Webster Groves ARB declines FAR increase for proposed home at large subdivided lot after calculation and process disputes

The Webster Groves Architectural Review Board on Monday reviewed a request to increase the allowable floor-area-ratio for a new house proposed on a large subdivided lot at 447 Landscape and declined the change after members questioned the timing of the request and disagreed about how the FAR was calculated.

The request was presented by Nathan Farrell and Donna Box, who said they were representing the project applicant. The applicants said their electronic takeoffs showed an above-ground floor (AGF) of 2,804.5 square feet, which they calculated as 37.1 percent FAR for the lot. City staff produced a different figure—about 2,871 square feet (roughly 38 percent)—and board members said the discrepancy and the late submission of FAR documentation left the board unable to confidently grant an exception.

Board members noted the design of the house had previously been reviewed and that the board’s approval of the design had been conditioned on separate FAR approval. Several board members said the FAR review should generally come to the board as a separate, earlier item so any design can be adjusted to meet the allowable FAR rather than approving the design first and seeking retroactive relief.

Members also questioned whether the lot’s configuration constituted a hardship that would merit an FAR exception. The applicants said the lot’s curved frontage and cul-de-sac geometry reduced usable frontage and compared the lot’s footprint with another house across the street; they also provided a table of FARs for nearby lots intended to show precedent. Board members countered that the lot configuration was known at the time the design was prepared and that the applicant could reduce the interior area slightly to reach compliance instead of seeking an increase.

A motion to approve the FAR increase was made and seconded. When put to a vote, multiple board members registered opposition; the motion did not pass. Board members told applicants to return with clarified, documented FAR calculations and with revised plans showing options that would bring the design under the allowed FAR or that made a clearer case for a variance. Applicants acknowledged they had submitted a printed screen capture of their CAD takeoffs but argued for a reconsideration given how close the numbers were.

Why this matters: FAR exceptions affect how large a house can be relative to its lot and can set a precedent for neighboring infill houses on subdivided parcels. Board members said their vote reflected both technical concerns about the data provided and a broader preference that applicants pursue design modifications before asking the board to increase allowable massing.

What happened next: The board directed the applicant to return with corrected and verifiable FAR calculations and with plan revisions or a clearer hardship justification. The ARB did not approve the FAR request at the meeting, so the design remains contingent on a separate FAR approval before the board will finalize design approval for the proposed house.