Nampa council workshop reviews proposed changes to sign code near I‑84 and temporary-sign rules

City of Nampa planning staff on Thursday outlined proposed amendments to Title 10, Chapter 23 of the municipal code that would change how freestanding (pole or monument) signs near Interstate 84 and several categories of temporary signs are regulated.

The proposed freestanding‑sign standard would allow property owners to locate a non‑billboard, pole or monument sign up to 60 feet above the freeway grade when the sign is within 600 feet of the I‑84 center line, with a maximum cap of 80 feet measured from the grade of the subject property. Staff emphasized that the sign face‑area limits would not change: the current rule of 1.5 square feet per linear foot of street frontage or 200 square feet maximum would remain in force.

The proposed temporary‑sign updates would reorganize the code, remove obsolete definitions, clarify types (lawn signs, construction signs, feather banners, two‑post banners, fence banners, wall banners, pole banners, flags, A‑frames and inflatables), and introduce a permit labeling program so enforcement can identify permit status and expiration at a glance. Staff suggested limiting many banner types to an upper size of 40 square feet, retaining existing spacing requirements (generally a 5‑foot spacing; fence banners 10 feet) and allowing certain temporary elements — for example inflatables — for a maximum of 90 days per calendar year when a permit is obtained. Staff also proposed keeping lawn and construction signs as currently allowed (no permit required), while some banner types and engineered flagpoles would require permits.

Why this matters: staff and council said the changes respond to repeated variance requests for taller freeway signage and to persistent complaints about long‑standing, weathered temporary displays. Planning staff said granting a defined height allowance within a fixed distance of the freeway would reduce the number of variance applications coming before planning and zoning and city council, and a labeling program would make enforcement of time limits and removal easier.

“Do you think that this is appropriate language?” said Christie (Planning & Zoning staff) when she sought council direction on the subcommittee proposal. Councilman Sebastian Griffin said he would oppose allowing higher skyline signage: “I don't want the skyline being littered and covered with billboards,” he said, arguing for a more conservative approach. Other council members and planning commissioners urged staff to show photographic examples and explained specific local concerns — for example, where freeway grade and overpasses make sight lines uneven and why measuring from centerline grade matters for consistency.

Council members and commissioners raised several recurring issues during the discussion: whether taller signs could create a “blanketing” or clustering effect, whether billboards and off‑premise advertising should be treated separately (staff said they are), how the Highway 16 specific area plan and other area plans interact with the proposed corridor rules, and the operational capacity of planning and code enforcement to track permits. Planning staff said Idaho Transportation Department reviews remain relevant for vision‑clearance issues, but the state leaves sign size and height to local regulation.

Views diverged on temporary signs. Some commissioners and council members defended feather banners and similar devices as useful marketing tools, particularly for new subdivisions and grand openings, and recommended exemptions or separate treatment for residential subdivision sales offices. Others described repeated cases of faded, torn banners becoming eyesores and urged stronger limits or more active enforcement. Several members suggested allowing feather banners for very short, event‑level periods (for example, a one‑ or two‑day open‑house), while still requiring permits and an expiration label for recurring uses.

Direction and next steps: the council did not take a formal vote at the workshop. By consensus, staff was directed to refine the draft ordinance language, work with the Nampa Chamber of Commerce and a subcommittee that includes developers and small‑business representatives, and return with a public‑hearing draft and an accompanying sign guidebook. Staff projected returning with code changes and the guidebook in summer (July–August) and emphasized that enforcement of existing language for torn, faded or damaged signs remains possible under current code.

The discussion also recorded technical clarifications: the 600‑foot measurement is from the centerline grade of I‑84, spacing rules for freestanding signs remain in the code, and the Highway 16 specific area plan will continue to govern signage on that corridor.

Council members asked staff to include clear public notice materials for the public hearing (including what is not on the table, such as adding new billboards — the city has a cap on new billboards) and to present the design‑review code references that govern materials and pole coverings. Mayor Christie summarized the direction to staff: refine the freeway height language, limit the number of temporary sign types that require permits, develop the permit label program for enforcement, involve the Chamber, and bring a public‑hearing package this summer.

Ending: Staff will return with a public‑hearing packet and a sign guidebook this summer; no ordinance was adopted at the workshop.