Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Grandview Heights BZA approves variances for garage, driveway at 1460 Lincoln Road

6497750 · October 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Grandview Heights Board of Zoning Appeals approved four variances allowing homeowners to replace a deteriorated one-car garage and pave a small niche area, increasing lot coverage to 41.4% and retaining a stacked parking arrangement.

The Grandview Heights Board of Zoning Appeals on Oct. 9 approved four variances allowing property owners Stephen Murphy and Elise Akbari to replace an existing detached one-car garage and repave a narrow driveway niche at 1460 Lincoln Road.

The board approved requests to increase total lot coverage from 40% to 41.4%; to reduce the south side setback for the accessory structure to 1 foot (from 3 feet); to reduce the required distance between the accessory structure and the primary structure to 5 feet 7 inches (from 10 feet); and to reduce required off-street parking from two spaces to one to reflect the existing stacked configuration. The motion passed 4–0 with one member excused.

The applicants, represented at the podium by Alex Roe, said the project replaces an unsafe, water-damaged garage that previous owners sold “as is.” Roe said the proposed garage will be slightly smaller than the existing structure and that the concrete driveway would replace an existing asphalt surface. “We’re looking to replace an existing, detached 1 car garage… keeping the same footprint, making it slightly smaller,” Roe said.

A staff report presented details of the site and recommended approval of the variances. The report said the existing garage is about 280 square feet and the proposed structure would be 228 square feet; current overall lot coverage is 39.4% and would rise to 41.4%, an overage of about 75 square feet. Staff noted the lot is undersized for the RS-2 zoning district (the lot is about 40 feet wide and 130 feet deep, while RS-2 lots are typically deeper) and that the house’s deep footprint constrains alternative placements for a garage. “The applicants are proposing to replace their existing 280 square foot 1 car garage that is in poor condition with a new 228 square foot 1 car garage,” staff said.

Staff also explained how the portion of the driveway counted toward lot coverage is limited to the area providing access to the required parking space and that the small three-sided niche adjacent to the house is what contributes to the requested lot coverage variance. The applicants told the board they plan stamped decorative concrete for the rear portion of the drive and that an existing downspout will be routed under the new drive to the street.

Board members discussed fire-safety and drainage concerns. Because the proposed garage would sit about 1 foot from the south property line, the garage will be required under the building code to have a fire-rated wall on the side and rear that face the lot line; a board member said a fire-rated wall “will be a vast improvement” over the current exposed wood. Staff noted the new placement would increase the clearance between the primary structure and accessory structure from roughly 2 feet now to 5 feet 7 inches, which staff said improves life-safety separation in the event of a fire.

On the parking variance, staff cited the zoning code definition of a parking space that requires ingress/egress without moving another vehicle; the site currently has stacked parking, a common condition in the neighborhood for older, narrower lots. The board accepted staff’s recommendation and approved all four variance requests. The vote was recorded as: Cunningham — yes; Lasusa — yes; Kownow — yes; Chair Kinzinger — yes. Member Dinospey was listed as excused.

The board had no further business and adjourned. The applicants and staff were told to follow applicable building-permit and fire-code requirements when finalizing construction plans.