Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Caldwell workshop draws sign-industry pushback over permitting, definitions and enforcement
Summary
Industry representatives told Caldwell city council the 2025 sign-code amendments risk imposing heavy costs and delays on small businesses, calling for clearer definitions (pole vs. monument signs), streamlined permitting and better enforcement rather than blanket restrictions; staff said legal review found the code content-neutral and council asked staff to hold follow-up meetings.
City staff and sign-industry representatives spent a council workshop reviewing the city’s recently amended sign code, with industry speakers urging clearer definitions, faster permits and more predictable enforcement.
Robin Collins, Caldwell’s community development director, opened the workshop with a summary of the 2025 amendments and the public outreach that preceded them, saying the code’s objectives are to “remove visual clutter, … maintain aesthetics, maintain your property values” and to improve safety for motorists. She told council that nonconforming pole signs may remain unless they are damaged beyond half their replacement value or are structurally altered; she also said staff is open to extending the current six‑month vacancy threshold to 12 months to align with other nonconforming-code provisions. “Legal has reviewed our sign code, and they have given the okay that everything in there is content neutral,” Collins said.
Sign-industry speakers pushed back on several points. Aaron Vance of Superior Science said the code’s definitions are unclear and can impose steep costs on businesses buying property. “That sign is real property and it is valued in that sale,” Vance said, arguing that forcing owners to replace large, recently installed freestanding or pole signs would harm small businesses and recent investors. He recommended restricting tall pole signs to freeway‑oriented zones and creating clear size and frontage thresholds so similar properties are treated consistently.
Candace Horn, director of government relations for Yesco (Young Electric Sign Company), said she informally visited roughly 40 local businesses and found “not 1 of them knew anything about the sign code changing,” and urged the city to streamline permitting and variance processes to avoid delaying business openings. Craig Lookingbill of Lydel Signs described a permitting case he said required “9 separate permits and 27 separate fees” for a single storefront project, and called the downtown design‑review checklist burdensome for sign applicants.
Industry presenters also raised enforcement examples. Vance said some signs went up despite staff flags (he cited a Lehi Schwab sign and an awning installed without permits) and warned that inconsistent enforcement undercuts compliance. Council members repeatedly asked about enforcement capacity; staff noted the city has two full‑time code compliance officers and one part‑time inspector who handle violations and permit reviews.
On electronic message centers (EMCs), council and staff discussed whether the SUP requirement should remain. Collins said the SUP was retained to control impacts from flashing and brightness but sign industry representatives suggested objective illumination and motion/transition standards could remove the need for discretionary SUP review.
No ordinance changes were made at the workshop. Council members said the comments merited more work and directed staff to organize follow‑up meetings with industry stakeholders and bring potential code amendments back for further review and a future public hearing.
