Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Aesthetic Review Third Floor topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA grants aesthetic approval for third‑floor addition; address discrepancy noted in record
Summary
The board approved aesthetic review for a third‑floor addition under Grandview Heights code, but the transcript shows inconsistent addresses (1117 vs. 1170 Willard Avenue) in the record; staff recommended approval after the applicant reduced dormer size and lowered its profile.
BZA grants aesthetic approval for third‑floor addition; address discrepancy noted in record
The Grandview Heights Board of Zoning Appeals approved an aesthetic review under Grandview Heights zoning code section 11.55.07 for a third‑floor addition on a Willard Avenue property; the meeting record contains inconsistent address references (agenda listed 1117 Willard Avenue, while the approval motion referenced 1170 Willard Avenue).
The applicant, Brenda Parker, described the project as a way to gain usable space for a music studio and explained that the design was revised after prior board comment to reduce the dormer width, lower its height below the ridge, and reduce the number of front windows. Staff reported the revised dormer is narrower (reduced by about 3.5 feet), moved down from the ridge roughly 18 inches, and now presents three windows consistent with the house’s existing fenestration. Staff said the overall height remains compliant with the 35‑foot maximum, recorded as 32.4 feet in the submission, and recommended approval.
One board member raised a code-question on the record about whether the zoning definition of basement and the RS‑1 height rules might interact with allowing a full third floor when a basement is used as a dwelling. The board noted that the issue is a potential housekeeping matter in the code and placed it on staff’s research list; the note did not change the outcome of the aesthetic review.
The board voted to approve BZA case 062025 (aesthetic review for a third‑floor addition). The motion was recorded and seconded; roll call included affirmative acknowledgments recorded as: Kinzinger; Calhoun; Lasusa. The action was recorded as approved.
The approval allows the applicant to proceed with the revised third‑floor design as presented for aesthetic review. Staff and the board emphasized that prior porch and side‑yard variances had been handled separately and that the current item was limited to aesthetic review for the addition. The documented inconsistency in the address between agenda and motion appears in the meeting record and should be corrected in permit files.
