Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clawson ZBA denies three sign-variance requests for 426 West 14 Mile Road
Summary
The Clawson Zoning Board of Appeals denied three variances sought by a church at 426 West 14 Mile Road: a 17-foot ground sign height, allowing an electronic display in an RM1 district, and an electronic display area equal to 79% of the sign. Board members said applicants did not demonstrate lesser alternatives and the proposal was incompatible with the neighborhood.
The Clawson Zoning Board of Appeals on Monday denied three variances requested for a proposed sign at 426 West 14 Mile Road, including permission for a 17-foot ground sign, allowing an electronic display in the RM1 zoning district, and permitting an electronic display area equal to 79% of the total sign face.
City planner Andy summarized the application and the ordinance standards during the public hearing, telling the board that the ordinance caps this sign type at roughly 20–24 square feet total and that an electronic display would be limited to about one-third of a permitted sign (roughly 8 square feet) under current rules. Andy also reminded the board of technical limits for electronic displays in Clawson: brightness may not exceed 0.3 foot-candles over ambient light as measured five feet above grade at the right-of-way line, static messages must remain visible for 30 seconds, animation and video are prohibited, and electronic displays must be switched off at 11:00 p.m. until one hour before sunrise.
An applicant representative, Franz, said the church wanted a pole-mounted LED to improve visibility for congregants and to display multilingual messages (English and Arabic) for community events. Franz said the applicants would remove two existing signs on the property and could “be flexible” on height to meet safety and visibility concerns.
Neighbors opposed the variances during public comment. Peggy, a nearby resident, said the sign would add light and visual intrusion to yards where trees had already been removed and warned that allowing large LED signs could lead to an undesirable commercial character along 14 Mile Road. Other residents raised safety (driver distraction), consistency with neighborhood aesthetics, and parking pressures related to the church’s activities.
In deliberations board members said the applicants had not shown they pursued the least-intrusive alternative, that electronic displays are not allowed in the RM1 district, and that the proposed electronic area vastly exceeded the one-third limit. A motion to deny the height variance cited incompatibility with the neighborhood, lack of proportionality and failure to meet required findings; that motion carried. The board then voted to deny the request to allow an electronic display in RM1 and denied the variance to allow a 79% electronic display area. The board noted that applicants could return with a revised proposal that addressed location, height and electronic-area limits.
Nick, the clerk, and staff said they would follow up with the applicants about alternatives and explained that a monument sign or a smaller pole sign placed elsewhere on the lot would likely trigger site-plan review and possibly additional permits.
The board’s formal findings and the motions’ recorded text are part of the meeting record; staff urged applicants to provide detailed sign specifications, corner-vision clearance calculations and documentation that all electronic-display standards would be met if they resubmit.
