Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission reviews draft sign-ordinance text amendments to comply with Reed v. Town of Gilbert, discusses temporary sign limits and enforcement
Summary
Planning staff presented draft Article 17 (sign ordinance) amendments to make rules content-neutral per Reed v. Town of Gilbert and proposed new limits for temporary signs, including a 30-day consecutive / 90-day annual cap for small temporary residential signs; commission asked for clarification on enforcement and outreach to the DDA/Chamber.
Planning staff presented draft text amendments to Article 17 of the City of Lapeer zoning ordinance Nov. 13 to make sign regulations content-neutral and to tighten temporary-sign display rules.
Ben Keller told the commission the amendments respond to the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on content-based restrictions. "We will regulate signs based on objective physical criteria such as duration, size, and placement rather than sign content," Keller said, summarizing the proposed change to the intent statement.
The draft removes specific content references (for example, employment or commercial advertising) and replaces them with objective criteria so the sign table can apply "without regard to the content or message of the sign," Keller explained. The prohibited-signs section was reframed to bar signs that use shapes, colors or lighting that could be confused with traffic control or emergency signals rather than enumerating specific content categories.
On temporary signs, planners proposed that small temporary freestanding signs in residential districts be limited to a maximum of 30 consecutive days but no more than 90 days per calendar year; small temporary freestanding signs would also be allowed in multifamily, commercial and industrial districts with longer display windows. Construction-site signs would be removable within 30 days of final occupancy permit issuance. Keller noted enforcement is typically handled by the building or an "authorized city official." "This will kind of be our one that can help to regulate political signage in residential districts," he said.
Commissioners raised several operational questions: which official determines who gets limited corner poster-panel placement, whether changeable-message billboard trucks remain prohibited, and whether the planning staff should seek feedback from the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) or Chamber of Commerce to avoid unintended business impacts. Keller said some language had already been changed to refer to an "authorized city official" rather than only the building official and that staff would reach out to local business groups.
Staff recommended setting a public hearing on the amendments at the December Planning Commission meeting if the commission is generally comfortable with the content-neutral direction; several commissioners asked for an additional month to review and suggested additional outreach prior to a hearing.
Next steps: staff will refine the draft language, consider adding clarifications (for example, how corner poster-panel allocations are decided), and pursue stakeholder outreach before scheduling any public hearing or sending a final draft to the City Commission.
