Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies variance for three-car garage at 1364 Westwood Avenue
Summary
The Grandview Heights Board of Zoning Appeals declined a two-part variance request for a detached three‑car garage at 1364 Westwood Avenue, concluding the proposed increases to lot coverage and accessory structure size were larger than the board considered justified; staff had recommended denial citing stormwater and community‑character concerns.
The Grandview Heights Board of Zoning Appeals on April 8 declined a two-part variance request from homeowners Julie Pringer and Adam Knox that would have allowed a detached three‑car garage at 1364 Westwood Avenue.
The applicants sought to increase permitted lot coverage from 40% to 46.2% and to raise the allowed size of an accessory structure from 645 square feet (50% of the primary structure’s foundation area, per code) to 816 square feet to accommodate a three‑car garage. Staff told the board the property is undersized for the RS2 district (5,760 square feet versus a 6,000‑square‑foot standard) and recommended denial. The staff report noted an estimated lot‑coverage overage of about 357 square feet and that stormwater management and maintaining neighborhood character are the purposes of the lot‑coverage limits.
Julie Pringer, the property owner and applicant, described renovating the home and said the family needs covered parking and storage for an expanding household. “We really want to make this a home that we can grow into,” Pringer said, citing winter parking disruptions, grandparents’ visits and safety concerns in the alley behind the house.
Board members focused on whether the applicant had shown the kind of property‑based hardship the zoning code requires for variance relief. Several members called the three‑car request a “very large variance” and urged considering smaller relief. Staff and multiple members pointed to alternatives such as a 645‑square‑foot two‑car garage (which would still require a lot‑coverage variance) combined with a permeable surface pad for an uncovered third space. Staff also noted green‑roofing or permeable pavers could mitigate runoff but would require separate review.
Following discussion, a motion to approve the two requested variances was made and seconded. The vote ledger in the record shows board members voted against the motion and the case (K07‑2026) was declined.
Next steps: the applicants may revise plans and return with a smaller accessory structure or a phased approach (for example, a two‑car garage with a permeable parking surface alongside it) if they wish to pursue reduced relief that the board found more likely to meet variance standards.
