Fenton planning commission denies parking reduction for St. Louis Marble redevelopment at Fenpark Drive

The Fenton Planning and Zoning Commission denied a request from St. Louis Marble Company to reduce minimum required parking for a proposed redevelopment at 1565 Fenpark Drive on March 3, voting 0–9 with one commissioner absent.

Community Development Director Amy Starck told the commission the petitioner proposes demolishing an existing 14,000-square-foot building and replacing it with a 23,000-square-foot office/warehouse. Under the city's BP‑3 Business Park District standards the use would require 44 off‑street parking spaces; the petitioner proposed providing 24 spaces and submitted a parking-study summary arguing that the smaller supply would meet the current tenant’s needs.

Director Starck cautioned that the study submitted with the application "does not address future uses of the property" and that any future tenant who could not justify reduced parking would need its own SUP and parking study, or rely on adjacent lots or shared‑parking agreements because on‑street parking is not permitted on Fenpark Drive.

Petitioner Leonard Wolter said his business has "12‑14 employees" and that the business has shifted from manufacturing toward warehousing and distribution, which he and civil engineer Sean Ackley said reduces overlapping shift demands. Ackley told the commission the study’s conclusions were based on observations of the current operation and information provided by the petitioner.

Several commissioners and Mayor Joe Maurath questioned the sufficiency of the parking analysis and whether the lot could support a building of the proposed size. Chairperson Callan Yeoman said the study "does not provide sufficient data to substantiate the conclusions" and warned that approving the reduction could "tie the City's hands and create a problem for the future," noting the plan represents nearly a 50% reduction from the required spaces.

Chairperson Yeoman moved to approve the SUP with the read conditions, and Vice‑Chairperson Kevin Sherrel seconded. On roll call the motion failed: Chairperson Yeoman—Nay; Vice‑Chairperson Sherrel—Nay; Commissioner Bill Voorhees—Nay; Commissioner Warren Wisbrock—Nay; Commissioner Bill Glover—Nay; Commissioner Linda Nelson—Nay; Commissioner John Bielicki—Nay; Alderman Ron Harrell—Nay; Mayor Joe Maurath—Nay; Secretary Deborah Abbott—Absent. The motion failed 0–9 (1 absent).

After the SUP vote, Wolter asked about options for the related site‑plan application (Case 2026‑SPR‑01), including withdrawing or revising plans. City Attorney Erin Seele explained that if the commission continued the site‑plan review to give the petitioner time to revise, a new application fee would not be required. The commission then voted unanimously to continue the site‑plan review to allow the petitioner to submit revised plans that could increase parking; the continuance passed 9–0 (Secretary Abbott remained recorded as absent at the time of the vote and rejoined via Zoom later).

Next steps: the petitioner may revise the building footprint to add parking or seek additional variances; any revised plan that still proposes reduced parking will require a new or amended parking analysis and SUP approval before the site plan can be approved.

The commission adjourned at 7:44 p.m.