Webster Groves council begins review of front-facing garage rules, asks staff to draft ordinance changes

The Webster Groves City Council reviewed the city’s regulations on front‑facing garages and asked planning staff to draft proposed ordinance changes for later consideration.

The issue matters locally because council members tied the garage rules to housing affordability, neighborhood appearance and stormwater impacts. Planning staff said many applicants are seeking variances to the current code, creating recurring review work for the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Board of Adjustment.

Alec Leifson, director of planning and development, told the council the city’s garage rules date to 2006 and that the ordinance currently in use is listed in city records as Ordinance 85‑19. Leifson summarized the code’s key features: limits on garage width, a cap on how far a garage may project from a house’s front wall (staff said 6 feet is the typical projection limit used), and a local “40% rule” that requires a block to have roughly 40% of houses with front‑facing garages before a new front‑facing garage can be allowed as‑of‑right. “The garage now fronted the street, and the house was located behind the garage. The idea of the street and the front of the house as a social place had completely disappeared,” Leifson said, quoting research on the historical shift in home orientation.

Leifson gave counts to the council: since 2006 staff recorded 31 requests related to front‑facing garages, of which 24 were approved, 6 were rejected and 1 withdrawn. He said about 21 of the approvals were appeals of the 40% rule; other approvals related to increased projection or wider garage widths.

Council members discussed several tradeoffs. Supporters of the current standards said the rules help preserve neighborhood character and give the ARB a role in ensuring new homes fit existing streetscapes. Others said the rules add cost to building and renovation projects by pushing garages to the rear or side, which can lengthen driveways, increase impervious surface and raise stormwater/runoff concerns. A council member argued affordability pressures and modern construction costs merit rethinking whether the 40% threshold should trigger a more onerous Board of Adjustment variance process.

The council also queried how “hardship” findings are evaluated at Board of Adjustment hearings; Leifson said variances are granted when applicants demonstrate site‑specific constraints such as lot width, topography or setback conflicts. Council members noted they do not have a full record in the presentation showing whether ARB approvals involved negotiated design changes as a condition of approval.

The council did not vote on a code change. Instead, Mayor Karen (name in record) said she wanted to continue the matter and asked staff to produce redlines and options for an ordinance amendment. “We will work on scheduling this out, which gives Elliot plenty of time to work on it given the other things that are going on as well as our other calendar requirements,” the mayor said. Staff said next steps would be for planning staff to prepare a redlined draft ordinance and return it to council for further direction.

The council also asked staff to provide more data if members want trend information (for example, year‑by‑year variance frequency and whether ARB approvals included required design modifications). Leifson and staff suggested interested council members provide specific feedback to planning staff in advance so the redline can reflect council priorities. The item will return to the council once staff completes the draft redline and the council schedules follow‑up review.