed at 6:37 p.m.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: James Zehner stated he was one of few that opposed the Free Press billboard, mainly due to safety concerns. He felt he would oppose this application due to same reason, and the light emitting that may affect neighbors in the area. Dan Gautney didn’t see a problem; who knows what may happen in the future. Yolanda Stout stated it could be bright for a few houses out there; she would oppose it.
Kevin Asker stated he’d be in favor. As discussed as a board, when the Free Press put their sign, the board resolved that drivers getting distracted by the sign is the driver’s responsibility. There are multiple billboards going into Lewiston. If there is an accident and the driver says they are distracted by sign, it is still the driver’s responsibility to be aware and not get distracted. He is a proponent of the growth of Grangeville. There is lots of growth in the county; the city needs to grow and adapt for population growth. He felt a billboard would help support it. He understands it could affect farm ground; however adjacent to the property would most likely be commercial and then residential further out.
Brian Perry stated aesthetically, living here his whole life, he hates digital boards. If he wanted to live by one, he’d live in the city. He wants to preserve the aesthetics of town in 20 and 30 years. He lives a mile away from high zone water towers and they are illuminated; he put black out curtains on his windows. He sees both sides of it. Now we are talking about blinking lights from the sign. He didn’t care for the sign on Highway 95 but felt it was more commercial than the east side of town. Does he think it’s safe, no. He’s on the fire department and has had no calls with the new sign. Coming into town from Highway 13 is quiet and there are no streetlights. You don’t feel like you are in town until you hit Les Schwab. He is siding with Green’s as he doesn’t think it would benefit their property at all.
On motion by James Zehner, second by Brian Perry to recommend to the city council to not approve the variance. ROLL CALL VOTE: YES: Stout, Zehner, Perry. NO: Gautney, Asker. ABSTAIN: none. The motion passed.
TITLE 10 ZONING REVIEW: No discussion occurred.
NEXT MEETING: A meeting is scheduled for July 22, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.
Adjourned by Mike Cook at 6:53p.m.
Tonya Kennedy – City Clerk
