Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Webster Groves board delays decision on request to free 306 West Lockwood from parking requirement
Summary
The Board of Adjustment postponed consideration of a variance that would untether 306 West Lockwood from required parking obligations that currently serve 231 West Lockwood. Petitioners and nearby residents debated future uses, parking counts and whether a zoning change or variance is the proper path.
The Webster Groves Board of Adjustment on Aug. 14 postponed action on a petition from WGRE Holdings LLC and McCallum Group LLC seeking a variance from Ordinance 8867 that would remove a requirement that 306 West Lockwood be dedicated to parking for 231 West Lockwood.
Supporters of the petition said ownership changes since the ordinance passed have created a private-property burden; opponents and nearby residents said the city should not relax parking obligations without clearer plans and protections against future heavy uses.
Elliot Leibson, director of planning and development for the city, read the docket and explained that Ordinance 8867 (adopted Jan. 6, 2015) created a planned commercial district tying the lots together so that parking at 306 fulfills part of 231’s requirement. Leibson said staff calculations in a January memorandum estimated roughly 174 spaces were needed for 231’s then-current tenants; the owner of 231 receives a 43-space off-premise credit for evening retail uses.
Timothy Redmond, a co-owner of the parcels through WGRE Holdings LLC, told the board his company acquired 220 and 306 West Lockwood and that McCallum (the tenant/owner at 231) “do[es] not need to use that parking lot.” He said he and his partner want the option to develop 306 and that there is currently no private lease or agreement under which McCallum parks there.
Michelle Leone, chief executive officer of McCallum, asked the city to consider reclassifying 231’s upper floors as group-living or dormitory space (a residential treatment classification) so the parking requirement would fall and make 306 usable for other development without a large variance. She said McCallum does not rely on the 306 lot for daily client parking and that she has not had trouble finding parking.
Neighbors including Paul Daniel and Robert Meyer said signs, permit stickers and regular daytime use indicate the lot is used and that removing or repurposing it could worsen parking pressure on adjacent residential streets and for evening restaurants.
Board members and staff discussed options: (1) grant a variance from the ordinance (which would be a permanent change and would “run with the land”); (2) pursue a separate ordinance amendment to adjust how parking is calculated for the plan district; or (3) return after staff and the applicants agree on a recalculation of required parking based on an agreed-upon classification of uses. Leibson and petitioners agreed staff should meet with the applicants to clarify square footage and potential use classifications and return to the board.
The board voted 4–0 to close public comment and postpone docket 24-33 to the Sept. 11 meeting so staff and the parties can pursue a recalculation or other steps before the board takes final action.
What happens next: staff will meet with the applicants to document current square footage and uses at 231, review whether the building can be formally classified (for zoning purposes) as group living or another category, and return options to the board. Any ordinance change to the plan district would be separate from this variance proceeding and require additional legislative steps.
