Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Preliminary review of 17 West Lockwood flags inconsistent plans and accessibility concerns

Webster Groves Architectural Review Board · June 18, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Board asked the applicant for a coordinated resubmittal after finding inconsistencies across demolition, floor and elevation drawings for 17 West Lockwood and raised questions about awning materials, storefront details and ADA ramp clearances.

The board’s preliminary review of a large renovation at 17 West Lockwood produced multiple requests for a coordinated resubmittal after staff and members identified inconsistent drawings and missing details on both the carriage house and the main building.

Architect Zachary Meadow and online representative Chris Height presented the project, which includes a carriage house storefront and an ADA entry. Board members repeatedly noted that demolition plans, floor plans and elevations did not match: an existing rear door and adjacent windows appear in some drawings but are absent in others; the planned new double window and a new sidelight door are shown in demolition and plan views but not on elevations; and awning configurations and materials (required to meet historic‑district guidelines) were not adequately documented.

Board members emphasized that the awnings must comply with district standards (canvas awnings, clear—not tinted—glass) and that any replacement awnings be shown clearly on drawings. On accessibility, the board asked the applicant to show whether porch columns at the rear porch would conflict with the required maneuvering clearances for the new ADA ramp: "If you add those columns onto that landing, that you will not have enough room," a board member warned, requesting accurate dimensioned plans and handrail details.

Why it matters: This project sits in the historic district and includes changes that affect public access and the building’s street‑facing appearance; the board declined to approve the preliminary plans until the applicant provides consistent, dimensioned, and material‑specific drawings.

What’s next: The board requested a resubmittal with coordinated plans and clear material callouts (awning materials, storefront/glass specifications, window types and elevations, ramp dimensions and handrail details).