City of Petersburg planning staff presented proposed changes to the municipal sign ordinance during the City Council work session on Oct. 7, 2025, asking council to consider new limits on window signage, clearer definitions for flag/feather signs, and a lower permit fee for replacing sign faces.

The proposed amendments are intended to reduce visual clutter, promote safety and consistency, and give the city an enforceable standard for both new signs and existing shopping‑center signage, planning staff said.

Planning staffer Jared (planning department) told council the current ordinance exempts most non‑illuminated window advertising from the definition of “sign,” which means businesses can add multiple window decals or posters without a permit. Staff proposed removing that exemption and limiting the aggregate area of window signs on each window or door to 20% of the glass surface; staff also presented alternatives (25, 50 or 75 percent limits, a transparency rule, or limiting the change to the historic/downtown district).

Staff also said the ordinance’s language on pennants, flags and banners is unclear and has led to enforcement problems. The changes would create a clear definition of “flag sign,” and either set a limited temporary use and permitting structure or add certain temporary flag/feather signs to the list of prohibited signs. The planning commission recommended approval of the proposed text amendments.

Other proposals reviewed by staff included:
- Standardizing signage rules for B‑1 shopping center zoning so that individual tenants and shared ground‑mounted center signs have clear allowances.
- Adding “sale” signs (temporary promotional flags) to the prohibited list or, alternatively, permitting them only temporarily by permit and frequency limits.
- Defining a “sign face” so that replacing a panel on an existing sign would be eligible for a reduced review fee (staff proposed reducing the current $150 permit fee for full sign permits to a $50 reface fee; an alternative is to exempt sign refaces from permit requirements entirely).
- Reiterating existing maintenance and abandonment rules (e.g., a sign advertising a defunct business must be removed within 90 days) and keeping the 25‑foot height cap in place.

Council members questioned enforcement and practical impacts. Councilman Milo Jones asked, “Is there a lumens requirement? Some of these signs are so bright that it, it affects traffic when you're coming and going.” Jared replied that the ordinance has no plainly written lumen standard and that the historic district rules limit signs to incandescent lighting rather than bright LEDs; staff proposed adding clearer language about flashing or glaring illumination.

Jones also pressed whether the ordinance should police the “quality of materials” for signs; he warned enforcement should not burden small or low‑budget businesses. Jared said the concern motivating the phrase was durability and safety of thin fabric or piping‑mounted flags that can tear, become airborne in wind and present hazards; staff said enforcement emphasis would be on the state of repair rather than the fabric brand.

Staff said the amendments aim to promote “attractive signage” consistent with the comprehensive plan’s goals for corridor commercial areas and to prepare for anticipated redevelopment along major corridors.

Next steps: staff told council the package will return as old business for further discussion and possible action at a regular meeting if council wants to proceed. Planning commission staff recommended the changes; no ordinance vote was taken at the Oct. 7 work session.