Webster Groves plan commission reviews draft comprehensive plan, asks for edits and clearer maps

Vice Chairperson Toni Hunt of the Webster Groves Plan Commission opened the commission's review of the draft comprehensive plan, describing the body as "a 9 member board of citizens appointed by the city council to review development proposals and make recommendations to the city council regarding future development of the city." Hunt said the meeting was an informal review and that the commission would have a formal presentation and vote at a later date.

The commission focused on clarity and usability rather than on changing policy language at this stage. Hunt said she submitted technical edits to improve legibility, including "adjusting the spacing of the body text of all the text paragraphs" and "increasing the size of the map legends." She suggested adding a sidebar about the Federal Emergency Management Agency Community Rating System as "a possible suggestion for the community," noting the system can lower flood insurance premiums if a municipality meets certain activities and maintenance requirements.

City Attorney Peter Buntregger described the plan's legal role: "the comp plan, generally speaking, is or or it is generally the the policy of the of the city." He and other staff clarified that the comprehensive plan would be adopted by ordinance as a guiding document but does not itself change zoning. "It's not the actual written in stone zoning map," Director of Planning and Development Elliot Leibson said. Leibson and planner Joel Pugh told commissioners that the typical follow-on step after adopting a comp plan is a zoning-code update or rewrite to align the code with the plan.

Commissioners debated how strongly the plan should recommend changes that would later require ordinance updates. One commissioner warned that asking citizens to rely on a 214-page plan in addition to existing ordinance text could introduce ambiguity for the public. Buntregger and staff answered that the comp plan generally supports the commission's discretionary decisions and can make those decisions more defensible in appeals.

On technical and substantive points, commissioners asked for clearer cartography and the ability to compare current and future land-use maps. Commissioners also raised content concerns: form-based code language must be comprehensible to the public, some areas labeled for higher-intensity uses (for example, the Summit Area and portions of Crossroads) should be reconsidered, and the plan should include stronger language suggesting parking reductions or credits for bicycle infrastructure. Hunt and others cited past examples in Ferguson and Berkeley to illustrate how specific strategies or incentives (such as discounts for bike racks) had been implemented elsewhere.

Leibson said the consultant asked for written comments by Friday so they could incorporate them and return a revised draft "by the 22nd of this month" for the commission to review before a formal presentation at the June meeting. Commissioners asked for hard copies; staff committed to provide printed copies "as early as tomorrow." No final votes on the plan occurred at this meeting.

The commission agreed on several next steps: commissioners and community members will submit written comments (page-numbered where possible) to staff or the consultant; staff will request the consultant deliver revised drafts according to the schedule described; and the commission will receive a formal presentation and have an opportunity for further revisions at the June 2 meeting. The commission will continue deliberations before any recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for ordinance action.

Less urgent items discussed near the end of the meeting included the introduction of a new commissioner, Christie Phelps, and routine housekeeping (approval of minutes with a minor spelling correction). The commission adjourned after scheduling the June 2 meeting for a formal presentation and further review.