Debate over front-entry garage rule intensifies; commissioners urge slower rollout and more engagement

The Webster Groves Planning Commission spent the bulk of its meeting discussing proposed changes to the zoning code that would alter how front-entry garages are regulated. Commissioners described three main elements of the proposal: eliminate the “40% rule” that currently restricts front-entry garages when a street block has fewer than a threshold of front-entry garages; require the sidewall between a garage and the rest of the house to carry the same architectural detailing as the front facade; and remove an option that lets the Architectural Review Board (ARB) approve garages that exceed existing width limits.

Commissioners and attendees raised multiple concerns. Several said the 40% rule has been inconsistently enforced and that many of the variance applications the Board of Adjustment has granted suggest the city is already permitting exceptions: staff reported 31 variance requests since the garage code passed in February 2006, of which 24 were approved, six denied and one withdrawn; of the approved applications, 21 were appeals of the 40% rule, four sought increased front-yard projection and three sought increased garage width.

Members warned that design guidelines for historic districts are advisory and do not carry the force of law; they cautioned that, if the ordinance removes statutory limits, the ARB could only try to improve appearance and could not deny a garage that complies with zoning. Commissioners also said they have seen instances where front-entry configurations increased impervious surface and caused runoff problems for neighboring yards.

Several commissioners tied the garage debate to broader housing and demolition concerns. Participants said demolition of smaller, older houses is contributing to a loss of affordable housing stock and urged the city to prioritize measures that disincentivize tear-downs and incentivize rehabilitation. Some commissioners argued that a fixed-area-ratio calculation for maximum house size encourages outsized replacements on small lots and suggested alternative approaches, such as sizing limits anchored to the block’s existing house footprints.

Commissioners repeatedly urged more public engagement before the ordinance proceeds. Participants said a first and second reading were scheduled for the council as soon as the following week, with a potential third reading and vote in September. Commissioners asked staff to slow the schedule and to provide the Planning Commission, the Board of Adjustment and other commissions an opportunity for review; a staff member agreed to ask Marie to remove the item from the council’s immediate first/second-reading calendar to allow additional outreach.

The commission also discussed neighborhood-specific options — for example, counting existing carports in the 40% calculation on streets where carports are effectively the same as garages — and suggested developing clear pattern- or design-guides (sometimes described as a small "pattern book") so new construction can match neighborhood scale, massing and character.

Commissioners emphasized they are not opposed to housing diversity or to new housing types, such as small townhomes with rear-entry garages, but many said changes must be carefully calibrated so they do not erode neighborhood character or accelerate demolition-driven loss of affordable homes.

The commission asked staff to slow the timetable and to return with opportunities for public engagement and cross-commission review before the City Council advances the zoning amendment.