May 4, 2026 — Meeting Transcript

Okay, welcome to the Plain Commission ARB for May 4th. There's no one here but the applicants, so we don't have to turn off cell phones. Let's start with the roll call.

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Ellen DeFayt? Here. Jim Arsenault? Here. Chris Brennan? Here.

Steve Lichtenfeld? Here. Ellen DeFayt? Here. Jim Marcino? Here. Chris Brennan? Here.

Is Blair online? Yeah, we're fine. Okay, well, we do have minutes from the regular meeting of March 30th. Are there any changes? Yeah, two weeks ago.

Yeah. April 20th.

Yes, it should have been April 20th. Okay, my error. Do we have a motion?

Move to approve as submitted.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. This is the open forum time. I imagine there's no one online. We'll go into business matters. First one, and only one, is 121 Hunter Avenue. The applicant is here, so we'll start with the staff report.

Subject property is located on the west side of Hunter Avenue near its southern terminus. The property is zoned S1 and is developed with a parking lot and two-story office building. The applicant is seeking approval for the installation of a wall sign via the sign modification process. The sign is proposed to be located on the west Section 425-030A states the following. The general requirements of this chapter is that all wall signs should face a fronting street and be attached to front walls at or near the first floor ceiling level as determined by the Director of Planning Development Services, projecting more than 18 inches from the wall. It is staff's determination that the proposed sign does not face a froning street and is not attached to the front wall at or near the First floor ceiling level. Therefore, the applicant is seeking approval via the sign modification process. Sign modification request has two components, the facade to which the signage may be applied and whether the signage may placed above the ground floor. To allow signage on the requested facade, the Architecture Review Board must determine that one, there are practical difficulties or unusual circumstances regarding the determination of frontage or the permitted sign area, or that there are practical difficulties and unusual circumstances regarding the locations of the permitted signs. And then to allow signage above the ground floor, the architecture review board must determine that one, the selected facade is a permitted sign location. And two, the location is obstructed from view or is not designed to support signage. And three, the alternative location is compatible with the surrounding character and would support public health, safety, and welfare. Staff have determined the following from their analysis. One, there are no practical difficulties or unusual circumstances regarding the determination of frontage, which staff have determined to be the facade along Hunter Avenue. Two, there are no particular difficulties or unusual circumstances, regarding the frontage facade, which would compel the sign to otherwise be moved to a new location. Three, the requested southern facade is not a permitted sign location, which invalidates the request for signage above the ground floor. And four, should the area be determined that the requested facade is a permitted sign area, then the staff analysis finds that the first level would be obstructed, that the signage would be compatible with the surrounding area, and that the sign would not impact public health, safety, and welfare. Staff are of the opinion that the proposal has not met the criteria for sign modification, recommends the Architecture Reward not approve the request.

Okay, thank you. The applicant? Come up and introduce yourself and add anything you would like.

Yeah, Chris at Dale Sign Service here for Impact Strategies. This building is – it's a tall, good-looking building, but it has absolutely no street frontage on the side that you folks would be called. That's the front side of the building. So a sign along that front area that parallels the wall along Hunter Avenue is – Just about useless. Nobody can see the sign coming down the street until they get right in front of the door, possibly. We would like at least think about putting it on that south wall where people on 170 could see it. I believe one of the neighbor signs was approved there, the Cedarhurst sign. I think there's a drawing somewhere about that. We're hoping we would have the same consideration that they had.

Well, first I'd like to thank the staff for the complete staff report. Having looked at the location over there, I tend to agree with the applicant's comments here that there really is no other good place for that sign. Also, it's not a residential area. It faces the highway. And I think the only the real impact for an impact sign would be where it's shown facing the highway. However, I took several drives on the highway on 170 And I noticed it will be very visible when the northbound traffic is going over the Forest Park Parkway lanes. But when you come onto the highway from Forest Park Parkway, the sign is going to be obscured by all the HVAC equipment on the building right to the south of it. Correct. Okay, I'm glad to hear. Yes, I saw it correctly. But even with that, I really think that the alternative way of doing it, as Ryan has put in the conclusion, is that I don't see any other real workable location. And I would support that location. But let's see who else? Helen?

Is impact strategies the only tenant in the building?

No, they are not. It's my understanding that they will occupy the second floor.

Okay. I guess what I'm wondering is, will the other tenants need signage?

I don't know that. The building's plenty large along that side of the building that it should be able to support an additional tenant sign. Okay. But I'm not sure if they're even... I don't know if they want that.

Okay.

I mean, just because you would allow it for us, you know, I mean, I understand you would probably have to consider their rights to that too, but... I'm unaware of them needing that at this point.

Okay. Do you know whether Impact Strategies will be requesting a sign at the entrance to the parking?

They have not since our communication.

Okay. So if I'm going to 121 Hunter, I will see that?

Monument sign? The address sign?

No, because I'm coming from Clayton.

Okay.

So I'm not coming on 170.

Correct.

If I turn south on Hunter, will I see numbers 121 Hunter Avenue? I

think there's a small monument sign at the driveway entrance. There is.

Okay.

Yeah.

That's all they want.

Yes, ma'am. There's just absolutely nowhere to put a sign for their entrance sign that would make any sense whatsoever on that side.

Okay. Now, I guess I'm wondering how visible that sign will be if you're coming southbound on 170?

Probably not very. The main visibility will be traveling north on 170. Okay.

Yeah.

That's the only spot that sign can really be seen.

Okay.

Anywhere on the building.

Okay, that's all. Yeah.

Yes, ma'am.

There was, there's a couple different components to kind of how signs are approved and what allows for modification. So just kind of going through the two steps, do you at least agree that the building, like what would be considered the front of the building is what fronts Hunter there?

I agree that your definition of the frontage of the building is on Hunter Road, yes. Is that what you're asking? Yes. Yes. I

agree with that. Okay. Because I think that was a lot of what I took kind of from what you wrote is, well, 300 Hunter was granted this, so can you grant it for us too? Going back to 300 Hunter, part of the issue with 300 Hunter is no part of that building actually fronts Hunter. Right. The corner kind of, you know, it ends in a court and then it goes down basically into a loading dock. But the building itself does not front Hunter or this building does front Hunter.

OK, so they're not in that cul-de-sac area there. No, no visibility, visibility of the north wall. And I'm sorry. I'm late on this meeting. I'm not going to wrote this up. He was ill. So I'm trying to catch up, but no part of that North side of the building is visible from that cul-de-sac. It's not about visibility. It's

as far as it's, it's, the frontage of how frontage is determined. There is, it was questionable as far as for 300 Hunter back in November, when we discussed that property over what would be considered the front of the building. We're here. I think we have a much more clear what the front of the Okay. Now the next step of that, I can definitely agree with you that then if there was a sign on the front, unless until you basically were passing the building, you wouldn't see it on that. I believe East facade.

Yeah.

but on the south it says it represents your only viable option for public visibility. Is there a problem with the north facade? Because if this is about wayfinding, when you're coming in on Hunter, you would be driving up, you could see a sign on the north facade and it would basically face the parking lot right there. There's not a frontage street on that side. There's not an the highways on the backside. My concern is the way the signage code is written in Clayton, basically it's built around wayfinding and it's built around What it would discourage is more advertising. What I'm worried is that this sign goes more into the lines of advertising, trying to get as many eyeballs as possible from 170 versus wayfinding and trying to direct people into the building and being able to find it.

Well, the definition of a wayfinding sign and a building sign may be in your code, but typically in our industry, it's two different things. Wayfinding signs is usually a directional sign once you get into a parking lot system. Wayfinding, you know, suite 121, 125, that way. That's more or less wayfinding. I don't know how it's defined in your code, so I apologize. But I thought your code read that the sign on the main frontage sign had to be along a street frontage, and 170 is a street on the side of that lot.

It is a street that is on that lot, yes. But that wouldn't be considered the frontage of- Just for clarification, it's actually not on that lot. There is a property between your property and the highway. Okay. I didn't see that. Apologize. My- My issue is twofold. First of all, if you were coming in on Hunter where you have the sign proposed, you would not be able to see it. Uh, it would only, it would only function from the highway. So a car coming in on Hunter, which I will fully agree that Hunter is a very difficult street to navigate. Um, and I believe we've had three different projects there in the last six months. So, uh, I think we're all familiar with it. Uh, It's a difficult street to navigate, but this sign won't help anyone necessarily navigate. Its purposes would only be to advertise from 170. Okay. you know, when I see represents the only viable option for public visibility, I think the front would be an option. I think. And then I think also the North would be an option as far as directing people into that parking lot much more so than the South, which would only represent being able to just see it from one 70. Okay. Um, and the other issue is as far as if you go, I feel like a lot of the argument is predicated on the science that, uh, at 300 and they had a very detailed presentation as to why they felt they met the exception with several examples and everything like that where this kind of is more along the lines of you let them do it can you please let us do it too um so i'm just having trouble being persuaded that this fits the sign code and how the sign code is designed in clayton

so are you saying if if if you deny this tonight on the south wall you're going to approve a north wall sign

I can't say what we would approve or disapprove necessarily. We can only consider what's in front of us. I can just say as far as your letter, or I guess you did not write the letter. But what they wrote is that the South represents the only viable option for public visibility. And if we're looking as far as someone driving down Hunter to try and find the building, I believe multiple other options exist for visibility. I don't believe that this is the only option for visibility. And if the main point of this is to direct people into the building, I don't believe a Southern facing sign is the most effective way to do that. Where if we're talking about just trying to advertise and get the most eyeballs on it, I would, then I would agree second floor South. But, uh, if you go back in these, these meetings are all on YouTube too. Uh, if you go to that 300 Hunter building and, and review it, it's, uh, I know there was even concern at the time, as far as the way the sign code is written about it being a slippery slope where, Oh, well, if we approve this one, you know, will others fall behind it? And here we are. Uh, so I think it's very important to closely look at how the sign code's written, what the point of the sign code is in the sense of the sign code, at least is written for more wayfinding on a human scale versus advertising on a larger scale, uh, and analyze if this fits the two steps of the city. And I believe by the reading, I don't think it does to my reading. Appreciate that. Chris?

I didn't see on whether this sign would be lit at night, correct?

Yes, sir.

This is an eliminated sign. I tend to agree with Jim. I hadn't considered the fact of the advertising versus wayfinding, but I think that does play a significant role. And I would be more inclined to approve something that is on the south side since you're going down Hunter Avenue and seeing it there. My concern more stemmed from whether we had any applicants that are already in this building try to get a sign prior. And I couldn't find anything just in an initial search, but I don't know if any of the prior tenants... It feels like we are opening a can of worms, that if we do approve this one, then whatever other tenants are in there are going to say, well, we'd like to have one in there too. And it looks like there's three other tenants in that building. Okay. But... But who knows? I think this one does fall under advertising as opposed to wayfinding. And in the case of not really being sure myself, I'd go with the staff recommendation, which in this case would not be to approve the site. Okay.

Anybody online? Claire did join us online. You let her in?

Yeah, I'm here. Thank you. I'm sorry about the failed Zoom. I would agree with the rest of the board. I feel like this is more advertising than it is wayfinding, and I don't see us. I don't think that passing this makes sense in terms of the standards that we have, and I think it does open kind of a can of worms for everybody else. So I would be against that.

Thanks, Blair. I do have a couple other comments. When we looked at 300 Hunter Avenue, I know we said we would not approve that to be a precedent. and that we would look at anything else that came up throughout the city for its own merits. I do agree that this to me is an advertising sign or a prestige sign for impact strategies. They want to get their name out in here. They typically have also been in Southern Illinois, and they're trying to get a better foothold in Missouri. So I still feel that that is the only location that makes sense from their point of view. It goes against our signage ordinance, but we do have an option to do an alternative. And I do feel in this case it should be an alternative. I would support that. but I would also say we should not always allow it to become a precedent.

Understood.

Other comments?

Yes. And I know you can't answer it, but the fact that the other tenants... can come and say, you let impact strategies put a sign. Now I want a sign, and I want a sign.

Well, that's where we're tonight. they got a sign we want to sign

right which if you could say or impact strategies or the owner of the building could say that this is the sign this is it you know we're not going to have a sign listing everybody in the building

Well, you can't say that because they've already rejected it. I can probably get a letter that the landlord might write that up. But what if he did? We're still going to deal with what the council has decided.

Right. We haven't decided yet.

Okay.

All

right.

So that's my concern. Yeah. And from my vantage point, that letter could be approved by staff. they could say, fine, nobody else is going to get a sign. If that's what the letter says, I don't think it needs to come to us again, that.

So if staff approved that letter, you would be fine with this?

Yeah, if you have a letter that says, this is it. Okay. But right now...

Helen, if I...

Yeah.

I was just going to clarify, are you requesting a letter that no other signage be allowed on the building or just for this facade? Because typically anybody that wanted signage in that building could submit a sign permit application to us and we would review against the sign code if somebody wanted to put a sign on the front facade or if somebody wanted to but a sign on this facade again and wanted to apply to come before you guys, that's something that they could do.

Yeah, would it be a letter just for the south elevation?

Yeah, that would be fine.

The rest of you folks?

My concern is that we'll get, you know, impact strategies, XYZ labs and LMNOP stores, you know, a whole slew of signs one after another. And the argument will be, will you let impact strategies If additional signs are anticipated, then I would like to see them if we're making an exception here and allowing it on the south facade. Brian, does that? I

might defer to Stephanie here.

Yeah, I think, well, there's going to be an issue with that. Even if the landlord submitted a letter saying nobody else can have a sign on that facade, he could probably deal with that as far as a landlord-tenant matter. But if a party petitions the government and applies for an application, you're still going to have to consider that under the same standards that you've got now. You can't just say, well, we had received this letter saying that nobody else was going to make an application. If someone files their petition with the government, you're going to have to consider it.

Mm-hmm.

I would just say, I think a lot of this is predicated on the fact of 300 Hunter's sign. And I think if you looked at the fact pattern of both buildings, they're different in the sense of 300 Hunter does not have frontage on Hunter, or maybe just a sliver that kind of goes to their loading dock, but not necessarily that brings someone to their front door. something that was mentioned in that meeting, even as far as like people, even, you know, on a map going on their phone, we're missing it ending up in that court, not ending up in the front of the building where, and by not technically having frontage on Hunter, that satisfies the first part of the sign code to at which point it goes to the second part of the sign as far as where that sign makes sense, where in this case there is a very defined front to the building where Now, I'm not saying that that's necessarily the only place a sign could go on that front eastern facade. But I think if we're applying it the way the sign code is written, something on the north facade would make more sense than the south facade. Because even if we say we're not setting a precedent, The thing that I worry about is this then expanding beyond Hunter and a high rise or something like that, having their name across the top or something like that. And saying, well, these two buildings on Hunter got it, so we should get it too. So that's why I'm trying to look at it very technically by the way the sign code is written. There's multiple places on this building that a sign could go. If you're looking as far as a driver or a pedestrian trying to find that building on Hunter, I don't believe the south facade is the way for that driver or pedestrian to locate that building.

I'm a sign guy, so the whole idea is get the customer sign out to see it. There's no reason to put up a sign if you can't see it. I mean, it's a waste of the customer's money. You go to put a sign on the front of that building just above the entry on the first floor, that sign won't be seen by anybody. Most of the people that's looking at 121 Hunter are going to pull down that street, see that sign. It's the only drive entrance into the lot. They're going to turn in that lot. They will never see that sign. It's a total waste of time. I'm not saying they won't decide to try to put a sign there, So my job is to get people signed to be read. If it can't be read, it's not worth putting it up. You know what I mean? It's just not a good scenario for them at all. And I still have a little issue, and it's me. If this is your code, I don't know it. That wayfinding, I don't Room 125 to 200 that way. The rest of them that way. That's what we call a wayfinding sign. Off the window parking lot line. I

don't know what you define it as. I apologize. Wayfinding is my personal term, not the city. So we can take that out. Well, that's fine. As far as the way the sign is just written, if you look even at the high-rises around here... The tenants are typically listed on the eyebrow kind of right above the door or something. If you go over to Centene and stuff like that, they're not necessarily – it doesn't say Centene in big letters on the top of the building. And the way the sign code is written is because of that. And it's meant if you are a pedestrian or if you are a car coming down the street. Yep. It's so your eyes are there, not necessarily to get the maximum impact of number of eyes on that side. I fully understand from your position, your goal as a sign maker is to get as many people to see that sign as possible. If the goal is for as many people to get to see that sign is possible, then yes, the South facade is a great place for it. But unfortunately I don't feel it fits the sign code as it's written.

Okay. One other question about 300, and I know you've already told me about it, okay? You've had rules about it. You have a thing just above the first floor, and there's a second floor, and that got to be on the third

floor. It's a two-step process. Okay. And this is spelled out in the staff report if you go back with a careful reading of the staff report. Okay. Of 300, you're saying? Yeah. No. This one, this one. Of the sign group, of the sign code. Okay. The first step of that is, is there a clearly defined front of the building? Yes, sir. That's where 300, that was the first part of 300's argument in the sense of that there is not a clear defined front of that building where there's no frontage. of what could be considered the front of that building, there is no frontage that is actually on Hunter, where this is a different set of circumstances. This is a building that very clearly fronts Hunter and actually doesn't fully front any other street. It's private property on all three sides, on all three other sides, as it's listed in the staff report. So I think if you read through, it's basically, if we got to that second step, then... As far as determining, it could maybe necessarily go up to the second floor because if we agreed that the south facade worked, the first floor of the south facade would be screened.

Yes.

So basically there's a couple different steps to get there, and I understand it. You have to read through it a couple times. I had to read through it and I had to make a couple pages of notes here to walk myself through it and everything. But that's where I believe this differs from 300 is, first of all, that there's a clear defined front of the building and I believe at least in 300's case they laid out a clear argument as for how those signs can improve wayfinding to their building, not necessarily. And to the point of They specifically even said, this is not for advertisement. We don't do stuff with the general public necessarily. This is more helping people come into our building and being able to find it, lay eyes on it. And then when they come down, Hunter have a mental note of, yes, I pass it. I'm not just going down the street and not coming against it. So that's just the way I kind of see both projects and where I see them differ from not necessarily like applying a different standard to both buildings.

Okay, understood. Chris, anything else?

Nope, nothing further.

From the first time I saw this, I saw this as only a marketing or advertising sign. that it had no other benefit at all. The only other place I really think a signage could work is if it were on the 121 Monument sign, which I don't believe had any other names. It has none. Yeah. It's set

up as an address monument

only. So that's why my conclusion was that it could help from an advertising point of view, which is quite different from 300 Hunter Avenue. But I saw it as a different requirement from this one. The other thing is they are a construction related company and I think they're trying to advertise. That's their whole purpose. What signage is about.

Okay.

Claire, did you have any additional thoughts?

No, my hand keeps going up and down because my thoughts are being discussed as somebody's talking. So I'm good. Thank you.

And there were no other hands up. Any further comments? The from you? No, sir. Okay. Well, we do have a motion of staff recommends that we not approve the request. Motion.

I move to deny

the

request.

Okay, so all motions should be in the affirmative so that a yes vote actually means yes and a no vote would mean no. So you'll actually make a motion to approve the request as submitted. And so then if you're going to vote against, it would be a no vote and then a yes vote it would be to approve it.

Okay. I move to approve as submitted. Second.

You may have to have a roll call.

There was a second. Do you want us to do a roll call instead of?

Yes. Let's have a roll call No. No.

No.

So the way it was written, Stephanie, was to approve the staff recommendation. Right. Yes. Right.

Right. Okay. Thank you. All right. Have a great night. Thank you.

Clarify for the record, since I did have my microphone off, there were no votes in favor. Correct.

Okay. Well, that brings us to the end of the meeting. Chris, any comments?

Shortest one on record. Thank you.

Jim?

Steve, I want to thank you back in November for asking me to present on 300 Hunter, which required a deep dive into the sign code, which I was unusually prepared for this week.

why i think you had everything in your head thank you ellen

nothing

further

blair any comments

i mean we're thoroughly um aware of the code so good job um no i'm good thank you

okay any uh further comments from staff nothing for me no Well, then we will be back in two weeks on May 18th, and we're adjourned.