A primary focus of the meeting was the proposed ordinance update, identified as ordinance 201 25-10, which seeks to revise signage regulations across St. Pete Beach. The ordinance, introduced by Philip Di Maria from Kimley Horn, aims to harmonize the city’s signage rules with relevant case law, including Reed v. Gilbert, which focuses on free speech implications related to signage. The revision intends to address issues of sign pollution and improve the visual landscape while maintaining legal compliance.

Key elements of the proposed updates include new regulations for non-conforming signs, such as electronic and LED signs, which are increasingly popular among new businesses. The ordinance proposes that non-conforming electronic signs must comply with the new standards or be removed by January 1, 2027. Moreover, the ordinance sets specific guidelines for electronic signs, restricting them to non-residential properties along Gulf Boulevard, with size, design, and brightness regulations to avoid excessive light pollution.

Temporary signage was also a point of discussion, with the ordinance proposing clear regulations to limit one temporary sign per residential property and restricts temporary election signs to a 30-day period before and two days after an event. The ordinance also proposes a limit on permanent window signs to 50% coverage of a window, preserving visibility into storefronts.

The board addressed the issue of artwork versus signage, with concerns raised about potential loopholes where signs could be disguised as art to bypass regulations. This led to a broader conversation about the definition of artwork within the ordinance and how to ensure that it complements the natural surroundings without circumventing signage rules.

Further discussions tackled signage in residential areas, particularly multi-family dwellings, where questions arose about temporary signs and their regulation. The ordinance allows temporary signs during election periods but raised concerns about defining “election period” to prevent misuse. The board also considered the impact of the ordinance on small businesses, particularly those recovering from recent storms, emphasizing the need for balanced regulations that support economic recovery while preserving community aesthetics.

The meeting also featured discussions about sign regulations in historic districts, with a focus on preserving the character of areas like Corey Avenue. Concerns were raised about historic signage not conforming to the new character overlay district standards, prompting suggestions to involve the historic review board in decisions about such signs. There was also a call to revisit regulations for the Passage Grill overlay district to ensure new signage does not detract from historical significance.

Another topic of debate was the definition of “abandoned” buildings and the requirement for sign removal after 90 days of inactivity. The board discussed whether exceptions should be made for businesses affected by natural disasters, proposing that the definition be linked to a local state of emergency to provide leniency to businesses awaiting repairs or permits.

The board acknowledged the potential impact of new regulations on businesses and residents, stressing the importance of transparency and responsiveness to public concerns.

The session concluded with a discussion about upcoming community engagement meetings related to the comprehensive plan, with a focus on the large resort district and Town Center zoning districts. These meetings aim to gather public input and ensure that the planning board remains informed of community priorities as the process unfolds.