Clayton Plan Commission — June 15: A high-school CTE addition advances, and a sign goes back to the drawing board
The Plan Commission recommended a Clayton High School CTE addition and removed a 507 Hanley sign overlay; sitting as the ARB, it sent the building's new sign back for a redesign.
What happened
Clayton's Plan Commission and Architectural Review Board met jointly on Monday, June 15 and worked through three items. The Plan Commission recommended approval of a roughly 10,000-square-foot addition to Clayton High School for career and technical education space, and it agreed to remove a decade-old sign sub-district at 507 South Hanley Road. In between, sitting as the Architectural Review Board, the members took up a wall sign at that same address — an acrylic cabinet sign a new tenant had installed without a permit — and, rather than approve it, required the applicant to come back with a redesigned sign.
What the board decided
- The Plan Commission approved the removal of the 507 South Hanley Road sign sub-district on a staff recommendation, after finding no reason to keep an overlay the property owner no longer wanted.
- Sitting as the Architectural Review Board, the members declined to approve the wall sign at 507 South Hanley Road as installed and instead approved a requirement that the applicant submit a revised drawing with different materials and lighting compatible with the building, to be reviewed administratively rather than returning to the board.
- The Plan Commission recommended approval, as submitted, of a site plan for an addition to Clayton High School at One Mark Twain — a recommendation that now goes to the Board of Education.
- The board also approved the minutes of its previous meeting, on June 1.
Who was there
Chair Steve Lichtenfeld led the meeting, with members including Jim Arsenault and Helen DiFate and City Council representative Susan Buse, along with additional members present and joining the discussion. Director of Planning Anna Krane, planner Ryan Helle and City Attorney Stephanie Karr staffed the meeting. (Because actalux has no posted minutes for this meeting yet, the roster is drawn from the transcript and the board's standing membership.)
What they debated
The most-discussed item was the sign. Staff explained that the tenant's internally illuminated acrylic cabinet sign differs in character from the channel-letter and awning signs common nearby, and that the Architectural Review Board has historically discouraged acrylic cabinet signs. Staff recommended against approval, telling the board that an alternative design would better fit:
an alternative sign design would better fit the character of nearby signage— June 15, 2026 — Meeting Transcript [#q53bf3dee]
Complicating the review, the sign had already been put up. Staff said the tenant's contractor had been told the sign would not be administratively approved, and installed it anyway, which left it before the board on a code-enforcement footing. The ownership representative, speaking for the building's owners, said the contractor had not seen anything in the city's sign code prohibiting that type of sign. Members were sympathetic to the small-business tenant but firm that the design did not fit: one suggested the applicant go back to the drawing board with something simpler, such as a blade sign. Rather than deny the request outright, the board chose to require a change of material and a resubmission.
On the high-school addition, staff laid out the standard the Plan Commission applies to a public school. Under Missouri law, the commission reviews and recommends on a school facility, and the Board of Education may overrule a negative recommendation by a two-thirds vote. To recommend approval, the board must find that:
the location, extent, and character of the proposal are in conformance with the Clayton Tomorrow 2040 comprehensive plan— June 15, 2026 — Meeting Transcript [#q69e10c9e]
Staff concluded the addition met that test and recommended approval as submitted, finding no adverse impact on light, air, noise, utilities, runoff, emergency services or circulation. The school district's project architect described a southwest addition housing career-and-technical-education and math classrooms, with a courtyard alcove for fire separation and daylight. Members' questions focused on stormwater — which the design team said would be neutral or better after construction — and on the loss of parking spaces, which the team said the site's shared lots could absorb.
In context
The sign sub-district removal closed a loop that opened in 2015. Members recalled that the overlay was set up at the building owner's request in 2015 to coordinate signage, and that the same ownership now asked to remove it so individual tenants could have more distinctive signs. With the overlay gone, the property's signs fall back under the city's standard sign code — which is what sent the new tenant's sign to the Architectural Review Board in the first place.
Public comments
The chair opened an open forum for items not on the agenda and saw no hands, so no one spoke during the open-forum period. On the high-school addition, a nearby resident raised concerns about the parking spaces the project would remove, prompting the discussion of the site's shared parking before the board recommended approval.