Citation in context

#qdb1fccbc
transcript 2026-06-15 Board meeting video Cue 0:53 #qdb1fccbc Watch on YouTube ↗

June 15, 2026 — Meeting Transcript

This is a transcript of the Clayton Planning Commission / Architecture Review Board meeting held June 15, 2026. It covers roll call and approval of prior minutes, an open forum, and discussion of three business items: removal of a sign subdistrict at 507 South Hanley Road and review of a proposed wall sign (staff recommended removal of the subdistrict and staff/board directed a redesigned sign with different materials and administrative review), and a site-plan review for a roughly 10,000-square-foot addition to Clayton High School for career and technical education (with questions about parking impacts). The transcript records motions, seconds, and unanimous or unrecorded votes (for example, approval of the prior meeting minutes and a motion directing the applicant to submit revised sign drawings for administrative approval).
Cited passage · transcript

Good evening and welcome to the Planning Commission ARB for June 15th. If you have any electronic gadgets, please silence them at this time. Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Helen DiFate? Here. Jim Arsenault? Here. Claire Queskin? Here. Susan Buse? Here. Okay, we have minutes from the previous meeting on June 1st. Are there any changes? Hearing or seeing none. I move to approve as submitted. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. We'll move on. This is the time for open forum. I know we have only two people in the chambers, but if anyone has a comment for any item not on our business matters tonight, please either raise your hand or come up. I see no hands, so we'll move on. We'll come to tonight's business matters. The first item is 507 South Hanley Road, and that is the sign sub-district. And we'll start with the staff report. The property is located on the west side of Hanley, just south of Olinka Terrace. The site is zoned M1 and is developed with a single-story commercial building. The property presently has a signed subdistrict, which was approved in December 2015, and the applicant is seeking removal of the signed subdistrict. Removal of the subdistrict would result in greater sign flexibility, and no signs would become noncompliant as a result of the subdistric removal. Removal of the subdistrict could result in signage that differs from the established character in the area. However, signage would remain subject to review by the Architecture Review Board. Staff recommend removal of the signed subdistrict. Okay.

Original — meeting video

▶ Jumps to the cited moment 0:53