Mount Clemens Commission reviews rewrite of sign, flag and banner ordinance

The Mount Clemens City Commission spent a work session reviewing proposed updates to the city's sign, flag and banner ordinance and asked staff to return with a cleaned-up draft that reflects current administrative practice and legal constraints.

Commissioner (S3) said the draft contains several outdated references and procedural requirements that do not match how the city currently handles permits. He criticized a provision that appears to require city-commission approval for flags and banners on private property, calling that approach problematic: "flags and banners...need to be approved by city commission, which that's bad," he said, and urged staff to prioritize a more thorough update rather than piecemeal edits.

Staff member (S5) described current administrative practice for permitting and noted that routine sign permits are handled administratively rather than by the planning commission. S5 also reminded the group of legal limits on content-based regulation, referencing the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision, saying that "sign ordinances cannot regulate signage based on content," and recommending the draft rely on size, location and duration standards instead.

Commissioners raised multiple technical and enforcement questions about the draft. Commissioner (S3) questioned language that appears to require a full site-plan review for what might be a simple wall sign, calling the requirement "a bit much" for routine cases. He also urged the commission to preserve certain grandfathered, nonconforming signs that contribute to local character rather than adopt an aggressive rule that removes them: "some of them...are part of the part of the community," he said.

The commission discussed exemptions for real-estate signs, noting the current draft exempts single-family homes but not structures built as single-family and later converted to duplexes; members asked whether the exemption should follow functional use rather than original construction. Commissioners also debated temporary and banner signs for new businesses, with Commissioner (S3) proposing a limited allowance (for example, a short initial period) so startups can use temporary banners while they establish a permanent storefront sign.

Participants discussed technical limits in the draft on flashing or animated displays and on changeable-copy area. During the meeting one commissioner cited approximate limits discussed in the draft: roughly "20% of the sign area" for changeable copy on business signs and "50%" for churches or public buildings; staff and commissioners agreed those figures should be verified and clarified for LED and monitor-style signage.

Commissioner (S6) raised a separate point about revenue possibilities, describing how some communities allow private content on municipal monument signs in exchange for a fee. Commissioners said the group should explicitly consider whether to permit or prohibit such arrangements when redrafting the code.

Rather than vote on amendments, the commission agreed to pause action and asked staff member Brian to revise the draft to reflect current permitting practice, to check consistency with the Reed decision on content-based restrictions, and to bring a revised draft back for another work session. Commissioner (S3) then moved to adjourn the session, the motion was supported and the chair called the voice vote in the affirmative.

The commission took no formal ordinance vote at the session; the next procedural step is for staff to prepare a redraft and schedule a follow-up work session.