Riverside’s village board has directed its preservation and planning and zoning commissions to consider amendments to the village code that would encourage residents to build detached garages rather than attached, forward-facing ones and require forward-facing garages to be set five feet behind the front of houses to stave off potential threats to the village’s landmark status.
At the board’s Feb. 6 meeting, Village Planner Anne Cyran asked trustees to consider two text amendments that would limit the maximum allowed width of attached garages compared to detached garages and require attached, front-facing garages to be set back from the front facade of the home.
Village President Doug Pollock clarified the board was being asked to give direction on if the two village commissions should discuss the amendments and noted they would return to the board for final review before the village code is affected.
Pollock said the discussion had come about originally in 2017, when members of the state historic preservation commission warned village officials that the increasing number of front-facing garages being built in Riverside could threaten the village’s landmark status in the future. Riverside’s status is predicated in part on Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux’s original open, green design for the village that these garages could disrupt, he said.
Trustee Elizabeth Kos questioned why setting new attached garages five feet behind the front of a home would help maintain the village’s landmark status in the future. Pollock and Cyran said the currently permitted width of attached garages promotes an “autocentric” image within the village over Olmsted’s “bucolic” design.
“When you think about it from a visual impact of our green spaces, if every house on a block has a front-loaded garage, and they’re utilizing their driveway in front of their garage, that changes the views in Riverside and the experience,” said Village Manager Jessica Frances.
Trustee Megan Claucherty said she worried Riverside could be overly cautious about threats to the landmark status and potentially cause strife for residents with restrictive requirements.
“Modern life has vehicles and has garages, and in modern construction, people do prefer to have their garages attached,” she said. “I like the idea of doing things that encourage people to design in a way that facilitates our goals around our landmark designation.”
Kos added that she felt pushing newly built garages further back from the street, which requires more pavement to connect the garage to the street, could contradict Riverside’s environmental goals.
“I feel like we need to balance this issue against some of our environmental concerns that we have for the village as well. When we start down this road, more impervious surface has to be built in order to accommodate a driveway that goes all the way to the back of a house, and that has a big impact on our village as well,” she said.
Trustee Jill Mateo said Riverside now allows pervious pavement options for driveways, so new residents wouldn’t have to resort exclusively to asphalt.
After more discussion about the previous discussions on the subject from 2017 through 2020, Claucherty said she felt being too restrictive could affect residents with abnormal property lots.
“When we make very prescriptive rules, we’re trying to make rules that fit across a variety of properties and funny-shaped lots that we have in this wonderful village, right?” she said. “I’m very aware that the people of the future who want to build a garage, or who are adjusting their property, are going to have to live within whatever we agree to here, and I don’t know if that 5 foot [setback] is a problem.”
Ultimately, the trustees agreed to have both commissions weigh in on the amendments and issues at hand, with the preservation commission being asked to look into just how much setting back front-facing garages by five feet would help maintain Riverside’s status as a landmark village.
