Webster Groves weighs rewriting front‑facing garage rules to reduce variances and tighten design standards

Elliot Leipson, director of planning and development for Webster Groves, presented proposed changes to the city's zoning rules on front‑facing garages at the council's July 1 work session, asking the council whether it wants those three provisions included in a redline ordinance for formal consideration.

Leipson said the staff proposals would remove a long‑standing 40% block rule that currently requires either that 40% of houses on a block have front‑entry garages or that a homeowner seek a variance from the board of adjustment before building a front‑facing garage. He told the council, “As you just saw, we've had 21 variances granted for this same issue over the last 20 years, and that just strikes me as saying, okay. This is something that if the city doesn't really have an issue with, so I'm proposing that just take it out altogether.”

The draft changes include three elements: eliminate the 40% block threshold that often triggers a variance; add a new design requirement that any side wall between a projecting or recessed garage and the primary front facade be “architecturally integrated” with the front elevation; and remove a separate allowance that lets the Architectural Review Board (ARB) approve garages wider than code limits when 40% of houses on the block already exceed those size limits. Under the proposals, a homeowner could still seek a variance from the board of adjustment for wider garages, but the ARB pathway would be removed.

Why it matters: removing the 40% trigger would reduce the number of property owners required to seek a variance, speeding administrative review for projects that otherwise meet dimensional and design standards. The council's discussion focused on trade‑offs between streamlining approvals and preserving neighborhood character. Leipson noted staff research and the draft comprehensive plan language that calls for modernizing the zoning code while protecting historic neighborhoods.

Council members split on whether to apply the change citywide. Council member David said he supported eliminating the 40% step, calling the proposal “exactly what I was looking for” because it would reduce the burden on applicants and move the determination to administrative review. Council member Pam said she was not comfortable with a citywide change without more district‑level data and asked staff to show how changes would affect lots of different sizes and zoning categories.

Leipson provided background numbers during the discussion: staff identified 31 variance requests related to the 40% issue since the code was adopted roughly two decades ago; 24 were approved, six rejected and one withdrawn. In addition, permit records going back to 2017 showed 195 garage permits, 17 of which were for garages wider than 30 feet; staff said further research would be needed to connect those wider permits to ARB allowances or variances. Current code measurements explained in the presentation: for houses 44 feet wide or wider the garage width limit is the lesser of 22 feet or 42% of the front elevation; for houses narrower than 44 feet the maximum is 50% of the front elevation.

The council did not vote on an ordinance. Instead members directed staff to prepare a redline draft that includes the three proposed provisions and to supply the council with the underlying permit and variance data (including details on the cases that were rejected) when the redline is delivered. Several council members asked that the data be included with the ordinance redline rather than only in a presentation so they could review it before formal readings.

Next steps: staff will prepare an ordinance redline incorporating the three provisions and will attempt to compile historical permit/variance records for council review. Council members said the item will return for formal readings only after those materials are available and the redline is published.