[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6204034,"mediaKeyId","3780788-6bf67a10d9e1c44b14b9505d2fdb18f4","parentId",3780788,"title","Board denies large rear‑yard parking increase and garage‑separation variance but approves aesthetic review for revised addition","audioSeconds",1756,"startMs",6244000,"endMs",8000000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3780788-6bf67a10d9e1c44b14b9505d2fdb18f4&start=6244&end=8000","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3780788-6bf67a10d9e1c44b14b9505d2fdb18f4/thumbnail_6244000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6204034/Grandview-Heights/Franklin-County/Ohio/Board-denies-large-rearyard-parking-increase-and-garageseparation-variance-but-approves-aesthetic-review-for-revised-addition","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6204034-e2dedf0d42de8a3e05ffca86bf730c04/orig.mp4?Expires=1775167560&Signature=eNzxdpvCduhlH-5CMAGs7O2oRJjvRo~tEwAoNggVafNyZBaZQalx3Pvpor3TXvjpz-ufz73tNJb~PdwOwvykbJ2V12xwo6kAmLXz4tC4vGjAlBoR5UJVCvssiIBj4rv5Tx2PxovXgTXO0fXdedyWIq1A42I4av1cNtGuSWwXHkF4~ME48RpsVRdtfFyzufS2xWyEEk5SAIniGXuT1b7ZPv6wAggzLQj-U0loTeEG01XKJSY8HAGJcRYJ7B-RBtm0HqmbQfDu1KsgHCpq9W2gPoxbsNHHQbG5kMzWY0zt~R~fb2Wfoc5naJ3BLWoEkkwvwUfG7~P~mjTO9BqYg5v2NQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Grandview Heights, OH ","date","2025-06-11T23:05:31Z","article","On June 11 the Planning & Zoning Board rejected a request to increase the rear‑yard area used for driveway and parking to 60 percent and rejected a separate request to reduce the separation between a detached garage and the primary structure, but it approved the project’s aesthetic review as submitted.

The applicant described a rear addition intended to provide a master bedroom, family room and kitchen, and said the design attempts to remain subordinate to the existing house by stepping materials and massing. Planning staff reported that the lot for the project is smaller than the zoning standard and that counting the garage apron and adjacent parking areas would yield a rear‑yard parking figure near 60 percent on the plan submitted to the board.

Board members debated whether to grant the substantial parking increase. Concerns included the small lot size, the existing use of a gravel parking area, and neighborhood compatibility. One board member proposed approving the larger parking allowance; the motion failed. The board then considered a variance to reduce the separation between the detached garage and the house from 10 feet to 9 feet 5 inches; that motion also failed.

Members voted to approve the aesthetic review for the submitted addition. During discussion neighbors and the design team suggested ways to maintain the visual hierarchy between old and new—continuing a brick band or a defined material transition at the lower plane, adjusting dormer window proportions and maintaining a subordinate roof profile. Staff reminded the board and applicant that portions of the parking/coverage requests could be withdrawn if the applicant reconfigured paving or removed a proposed parking pad.

The denials mean the applicant will need to either revise the paved area and garage relationship before returning or proceed with the aesthetic approvals while removing or resubmitting the denied variance requests.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","June 11, 2025 BZA Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","A variance request to increase rear‑yard area used for driveway and parking to 60 percent and a request to reduce distance between a detached garage and primary structure were denied; the board approved aesthetic review for the same property’s submitted addition.","taxTitle","Grandview Heights, Franklin County, Ohio","taxId",72272,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6204038,"Board approves porch variance but denies third‑floor aesthetic review for 052025 project",122,5972000,6094000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3780788-6bf67a10d9e1c44b14b9505d2fdb18f4&start=5972&end=6094","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3780788-6bf67a10d9e1c44b14b9505d2fdb18f4/thumbnail_5972000.jpg","/articles/6204038/Grandview-Heights/Franklin-County/Ohio/Board-approves-porch-variance-but-denies-thirdfloor-aesthetic-review-for-052025-project","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6204038-de9dc52af1b12f7bff72c44845794b05/orig.mp4?Expires=1775167560&Signature=kculJ5aQKU3sJeu-0LjvfCOlTZZ~exkH6X1IEiVJFl-hUIHqSE-uO8pRPqoLywbWUR1rTcoZxQpnSUY4qWU3UOA4s2I1zJt22wZRFqYdPUr10eVJ9gktS4bcZcZffUW9SBUpPq9P58mjV7qooG3atWKbDX1SvXfNs-0Th7tXaj3B4vHBCe-Xt7S3lRp-BF7rGGUXqjF-G~KflO1e-JvtjJBW04X0lpfA3XyDEbTle54M2kohYWN1s4cypKsIuz~mGOdQP89mk3cqh-efPXNfpvP~w~qr6~rQiwzpDvEEzUbUnpJM0jlkNWXZjruNTZvG4qIueOp35z4SAF5CZLEEeA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning & Zoning Board approved a variance reducing the side yard setback for a porch connection but denied the aesthetic review for a proposed third‑floor dormer and related massing changes on a June 11 agenda item identified as 052025.

At the hearing, the applicant’s team described the project as an addition that includes a connected front and side porch and a modest third‑floor dormer intended to add habitable space and daylight. The applicant said the third‑floor change increases usable area without substantially raising the perceived height when viewed from the street because the eave height remains unchanged.

Board members split the review into three parts: variance for the existing porch encroachment, aesthetic review for the porch connection, and aesthetic review for the third‑floor dormer. The board approved the variance to reduce the side yard setback from 6 feet to 3 feet 6 inches for the porch connection. The board also approved the aesthetic items associated with the porch connection, but after discussion voted not to approve the aesthetic review for the third‑floor dormer as submitted.

Members who opposed the third‑floor aesthetic review said the proposed dormer and its window proportions read “top‑heavy” and asked that the dormer be scaled down, that window sizes be adjusted to better match existing proportions, and that the design do more to preserve the visual hierarchy between original house and new work. Several neighbors and a nearby property owner urged the design to either continue original brickwork at the base or otherwise provide a clearer material transition between old and new.

The architect acknowledged cost and window‑sizing choices but said the team could revise window patterns and dormer scale. The board noted the applicant could return with revised drawings and that the denied portion of the aesthetic review could be resubmitted for reconsideration.","The board approved a variance to reduce a side‑yard setback for a porch connection but declined aesthetic approval for a proposed third‑floor dormer and related elements; the applicant may redesign and resubmit the third‑floor changes.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6204043,"Board approves aesthetic review and grants small parking-area variance for 1896 West First Avenue",568,3067000,3635000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3780788-6bf67a10d9e1c44b14b9505d2fdb18f4&start=3067&end=3635","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3780788-6bf67a10d9e1c44b14b9505d2fdb18f4/thumbnail_3067000.jpg","/articles/6204043/Grandview-Heights/Franklin-County/Ohio/Board-approves-aesthetic-review-and-grants-small-parking-area-variance-for-1896-West-First-Avenue","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6204043-6fd3d532cf05a1fa0ad5d7b4107ead17/orig.mp4?Expires=1775167560&Signature=OFhmZ4PeM7~xE6Leug4p463xeu6djtU0psywHYkG0iIn0pMKci5MZQVFiLgFAOZo~Z~mewR3jjJHtwrSbMBII~GonCuWCLKCPnO5bb-iFYwd00Leqb2RGEvDWAAj~rBhiJY2fGKg5z4V359rY5pgRq8SwW5BRHe1509bl9ah0v26FDLCCIzqeiNKcmrZczUCrxivmzKcpu6vKWEdSB-Gopuui8zPREDv4zetJeF6iTRVG6UOvJ1HTfWk8J3-6DgyG0lpmrB8q3LiET2nCfxGjQQwcR7cZ6p6Avyu-CQjm9hqqDA3p5oCU~nnLeNdcjFm97pqtbcY7H4MXHLnJy5D4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Grandview Heights Planning & Zoning Board on June 11 approved aesthetic review for a new rear addition at 1896 West First Avenue and granted a variance increasing the permitted area of the rear yard used for driveway and parking from 45 percent to 49.7 percent as calculated on the plan submitted to the board.

The board heard from Brenda Parker, the project architect, who described a rear addition designed to remain subordinate to the original historic home. Parker said the addition’s roof pitch is lower than the main roof and that the proposed materials would be compatible with the existing house. She and the applicant emphasized that much of the work is at the rear and not highly visible from the street.

Planning staff reported that the project’s rear yard measures approximately 3,572.7 square feet and that including the garage and driveway areas as shown on the site plan results in a rear‑yard parking calculation of about 49.7 percent — roughly a 50‑square‑foot overage driven by the small lot size. Staff noted the property’s shared driveway limits options for reducing paved area and characterized the issue as largely site‑specific.

The architect requested that the board consider only the paved area used for parking when applying the 45 percent rule, arguing that parts of the garage are not usable for parking and that pervious pavers were used to minimize new impervious surface. Staff responded that the city calculates the area attributed to parking from the property line and that required parking dimensions (typically up to 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep for two required spots) can be accounted for when determining what is counted as required versus excess paving.

Board members praised aspects of the proposed design. One member said the addition “is secondary to the main house” and noted it was similar to other nearby homes where rear additions have been accepted. Another member asked staff to verify the revised calculations and the board clarified that if the applicant’s new site plan reduced the parking area below 45 percent the variance would not be necessary.

A motion to approve the aesthetic review as submitted passed. The board then approved the variance to increase the rear yard area used for driveway and parking to 49.7 percent as shown on the original plan. Recorded votes included affirmations from board members who announced their votes during the roll call; the board instructed staff to verify final plan calculations and finalize permit paperwork.","The Planning & Zoning Board approved aesthetic review for a rear addition at 1896 West First Avenue and granted a variance allowing rear‑yard area used for driveway and parking to exceed the standard 45 percent, based on staff and applicant calculations and a modified driveway geometry.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6204048,"Applicants revise rear addition and detached garage design; board hears parking and aesthetic concerns",498,377000,875000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3780788-6bf67a10d9e1c44b14b9505d2fdb18f4&start=377&end=875","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3780788-6bf67a10d9e1c44b14b9505d2fdb18f4/thumbnail_377000.jpg","/articles/6204048/Grandview-Heights/Franklin-County/Ohio/Applicants-revise-rear-addition-and-detached-garage-design-board-hears-parking-and-aesthetic-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6204048-35f1e3fe0e4925bcd15c7c06bb704b17/orig.mp4?Expires=1775167560&Signature=KOprbkBKZLYfeeVDcMXMMr0KAylGxPSGPxYYGapzSoShEU5HN8jfB-qylpopXm4lnYFTZmgaN3r7fDfPOtdrj0VUEY-MV6t0d4xsv9OORm4B-AXx6~GAmjpqHuinSv1wnzwBQ56WpnY55qjwvwLvEiBqE94UQPZsVcXdsMOktNAi71-9127c4k8N3AFFQJ7Eq~VDQXW7gq-xmpr1UP~eUK9g0YX9dXK8YQkaaUAkpGq74yZBPL459H-zfpZn3RXhodf0wrrVp1lT51jRWWesuooiRa2T1X8PETkWNf2AkBUAbMYb7o0Vuf2CbhJRtJEM8hXRh2l6gk3Q5678i6ynyg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Applicants for a project on McLean Road told the Grandview Heights Planning & Zoning Board on June 11 that they had added vertical windows, a horizontal trellis and modest roof changes to reduce the apparent mass and respond to earlier comments on aesthetic review and a requested parking-area variance.

The discussion mattered because the board must decide whether the addition and new detached garage are sufficiently “secondary” to the historic house and whether the rear yard area used for driveway and parking exceeds the zoning limit. The applicants asked the board to consider their revised drawings and raised the option of tabling the matter until the commission is at full membership.

At the start of the item, staff noted the board was operating with three members present, and reminded applicants that a variance requires three affirmative votes to pass; a single “no” under the current attendance would mean the variance fails and the applicant would need to submit a new, different request to return. Board members and applicants discussed whether a presentation could be made and then formally tabled; staff said applicants may request tabling but once deliberation has started the board would not accept a tabling request.

Julia Bullock, the project architect, described the design changes presented to address the board’s prior comments: “We added two vertical fenestrated elements and a horizontal trellis,” she said, and noted material choices intended to relate to the existing house, including standing‑seam metal roof elements “which is what’s currently on the house now.” She also said the applicant is preserving two trees and that the design choices reflect that constraint.

Staff and board members focused on three issues: whether the addition reads as secondary to the original house, how the new garage and driveway area are calculated under the code, and the apparent height and massing of the garage’s north elevation. Staff pointed to the design guideline expectation that an addition be smaller in volume than the original structure and noted concerns that a continuous ridgeline could make the new work read as part of the main house. The applicant said proposed materials and a stepped plan are meant to make the addition subordinate and pointed to other nearby examples.

On parking and lot coverage, the applicant and staff exchanged differing interpretations of the code language. The applicant argued the code’s rear‑yard parking limit references driveway and parking area and not the full footprint of an enclosed garage; staff explained that in many calculations the garage and carport square footage have been included when determining the percentage of rear yard used for parking. Board members asked staff to verify the measurements and encouraged the applicant to work quickly if they wished to return with revised plans.

The board and applicants discussed tabling the item. Applicants were told they may request to table the item, but doing so after deliberation begins would not be allowed. Several board members suggested that, given outstanding concerns about height and massing and the limited attendance, tabling until a full board might be prudent. The applicants indicated they would consider revisions and return.

The hearing closed without a final variance vote recorded in the transcript; staff advised that applicants could return with revised drawings and clarified calculations.","Applicants for a rear addition and detached garage on McLean Road described changes to fenestration, rooflines and materials to address an aesthetic review and a parking-area variance; board members debated height, compatibility with Grandview Heights character and whether to table the matter until a full board is present.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board denies large rear‑yard parking increase and garage‑separation variance but approves aesthetic review for revised addition

Board approves porch variance but denies third‑floor aesthetic review for 052025 project

Board approves aesthetic review and grants small parking-area variance for 1896 West First Avenue

Applicants revise rear addition and detached garage design; board hears parking and aesthetic concerns