Norfolk planning staff told the Planning Commission that the city's sign and facade rules are inconsistent in places and hard to enforce, particularly temporary window signs that obscure storefront visibility.
Planning staff explained the distinction the ordinance uses between fenestration (the presence of windows and doors) and transparency (window area that is actually viewable into the interior). They noted that many commercial areas are subject to only fenestration standards, not transparency standards, and that inspectors struggle to measure the ordinance's 30% limit on window signage in the field.
Planning staff outlined enforcement history and constraints and asked the commission for direction. The staff presentation underlined three problems: inconsistent application across districts, complexity of time limits and sign categories for temporary signage, and uncertainty about how blinds or window film should be treated for transparency calculations.
Why it matters: The city's transparency requirements are intended to improve pedestrian safety, reduce visual clutter, and increase a sense of welcoming at storefronts. Commissioners said they want rules that are simple to explain, easy to enforce, and mindful of First Amendment limits on regulating sign content.
Key points from staff and commissioners
- Definitions: Staff read the ordinance definitions: fenestration is an opening (doors, windows, roll-up doors), while transparency requires a window one can see through to a depth of at least 5 feet. Many areas of the city are only subject to fenestration standards; only select districts (most downtown, select corridors and PCOs) have a transparency requirement.
- Temporary window signs: The ordinance limits window signs (permanent and temporary) to no more than 30% of the area of a window or glass area. Temporary window signs in commercial and downtown areas are time-limited (about three months in staff practice), but the rules are not consistently enforced.
- Enforcement problems: Staff described routine field difficulties: measuring sign area across multiple panes and tenant spaces, clarifying whether gaps between signs count, and whether blinds or curtains count as obscuring transparency. Staff said temporary signs and feather flags are ubiquitous and education-first enforcement has been the approach to date.
- Legal context: Staff explained the sign chapter was revised after a federal case changed constitutional standards for sign regulation; the city intentionally adopted a content-neutral approach focused on size, placement and materials rather than message.
- Simplification proposals: Commissioners and staff discussed a simplified, measurement-based rule such as a fixed number of temporary signs per linear frontage (for example, one temporary sign per X feet of frontage, with a maximum size). Staff said they would review other local practices and corporate standards and return with a proposed simplified approach.
Discussion vs. decision
- Discussion: Commissioners debated the trade-offs between pedestrian visibility, business needs (shade, seasonal displays), and enforcement practicality. Several commissioners emphasized climate and stormwater trade-offs tied to parking-lot surfacing during the earlier parking discussion, noting the city already requires permeable surfaces in some flood-prone locations.
- Direction: Staff will research simpler, content-neutral, measurement-based temporary-sign rules and prepare draft ordinance language that clarifies (a) how to count blinds and curtains for transparency calculations, (b) time limits, and (c) a straightforward inspector checklist. Staff also will examine other municipalities' approaches and corporate signage standards.
- Formal decision: none. Staff will return with proposed code language and enforcement guidance.