Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Garage Code Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Webster Groves boards push back on proposal to remove 40% rule for front-facing garages
Summary
Staff presented three options to alter the city's front-facing garage rules; Historic Preservation Commission and ARB members objected to removing the 40% threshold, favoring proposals that tighten facade-contiguity rules or limit ARB exemptions instead.
City planning staff presented three proposed changes to Webster Groves's rules for front-facing garages during a joint discussion with the Architectural Review Board and referenced input from the Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission.
Staff presenter Elliot described the three proposals: (1) remove the requirement that 40% or more of houses on a block must already have front-facing garages before a new front-facing garage can be allowed; (2) require that the garage's front wall be architecturally contiguous with the rest of the facade (closing a perceived loophole); and (3) restrict the ARB's ability to grant exemptions allowing garages wider than code based on a 40% threshold elsewhere on the block.
Members of the Historic Preservation Commission and the ARB strongly objected to the first proposal, saying it would undermine the ordinance's original purpose of protecting neighborhood character and could make historic districts vulnerable to incompatible garage additions. One HPC participant warned removing the 40% rule could put property owners seeking historic tax credits at risk and "corrupt" individually designated historic properties by allowing wide front-facing garages that project in front of existing facades.
Board members discussed alternative refinements: include carports in the 40% calculation to better reflect older housing types on streets where carports historically predominate, and adopt the second proposal's architectural-contiguity requirement. Several members favored keeping or strengthening protections rather than loosening them.
Elliot said the first proposal was not well received and may be dropped; staff will collate the boards' comments, prepare a concise memo and return with a formal recommendation and ordinance language if needed. The Planning Commission will conduct any required zoning hearing; boards will forward recommendations to City Council in the coming weeks.
The ARB also received an updated packet on electric vehicle charging policy for future consideration; that topic will be discussed at a later meeting.
