Riverside board asks planning and zoning to pursue text amendments aimed at reducing prominence of front‑loaded garages

The Village of Riverside Board of Trustees on Feb. 6 directed the Planning and Zoning Commission to continue work on proposed zoning text amendments intended to reduce the street-facing prominence of attached, front‑loaded garages and to encourage detached garages in select situations.

Planning staff (Planner Siren) told the board the two central elements of the draft amendments are: a requirement that attached front‑loaded garages be set back at least five feet from the front face of the house (making some existing front‑loaded garages nonconforming when properties are redeveloped), and a development incentive that would allow up to a 400-square-foot building‑coverage bonus for the construction of detached garages in specified cases (new single‑family construction, remodels replacing attached garages, or construction of a detached garage where none exists). Staff said the bonus would not increase allowed impervious surface coverage.

Manager Francis and trustees discussed the origin of the work: staff said conversations with the State Historic Preservation Office and the National Park Service previously flagged front‑loaded garages as a potential threat to the district's historic streetscape, in particular Riverside's characteristic setbacks and green parkways. Preservation Commission discussions on the topic date back to 2017 and resurfaced as the village updated related policies; staff said the item will go to the Preservation Commission for comment (scheduled Feb. 13), then to Planning & Zoning for a public hearing before returning to the board for final action.

Trustees debated trade-offs. Some trustees favored the —carrot— approach of offering a building‑coverage bonus to encourage detached garages rather than strict prohibitions; others raised concerns that promoting detached rear garages can increase driveway length and impervious surface, potentially mixing policy signals. Trustees asked staff to obtain documentary context from earlier preservation correspondence and to seek a Preservation Commission opinion on whether the proposed 5‑foot setback would meaningfully address the landmark concerns cited by state and federal reviewers.

There was no final zoning action on Feb. 6; the board's direction was procedural: forward the draft text amendments to Planning & Zoning and Preservation commissions for their review and public hearing process.