The Clawson Planning Commission on Aug. 12 approved a special land use for Paul’s Auto Wash at 1339 West 14 Mile Road, but postponed a decision on the related site plan after a lengthy discussion about a nonconforming pole sign on the site.

Planning staff described a relatively modest site change: relocating vacuum units from parallel to 90-degree parking stalls along the building side and shifting queuing lanes; no building alterations were proposed. The site was described as 0.673 acres in the staff presentation.

The central point of contention was a tall pole sign on the property. Staff noted the sign is nonconforming (exceeding the ordinance height limit and not meeting current sign standards) and that the sign ordinance allows two compliance paths when a site plan is submitted: replace the sign with a conforming monument sign or seek a variance. Planning staff also noted a “landmark sign” provision in the sign ordinance that permits the Planning Commission to approve some historic signs under specific conditions, including a finding that the sign “preserves, revives, or restores a documented historical element of the site.” The staff memo observed the Paul’s sign appears to date from 1969 and that the site falls within an area where landmark signs may be considered.

Owner Gil Reach told the commission he had successfully defended the sign in earlier proceedings and that he prefers to keep it. “Definitely. Most definitely,” he said when asked if he wanted to retain the sign. Planning staff said the ordinance explicitly allows landmark sign review within defined locations and said the applicant could pursue landmark status as part of the site plan review or pursue a variance through the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Several commissioners expressed concern about fairness: nearby properties were previously required to remove or replace tall pole signs and the commission must be consistent. Others raised safety and visibility questions and asked for measurements to confirm whether the sign is within 100 feet of the boundary areas identified in the landmark sign provision. Staff recommended the applicant provide precise measurements and any historical documentation and also suggested the commission consider site photos and an engineering review to assess sight lines and safety if a new sign option were proposed.

Action and next steps: The commission approved the special land use after a public hearing but postponed the site plan action to allow the applicant to submit additional information about setback measurements, historic documentation (if seeking landmark status), and sign alternatives. It also asked staff to coordinate with the applicant on whether a monument sign could be placed or whether a variance or landmark review was the viable path. The motion to postpone the site plan passed on roll call; Commissioners Tinland, Carpenter, Harrow, Kucera, Redmond and Solomon voted yes.

Why it matters: The case highlights how older commercial signage can create conflicts between historical character and newer sign rules. The commission’s postponement gives the applicant a choice of formal paths (landmark designation, variance, or replacement) and requires clearer documentation before the commission will act on the site plan.

Votes at a glance: Special land use (1339 W. 14 Mile): approved, roll call yes — Solomon, Tinland, Carpenter, Harrow, Kucera, Redmond. Site plan (1339 W. 14 Mile): postponed for additional documentation; roll call yes to postpone — Tinland, Carpenter, Harrow, Kucera, Redmond, Solomon.