Business district presses county on streetscape accessibility after ADA concerns could remove parking

Members of the Webster Groves business district were updated on the long-running streetscape project and briefed on an accessibility problem that could remove parking near 8715 and 8721 Big Bend.

The Chair said the county and MoDOT are overseeing the project and have exchanged plans and comments; the county's acting deputy director, Mr. Klesa, told the district the county is reluctant to incorporate property-specific ramps under its project because doing so could jeopardize grant timelines. "He is not recommending this because of the risk in them being able to meet timelines that are required under the grant," the Chair said.

That position leaves two options, members said: include an accessible ramp as part of the county's scope if possible, or have the property owner or district hire a separate engineer to design and construct an access ramp under a county permit. Members warned that the separate approach may require a bump‑out into the roadway that would remove on‑street parking. One participant estimated that retrofitting the stoop areas at 8715 and 8721 Big Bend would remove about five parking spaces in that block.

Panelists discussed technical constraints and legal standards that affect retrofit decisions. The group cited federal accessibility terms used in design and compliance deliberations — phrases like "readily achievable," "undue hardship" and "technically infeasible" — and said different staff interpretations have produced inconsistent guidance. The Chair also referenced guidance from a consultant and an internal memo previously advising staff not to delay the overall project for a single property's noncompliance.

Local expertise was cited as well: a designer the group named, James Trout, was described as using a 3% rule of thumb for when a business owner's accessibility cost is considered reasonable. "If the business owner can take care of this ADA problem up to 3% of the total budget, that's reasonable," the Chair quoted from the expert's view.

Members said timing is critical. The Chair said the county expects to obligate federal construction funding in October or November and bid the project then, with construction likely during the regular spring building season; that schedule reduces the county's flexibility to add property‑specific work. "Once they bid the project, they can obligate the funding," the Chair said, noting the federal fiscal timeline.

The meeting also captured collateral problems from recent utility work in the district. Several speakers complained that contractors left debris and damaged plantings during lead service-line replacements and water‑meter installs; one business owner said inspection delays can leave a front yard trench open "3 to 6 weeks" because the city lacks inspection capacity. The Chair offered to invite Planning & Development staff to discuss inspection procedures at a future meeting.

What happens next: the Chair said staff will send the county's engineer the specifics and ask for a parking‑loss estimate and feasibility determination; district members may also pursue a separate engineering solution if the county will not include the fixes in its project.