Webster Groves panel's shared-parking proposal to guide future requests; council kept existing restrictions

Members of a Webster Groves commission spent the bulk of their meeting reviewing a multi-year shared-parking proposal and the City Council's decision on how it will be applied.

The commission's proposal, developed over several years and presented to council in November 2023, calls for a two-tiered approach. The first tier is a safety screen based on street width: streets below the commission's safety threshold would receive no-parking restrictions on one or both sides to ensure emergency and service vehicles can pass. The second tier would allow permit or "shared" parking where residents petition for it and density measurements justify permits.

"It is a two-tiered plan," commission member Carrie Faulkner said, summarizing work the group compiled since late 2021. "The first tier is anyone can make a request ... If your street is less than 18 feet wide, you get no parking restrictions on both sides of the street. That is purely based on safety." Faulkner emphasized the criteria were developed after consulting waste-management and fire-service vehicle dimensions and that the intent was to apply a consistent, transparent process across the city.

City staff relayed the council's decision. "The council has decided ... that the shared-parking recommendations will be applied case by case moving forward," staff member Eric said, adding that the council would not change existing, grandfathered parking regulations citywide. Several commissioners said they were disappointed the change would not be retroactive.

Staff described the implementation steps the city will use for new requests: an online intake form; an initial staff review; technical evaluation by TAC (street width and density); a resident petition if the safety tier does not resolve parking pressure; public-works field measurements; TAC recommendation to the city manager; and, if a change is recommended, an ordinance that must return to council for the required readings. Eric noted that changes to on-street parking are implemented by ordinance and therefore require council action.

Commission members and staff discussed practical details that remain unresolved. The draft guidelines referenced multiple petition thresholds during discussion: the commission said it had considered applying a petition threshold tied to property owners (examples cited: 30% of property owners signing a petition) and, separately, an operational metric (a draft notion that 75% of parked vehicles on a block could be nonresidents). Staff and some commissioners flagged legal and enforcement limits, specifically that police cannot conduct continuous plate checks to determine residency and that the city needs clear verification procedures before a permit program can be enforced.

Members also asked staff to clarify timelines. The city told the commission that TAC now meets regularly; nevertheless, staff cautioned that ordinance changes and the associated public-notice steps make most parking changes a multi-month process.

The commission agreed to keep refining the proposal and to provide clearer implementation language and a public-facing web workflow so residents can know timelines and the steps required to submit a request. The commission will return to questions of retroactivity or additional recommendations if petitioned to do so.