Planning commission debates front-facing garage rule; staff offers three code-change options

The Webster Groves Planning Commission held an extended discussion on Sept. 8 about proposed changes to Section 53.203 of the city zoning code, which regulates attached, front-facing garages. Staff presented three distinct options for council and commission consideration; the commission provided feedback but took no formal vote on an ordinance.

Staff said the package was prompted by council members who asked staff to revisit garage regulation to determine whether the existing approval process and exceptions were working as intended. Elliot, planning staff, summarized three proposals: 1) remove the rule that allows a new attached front-facing garage only on blocks where 40% or more of homes already have front-facing garages; 2) require that the sidewall between a main front facade and a projecting garage be architecturally compatible with adjacent facades; and 3) eliminate a code exception that allows applicants to seek a wider garage where 40% of the block’s existing garages already exceed width limits.

Elliot explained the variance and review process to the commission: a variance requires a land-use hardship created by the code, not by owner preference, and is decided by the Board of Adjustment. He also gave counts from the city record: “Since this code was passed in February 2006, there have been 161 variances applied for for garages. Of those, 31 were for the 40% rule; 21 were approved, six were rejected and one withdrawn,” (staff comment in the hearing). Commissioners and members of the historic preservation commission raised differing views about the proposals. Several historic-preservation members told staff they would prefer stronger design guidelines or no front-facing garages at all; others argued the current variance process protects neighborhood character.

Commission discussion covered several tensions: whether removing the 40% threshold would speed approvals and thereby encourage more front-facing garages and potential teardowns; whether rules should be drafted citywide or left for case-by-case review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Board of Adjustment; how the rules would affect owners of narrow lots who have limited buildable area; and whether changes could unintentionally increase impervious surface and stormwater impacts. Commissioner Kyle, an architect and ARB member, emphasized design and neighborhood character, saying the city should not favor automobiles over pedestrians and warning that “developers will build” broad-front garages if allowed.

No ordinance was adopted. Staff told the commission the proposals were intended to provide options for the council and that any ordinance would return to the commission and other boards for review. Staff signaled it will take the commission’s feedback — including requests for clearer images in the plan, more explicit labeling of sample renderings, and stronger linkage between the comprehensive plan and subsequent zoning or code amendments — back to Council and the Historic Preservation Commission for additional review.

The commission’s discussion also touched process questions: even if the council pursues an ordinance, the planning commission will have a formal role in reviewing and recommending amendments to code; zoning-map changes, if any, would follow the plan-adoption process. Staff and several commissioners recommended continuing to rely on the ARB and Board of Adjustment for case-specific relief where a land-use hardship exists.

The record shows the city is still weighing how to balance neighborhood character, design standards and property owners’ desire to add garages on constrained lots. Staff will return to Council with the options and to the commission for any ordinance review and recommendation.