MINUTES OF MEETING INDIAN HILL PLANNING COMMISSION. August 18, 2015

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF MEETING INDIAN HILL PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Indian Hill Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Village Administration building. Members Present: Members Absent: Officials Present: Visitors Present: Paul F. Madden Richard C. Wiggers Abbot A. Thayer Joseph W. Rhodenbaugh Rita M. Stolper None Dina C. Minneci, City Manager Jonathan D. West, Assistant City Manager Hal Robertson, Heartwood Builders Tammy Hill, 9176 Old Indian Hill Road Shawn Hill, 9176 Old Indian Hill Road Cecile Drackett Allyn, 4275 Willow Hills Lane Colby Allyn Chapman, 9200 Old Indian Hill Road Jim Grau, 9180 Old Indian Hill Road Mike Wentz, Wentz Design Janet & Bruce Byrnes, 9145 Old Indian Hill Road Tom & Cheryl Cruz, 9105 Old Indian Hill Road Bear Tullis, 1 E. 4 th Street, Cincinnati Nolan Marx, 9005 Old Indian Hill Road Tucker Coombe, 8905 Old Indian Hill Road C. Francis Barrett, 105 E. 4 th Street, Ste. 500, Cincinnati David Meyer, 9230 Old Indian Hill Road Mike Mauch, RWA Architects Michael McInturf, Michael McInturf Architects Adele Schiff, 9050 Old Indian Hill Road Kathy Ciafardini, 9275 Old Indian Hill Road Chris Nordloh, 8701 Old Indian Hill Road Bonnie Bachman, 8825 Old Indian Hill Road Page Busken, 8875 Old Indian Hill Road Carter Randolph, 8225 Spooky Hollow Road Chris Woodside, 6905 Given Road Guity & Ali Razavi, 9100 Old Indian Hill Road Brad & Marsha Lindner, 8835 Old Indian Hill Road Susanna Schwartz, 9075 Old Indian Hill Road

2 Page 2 Gerald & Georgia Lippold, 9150 Old Indian Hill Road Ginger Warner, 8880 Old Indian Hill Road Scott Phillips, Frost Brown Todd, LLC Chairman Madden calls the meeting to order and asks for everyone in attendance to please stand, raise their right hand, and be sworn in prior to presentation of the cases. Item Number 1: Minutes of July 21, 2015 meeting: Chairman Madden asks for comments or corrections to the July 21, 2015 Planning Commission minutes. There being none, Mr. Thayer made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Rhodenbaugh seconded, and the minutes were approved by a unanimous voice vote. Item Number 2: Case # Tabled at July 21, 2015 meeting: Dennis and Tamara Hill are requesting to build a new residence at the minimum 100' front setback per Section 63.1 of the Indian Hill Zoning Ordinance in lieu of the required average setback established by the existing homes at 9150 and 9180 Old Indian Hill Road as required by Section 83 of the zoning ordinance. The subject property is a vacant lot located at 9176 Old Indian Hill Road, Parcel ID: Mr. West reminds those in attendance that this item was tabled at the July 21, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. At the July meeting the Commission asked the applicant to come back after re-evaluating how far the house could be pushed back on the lot, along with meeting with the adjacent property owners. The applicant submitted a revised site plan with a request for a front yard setback of 117' to the front of the front porch and 125' to the closest point of the house. The average setback per Section 83 of the Indian Hill Zoning Ordinance is 145'. Mr. West states that the Planning Commission shall take into consideration all relevant factors bearing upon the proper location of the proposed residence including, but not limited to: 1. The location of existing residences; 2. The date and time such residences were created; 3. The conformity to the front yard requirements of the area in which the lot is located; 4. The terrain of adjoining lots and locations of buildings thereon; 5. The character and other features of applicant s proposed residence; 6. Probable locations of other proposed residences on the same side of the street; 7. Any undue hardship which may result from requiring the front yard depth to be as above provided.

3 Page 3 Mr. West states that the Village s surveyor visited the adjacent properties to verify elevations. The home to the east sits at elevation 755 at the front door, and the home to the west sits at 758. The proposed home will sit at 763 at the front door, which is at the 125' setback. The front door of the proposed home will sit 14' below the centerline of the road. The front door of the home to the east sits 17' below the centerline of the road. The home to the west sits 18' below the centerline of the road. Mr. West adds that an addition was made to the Staff report under number seven (above) which reads The home is built up to the area of the lot that contains 20% or steeper slopes. The Natural Resource Protection Standards in the Subdivision Ordinance requires that 80% of the land that is located on steep slopes (20% or greater) be protected. If this were a lot split or a new subdivision this would apply, but this lot is not subject to those requirements. Since the last meeting, Staff has met with the adjacent property owners to the west (Lippolds) at 9150 Old Indian Hill Road who are in support of the request and have submitted a revised letter which was distributed to the Commission members in their packets. At the last meeting Staff provided the Commission with petitions that were signed by adjacent property owners and other residents on Old Indian Hill Road who are opposed to the request. Staff has been provided with an additional thirteen (13) signatures for a total of thirty-five (35). Mr. West comments that he spoke with Mrs. Gray, who resides across the street at 9175 Old Indian Hill Road. Mrs. Gray was unable to attend tonight s meeting but wants the Commission to know that she is opposed to the request, stating that she has concerns regarding the rural character of the community and would like the Commission to uphold the zoning laws. Mrs. Gray is also concerned about the pine trees being removed from the front of the property at 9176 Old Indian Hill Road. Staff received a letter from Mr. Andy Head, residing at 9225 Old Indian Hill Road stating that he is opposed to the request based on the change to the character of the community and concerns over property values. Mr. Tony Ciafardini, at 9275 Old Indian Hill Road, submitted a letter stating that he is opposed to the request based on the changes it will bring to the rural character of the community. Mr. Marc Manly, residing at 9200 Old Indian Hill Road, submitted a letter opposing the request. Mr. Manly states the following concerns: Asks that the Commission uphold

4 Page 4 the current zoning regulations; states that he has concerns over the quality of construction for the proposed house; feels that the applicant does not have a hardship; notes that there is strong and overwhelming opposition to the request; expresses that he would like the pine trees in the front to remain. Mr. Chris McIntire, residing at 8775 Old Indian Hill Road, also submitted a letter opposing the request based on the effect it would have on the rural character of the community. Mr. Bear Tullis, with Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL, comes before the Commission as legal counsel for the applicant and displays a picture showing the design of the proposed house. Mr. Tullis again reminds those in attendance that the lot in question is a buildable lot, and the applicant has the right to build a home on the lot. The applicant is not requesting a variance, but for the Commission to exercise its right to modify the setback averaging rule in order to ensure the orderly development of the property. As requested, the applicant has reviewed the plans to see how far the house can be moved back on the lot. The updated plans reflect a setback of 117' to the front of the front porch and 125' to the closest point of the house. With the house moving back and becoming closer to the adjacent property owners, the applicant has tried to keep the proposed house as equally as possible between the neighboring houses on each side. The proposed house is shown 124.7' from Mr. Grau s house at 9180 and 102' from the Lippolds house at Mr. Tullis mentions that another concern raised at the July 21, 2015 meeting was regarding the elevation of the proposed home. By moving the house back on the property, they were able to reduce the elevation to 763 at the front door. There will now be a 13' drop from Old Indian Hill Road down to the front door. Mr. Tullis displays a plat showing the topography of the lots in the surrounding area on Old Indian Hill Road and explains that the homes in the area were built on the flattest part of the lots. There are no home owners in the general area who have built their homes on 20% slopes. The new plan reflects the house being moved back as far as it can be without cutting into the 20% grade, which puts it at a setback of 117'. Mr. Tullis makes reference to the comments made about the pine trees in the front not being removed. As mentioned previously, the pine trees will be removed, as that is the most suitable location for the septic system. There is an alternative option for locating the septic system back in the woods. Mr. Tullis states that while this is a possibility, it is not a good idea for a number of reasons.

5 Page 5 Every tree in the path of the septic system would have to be removed, along with all the trees in the septic field, resulting in increased visibility to neighboring properties. As stated in the letter submitted to the Commission by SCS Engineers, the best area for the septic system is in the front due to the physical aspects of the site and soil type. Mr. Tullis notes that the three oak trees in the front of the property will remain; only the pine trees will be removed. The Hills also plan to add more trees between the house and the septic field for additional screening. Mr. Tullis refers to the petition which states that We value the rural character of our area. We believe that a new house placed near the road detracts from the established pastoral nature of our neighborhood. Mr. Tullis notes that the house is not going near the road and points out that many houses on Old Indian Hill Road are much closer to the road than what s being proposed by the applicant. Mr. Tullis displays several slides showing different properties as they developed from being a vacant lot to having homes built on the property. He points out that many trees were removed in order to allow for construction of the homes. Mr. Tullis shows a site plan of 8860 Old Indian Hill Road before and after construction, noting that virtually every tree was removed, a pond was filled in, and a house twice the size of the planned Hill residence was built 100' from the street. He comments that many of the people who signed the petition, including Mr. Grau, bought their houses after the house at 8860 Old Indian Hill Road was built, noting that a much larger house closer to the road was not an issue for these residents at that time. Mr. Tullis addresses comments made by Mrs. Gray who lives at 9175 Old Indian Hill. Mrs. Gray s house is across the street at a setback of 85'. Mrs. Gray expressed concern over privacy and being able to see the Hill s house from her home. Mr. Tullis displays a picture from Old Indian Hill Road facing the Gray s house and states that the pine trees in the front of the Gray s property protects their privacy and view of the proposed Hill home. Mr. Tullis said that there have been comments made concerning the quality of construction and the price the Hills paid for the lot, both of which are irrelevant to where the house is located on the lot. Mr. Tullis notes that Old Indian Hill Road probably has more non-conforming lots than any other street in the Village. The staggering of homes is part of the charm of the neighborhood. Many of the residents who signed the petition have homes that are in the current 100' setback requirement.

6 Page 6 Mr. Mike Wentz, of Wentz Design, reviews the plan revisions and notes that the front door will be about 14' below Old Indian Hill Road; therefore, the house will only be visible from about the gutter line up. Mr. Hal Robertson, with Heartwood Builders, mentions that moving the house back not only adds to the amount of clearing that needs to be done and lessens privacy between neighbors, but it also means there will be more exposed foundation on the home. Mr. Robertson states that the right location for the home is at the 100' setback, but it can be done at 117', and even 145' although he would not recommend the 145' setback due to the amount of cleaning needed, less privacy due to moving the house closer to adjacent properties, and because they would be building the home on 20% slopes. Mrs. Tammy Hill comes before the Commission and states that since the last meeting she and her husband have met with their architect, builder, engineers, Village Staff, the Lippolds, and Mr. Grau in an effort to revise the plans to take into consideration the comments and requests made at the August Planning Commission meeting. Mrs. Hill also notes that their attorney also spoke with Marc Manly, Chris McIntire, and has reached out to other neighbors who have voiced opposition. Mrs. Hill notes that the revised plan offers a compromise, addressing the setback, height of the home, and the proposed clearing of the property. In an effort to preserve as much privacy as possible, the revised plan shows the home placed as equally between the neighbors on each side as possible. Mrs. Hill states that they met with Mr. Grau in an effort to reach a compromise, but he is adamant that the house be placed at a setback of 145' and offered no alternative solution that was fair to all parties involved. Mr. C. Francis Barrett, with Barrett & Weber LPA, comes before the Commission on behalf of Mr. Grau. Mr. Barrett states that he and his client feel the applicant has not been sufficiently responsive to the directive of the Planning Commission. Mr. Barrett notes that the front yard setback was only increased by 17', while the side yard setback on Mr. Grau s side was reduced to 28.31'. Mr. Barrett wants to make sure those in attendance understand that the note mentioned in the Staff report concerning the Natural Resource Protection Standards does not apply in this case. This applies to new subdivisions and lot splits. Even if it did apply to this lot, the requirement states that where you have 20% or greater slopes, 80% of that area must be protected. In this case, even if there is an area of 20% slopes, the encroachment into the area is far less than 20%, being approximately 1 or 2%.

7 Page 7 Mr. Barrett mentions that there has also been reference to a possible mistake that may have been made by someone who previously worked for the Village administration. It s been indicated that the Hills were not fully informed as to whether the setback was 100' or 145'. As a property owner, you are presumed to know what the code states, and you have an obligation to understand it. You cannot rely on any statements made by any employee of a municipality. Further, if an employee of a municipality makes a mistake, it s considered a ministerial act and there s absolutely no liability. This can never be the basis for granting a modification or an approval in any particular case. Mr. Barrett states that the seven factors that the Planning Commission must take into consideration deal mostly not with the subject property but with the neighboring properties. In this case, the neighboring properties are clearly impacted. The seventh factor deals with hardship. The applicant is trying to make a point that there is a hardship that applies. Mr. Barrett implies that this is a self-imposed hardship. It s clear that this is a buildable lot, but when an applicant says that a home that they designed must be built in a particular location on the site, it is considered a self-imposed hardship. Mr. Barrett references a letter submitted to the Commission by Cecile Drackett Allyn. Ms. Allyn talks about how her family had over one hundred acres on Old Indian Hill Road and built four houses. The houses were designed to fit the rural character. They wanted to have privacy and not be intrusive. She notes that in this case there is a large wide house that s so close to Old Indian Hill Road. Although it may be a beautiful house, it s not designed for this lot. Mr. Barrett emphasizes that the intent and purpose of Section 83.1 of the Indian Hill Zoning Ordinance is intended for exactly this type of situation. It s very important to follow the rules and regulations of the zoning ordinance and not set a bad precedent. Mr. Gerald Lippold, at 9150 Old Indian Hill Road, comes before the Commission to clarify his position on the proposed request. Mr. Lippold states that he and his wife were in support of the proposal at the August meeting when the request was for the 100' setback. They are not in support of the house being built at 117' and still feel that the best location for the house is at the 100' setback. Mr. Jim Grau, residing at 9180 Old Indian Hill Road, states that Section 83.1 of the zoning ordinance is there for valid reasons. It provides for proper spacing between homes on the left and right as well as front and back of a property which protects existing home owners. Village Staff has stated that there are no cases where this averaging rule has been waived.

8 Page 8 Mr. Grau makes reference to the application submitted by the Hills, noting that the lot is narrow and deep; however, the Hill s have designed a house that is wide and shallow. The home is not designed to fit the lot. Mr. Grau notes that the application states that at the average setback the house would sit below street level, creating an unusually low house inconsistent with most of the homes on Old Indian Hill Road and specifically the neighboring homes. Mr. Grau argues that most of the homes on Old Indian Hill Road sit below street level. He states that the proposed home at the average setback would be 6' higher than his foundation line and 2' higher than the Lippolds. Another statement in the application is that by moving the house back on the property, it will put it closer to the houses on each side. Mr. Grau notes that it is possible that the house would be slightly closer at the 145' setback. However, the application does not mention that there is a line of woods that angles back allowing for more privacy if the house is at the setback of 145'. Mr. Grau makes reference to Mr. Tullis s comment that eight homes on Old Indian Hill Road are actually closer to the road than the average setback. Mr. Grau notes that three of those are historic homes built prior to 1900 and seven of the eight are pre-war. Mr. Grau expresses that there is a lot of opposition to this request, and the Commission should take that into consideration. Mr. Nolan Marx, residing at 9005 Old Indian Hill Road, comes before the Commission and draws attention to a statement on the Village s webpage that makes reference to the families who live in the Village valuing its rural atmosphere and firm administration of zoning ordinances. Mr. Marx also points out that the Hills proposed home can be built at the 145' setback; it will just cost them more to do so. Mr. Marx makes reference to the Hills stating that they were unaware of the averaging rule at the time they purchased the property. Mr. Marx recites the code from the ordinance regarding the averaging setback and comments that it is very clear. He also notes that the Hill s have had an attorney throughout the purchasing process. Mr. Marx states there is no undue hardship. In this case the hardship is self-imposed. Mr. Marx comments that the lot was purchased at a discounted price of $375,000, knowing that there were existing conditions that would have to be taken into consideration when choosing to build on the lot.

9 Page 9 Mr. Marx addresses a comment concerning many of the homes on Old Indian Hill Road being non-conforming. He notes that they are non-conforming because they predate the zoning ordinance. Mr. Marx argues that the majority of trees that would have to be removed if the house is placed at the 145' setback consist of infected Ash trees, young canopy hardwoods, and shrubs. He feels that it would be better to cut these types of trees down rather than mature, healthy trees that will be removed if the house is placed closer to the road. Mr. Marx states that if the house is moved back to the 145' setback, only a very small corner of the house will sit on the steeper slopes and not the entire house. Mr. Marx comments that there have been no exceptions made in the past where the average setback rule applies. Approving the request before the Commission now would set a new precedent. Mrs. Kathy Ciafardini, at 9275 Old Indian Hill Road, comes before the Commission and makes reference to Mr. Tullis s report stating that a picture was shown of her property and it was stated that the lot was clear cut to allow the home to be built. Mrs. Ciafardini states that only invasive shrubs and dead Ash trees were removed, and all of those were replaced with at least a million dollars worth of landscaping. Mrs. Ginger Warner, residing at 8880 Old Indian Hill Road, makes reference to several comments made during Mr. Tullis s report. She notes that the comment regarding the proximity of some of the homes near the street is directly related to historical homes and homes that predate the zoning ordinance. Mrs. Warner also makes reference to the comment about a pond being filled in on a property. She states that the pond was filled in and a house was built in that same location. A variance was granted by the Planning Commission to allow the house to be built where the pond was once located. Mrs. Warner comments that it has cost her nearly $75,000 to address drainage issues as a result of that house being built in that location. She notes that she is an adjacent property owner to the property she s referencing and did not receive any notice of the hearing prior to this house being built. Mrs. Warner states that she would also like to address another adjacent property and actions the owners were permitted to take. She notes that this property owner clear cut every tree on the property in addition to trees on her property and other neighboring properties. She asks the Commission who tracks how many trees the applicants cut down to prevent this same thing from happening again to their neighboring property owners.

10 Page 10 Chairman Madden explains that if a house fits on the property and all the setbacks are met then it does not come before the Planning Commission. As far as the cutting of trees is concerned, as long as none of the area is protected then a property owner can cut whichever trees they wish on their property. However, they cannot cut trees on neighboring properties. Mrs. Marsha Lindner, residing at 8835 Old Indian Hill Road, states that while she agrees this lot is difficult to build on, she does not feel this particular house is appropriate for the challenges this lot presents. If you want a back yard then a flatter piece of property may be more suited. Otherwise, the difficulty in this lot lies in spending more money to make this house work on this lot. Mrs. Colby Chapman, at 9200 Old Indian Hill Road, states that she has done some of the work in getting residents to sign the petitions that were submitted. She explains that she was very straight forward with everyone she encountered and only contacted people she knew. Ms. Chapman notes that residents on Old Indian Hill Road have a passion and love for the rural character of the road and don t want that to change. Mr. Tullis reminds those in attendance that the applicants are not asking for a side yard variance or any variance at all. The applicants have the right to build right up to the side yard setbacks. Mr. Tullis states that the hardship is not of a financial matter. The hardship is based on the topography of the lot and the effort to remove as few trees as possible. Mr. Tullis points out that to his knowledge through discussions with Mr. West, this is the first time this type of issue has been brought before the Commission, as there are not a lot of homes within 500' of vacant lots in the Village. In addition, this averaging standard does not apply to tear downs. Mr. Tullis makes reference to Mr. Grau s comment concerning the purpose of this rule. Mr. Tullis notes that Mr. Grau stated that it was to treat each of the adjacent neighbors equally. Mr. Tullis states that placing the house at a setback of 117' places the house 103' from the Lippold s and 124' from Mr. Grau. If the house is pushed back to a setback of 145' then the house will be only 81' from the Lippold s house. Therefore, if the averaging rule is enforced as written, the Hills house will be closer to the Lippold s house, which does not treat these neighbors equally. Mr. Tullis comments that the zoning code states that this rule is intended to be modified when it makes sense. The applicants are asking the Planning Commission to exercise the right that s been given to it in the zoning ordinance.

11 Page 11 Mr. Barrett states that after reviewing the report from SCS Engineers it s clear that the recommendation to put the septic system in the front yard is due to the fact that it will be a lot less expensive. Mr. Barrett comments that predictability and certainty have always been the hallmark of the Indian Hill Zoning Ordinance. It s very important to the residents that these rules be upheld. Mrs. Stolper makes reference to the plans and asks if there is a creek behind the property. Mr. Tullis replies that the area being referred to is the natural watershed that the applicants are trying to protect. Mrs. Stolper comments that the further the house is pushed back, the more the watershed will be affected. She feels this should be taken into consideration as it relates to drainage. Mr. Wentz notes that the further the house is pushed back, not only does it affect the clearing but it also affects the grades that push into the natural drainage swales. Mr. Wiggers comments that the site dramatically slopes down into a very deep ravine. Mr. Wiggers states that he feels it s an undue hardship to force the Hills to push the house back to the average setback because it would place the house too far down in the ravine. He notes that if this were a flat site or a site with a promontory, the average setback rule might be appropriate for this case. The undue hardship of the site s steep slopes outweighs the neighbors concerns that the 100' setback puts the house too close to the road. After further discussion, Mrs. Stolper made a motion to approve the request. Mr. Wiggers seconded, and the motion was approved by a roll call vote with Mr. Wiggers, Mr. Madden, Mr. Rhodenbaugh, and Mrs. Stolper voting to approve the request and Mr. Thayer voting to deny the request. Item Number 3: Case #15-009: Geoff and Shellie Leder are requesting variance approval for the construction of a screen porch addition to the rear of the home and garage addition to the front of the home. The property is located at 7755 Surreyhill Lane. The applicant is requesting a variance to the rear yard and front yard setbacks. Chairman Madden states that the applicant is requesting to table the item for one month. Mr. Thayer made a motion to table the item until the September Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Wiggers seconded, and the motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote.

12 Page 12 Item Number 4: Case #15-010: Greenacres Foundation, at 8400 Blome Road, is requesting special exception approval under the continuing jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to remodel the old Kennel apartment and build education space and restrooms. Dr. Carter Randolph, President of the Green Acres Foundation, comes before the Commission and states that they are requesting approval to construct a horticultural education building to support mission related activities and programs. Dr. Randolph states that the building is sited more than 1000' from the closest property line and is not visible from other properties. The new building will be used for garden programs that currently take place in the greenhouse and at 8255 Spooky Hollow Road. The building will also provide ample restroom space for the equine program and other programs in the area. The building will also have a small kitchen that will qualify as a catering kitchen as there will be events where food is served. Dr. Randolph comments that the only expected change in traffic is one car and two school busses Monday thru Friday and on an occasional weekend. Staff Report: Mr. West reviews previous Planning Commission actions as follows: The Planning Commission granted a special exception to the Greenacres Foundation at the December 19, 1989 meeting for properties to be used as a place of public assembly. The approval included environmental, agricultural, educational, and cultural activities. April 20, 2004 The Planning Commission approved a special exception request with conditions to permit using the main house of Winding Creek Farm, located at 8400 Blome Road, as a Place of Public Assembly, including educational classes, meetings, agricultural activities, and learning center. June 21, 2011 The Greenacres Foundation requested special exception approval for the construction of an indoor riding arena adjacent to the existing greenhouse located at 8255 Spooky Hollow Road. The Commission approved the project. March 18, 2014 The Greenacres Foundation requested special exception approval for the renovations and conversion of an existing farmhouse at 8500 Spooky Hollow Road into an educational facility for environmental education. The Commission approved the project, and it is currently under construction.

13 Page 13 Mr. West states that the Greenacres Foundation operates under the continuing jurisdiction of the Planning Commission as an approved special exception per Section of the Indian Hill Zoning Ordinance. The Greenacres Foundation is proposing to renovate the Kennel apartment and construct an addition for garden education classes, restrooms, office space, and a kitchen. The building is located in the middle of the 200+ acre property adjacent to the existing horse stables, greenhouse, and indoor riding arena. Mr. West states that the existing Kennel apartment building is approximately 835 square feet and is currently vacant. The proposed addition will be 2973 square feet. The existing building will be turned into office, laundry, and storage space. The garden education program offices are currently located in different buildings and will be consolidated into this space. The building addition will contain a classroom, kitchen, and bathroom facilities. This space will be used for the garden education building as well as the equestrian programs. Site improvements include the installation of sidewalks, parking, and lighting for safety purposes. The addition will be one story, matching the architecture of the existing building. The roof will be green standing seam metal, matching the Greenacres building standard. The building will total approximately 3,800 square feet when complete. The Fire Department commented that the occupancy use group assigned through the building permit process will be key in determining the requirements for exits, occupancy limit, and the need for a hood and suppression system for the kitchen and classroom. Mr. West notes that the applicant has met the 12 Standards for Special Exception as outlined in the Staff report. The garden education building is located in the center of the Greenacres campus and will not be visible from adjacent properties. Staff has properly notified the adjacent property owners and did not receive any comments. Staff recommends approval of the special exception with the condition that Staff review and approve the details on the exterior light fixtures. Mr. Wiggers suggests that it would be helpful for the Planning Commission to receive a master plan for Greenacres. Dr. Randolph comments that currently they have the project that s under construction on Spooky Hollow and two other projects that have been approved for building by the

14 Page 14 board. One is the one before the Commission now, and the other is in Milford. There are no set plans in place beyond these projects. Dr. Randolph states that it would be difficult to submit a master plan because each time you assess a building you learn different things about what you can and can t do as well as what additions or programs might be successful. Mr. Rhodenbaugh comments that a concern the Commission has had in the past is that with incremental projects each one can have a small impact on traffic. It can make it difficult to see what the cumulative effect is on traffic in the area. Mr. Wiggers asks that the next time the Greenacres Foundation comes before the Commission, Dr. Randolph give an overview of all the projects they have done and the impact on traffic in those areas. Mr. Thayer made a motion to approve the special exception request. Mr. Rhodenbaugh seconded, and the motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote. Item Number 5: Case #15-011: Cincinnati Country Day School, located at 6905 Given Road, is requesting special exception approval under the continuing jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to construct a new Early Childhood Center on the north side of the campus, extend the existing north access drive back to the Early Childhood Center, and provide an area for parent drop off/pick up. Mr. Michael McInturf, with Michael McInturf Architects, comes before the Commission on behalf of Cincinnati Country Day School and states that he has David Toombs with him from his office and Chris Wood, the Director of Development for Cincinnati Country Day School. Mr. McInturf displays a site plan and states that they are seeking approval for an Early Childhood Center that will be approximately 5500 square feet above grade in addition to a basement. He explains that the main floor consists of four classrooms, a main activity space called the muscle room, a teacher s area, and a kitchen. The lower level of the building will be used for storage. Mr. McInturf displays several pictures and gives an overview of the campus area and previously approved projects. Staff Report: Mr. West reviews previous Planning Commission actions as follows: March 20, 1984 Cincinnati Country Day School requested special exception approval to permit the use of the property at 7125 Given Road

15 Page 15 to be used for an Early Childhood Education Program. There were some conditions for approval which included a maximum of 30 students. April 16, 2013 Cincinnati Country Day School requested special exception approval to renovate the Lower School, which included a new front entry, second floor mezzanine, and interior renovations. The Commission approved the project with the condition that the ground lighting plan and canopy lighting plan be reviewed and approved by Staff prior to installation. October 21, 2014 Cincinnati Country Day School requested special exception approval to construct a new maintenance facility and storage area to replace the existing maintenance facility. The Commission approved the project with the condition that a drawing with dimensioned setbacks be shared with the adjacent property owner and that staff would review and approve a final landscaping plan. The master plan for future building and grounds improvements to the campus was also presented; no action was taken by the Planning Commission. Cincinnati Country Day School operates under the continuing jurisdiction of the Planning Commission as an approved special exception. Section per the Indian Hill Zoning Ordinance requires that the Commission review and approve all applications for site clearance before issuance. Cincinnati Country Day School is proposing to construct a new Early Childhood Center on the north side of the campus where the current maintenance facility is located. The existing Early Childhood Center operates out of the house at 7125 Given Road, which is located on a separate parcel just north of the proposed building and campus. The new facility will serve approximately 48 students each day (existing facility was approved for a maximum of 30 students), Monday thru Friday. The students will range in age from 18 months to three years old. Currently 37% are Indian Hill residents ( school year), where a minimum of 20% is required. Mr. West states that the new Early Childhood Center will be approximately 5500 square feet with four classrooms, a main activity area, kitchen, and additional space for the faculty for meetings and desks. The lower level will provide for storage and a laundry room. Access to the basement for deliveries will be provided by a ramp that will be screened by the landscape berm. There are two elevations proposed for the roofline. One design includes monitors, which allow for a taller ceiling and natural light to enter the classrooms. The second design contains a standard flat roof design. The monitor design provides for a 17'1" building height, and the flat roof design provides for a 12' building height.

16 Page 16 The storm water plan was reviewed and approved by the Village Project Manager. The plan meets the requirements of the storm water regulations. A new underground storm water storage system will store 3,600 C.F. and then be disbursed into the existing storm water sewer system. Landscaping, site lighting, and the nature playscape plans will be brought in at a later date for Planning Commission review and approval. Staff notes that new water, electric, and gas service will be provided that will run from Given Road west to the proposed Early Childhood Center. Staff would like to review and approve a site clearing plan to see what trees will be cleared. Alterations may need to be made to the utility locations to avoid large trees and disruption of natural landscape and screening from Given Road. An existing bridle trail is located along the north property line in a recorded easement to Camargo Realty per the original deed when Cincinnati Country Day School purchased the property from Camargo Realty. There is a bridle trail spur that connects to Given Road in a second location that was located for site distance for the riders. Cincinnati Country Day School is proposing to relocate the east-west bridle trail along the north property line and remove the spur. Staff does not have any issues with the east-west bridle trail being relocated subject to Camargo s approval and subject to it being placed in a bridle trail easement and relocated into the north woods and not across the landscape berms as shown. In addition, the south spur should not be removed as it was located to improve site distance for the riders. The Indian Hill Water Works has reviewed the preliminary plans and will require that the final plans meet the Indian Hill Water Works and Madeira Indian Hill Joint Fire District standards. The Madeira Indian Hill Joint Fire District has the following comments: 1. The building may require a sprinkler system and an associated fire department connection with an associated hydrant. 2. Fire protection system components depend on an adequate water supply/pressure. 3. The structure will require a fire hydrant within 400 feet. Staff properly notified all adjacent property owners and did not receive any comments. Due to prior agreements between Cincinnati Country Day School and Mr. and Mrs. Robert Lindner across the street, school officials met with the Lindner s regarding the subject project. The Lindner s have submitted a letter of support. Staff finds that the applicant meets the 12 Standards for Special Exception and recommends the special exception be granted with the following conditions:

17 Page Meet Indian Hill Water Works and Madeira Indian Hill Joint Fire District requirements. 2. Submit a Landscaping Plan, Nature Playscape Plan, and Lighting Plan for review and approval by the Planning Commission. 3. Submit a clearing plan with a detailed tree inventory for Staff review/approval to make sure the proposed utility work does not remove the existing screening/buffering from Given Road, prior to the issuance of a site clearance release. 4. Work with Village Staff regarding the location of the bridle trails and provide recorded easements to the Village. Mr. Thayer asks how Staff monitors the number of students to ensure that at least 20% are Indian Hill residents. Mr. West replies that in past special exception approvals he has seen where a school was required to provide Staff with a list annually showing the percentage of students who were residents of Indian Hill in order to ensure that at least 20% were residents. However, he has not come across any type of requirement like this specifically for Cincinnati Country Day School. Mr. Wood notes that currently 42% of students are Indian Hill residents. After brief discussion, Mr. Thayer made a motion to approve the special exception request with the four conditions stated above. Mrs. Stolper seconded, and the motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote. There being no further business to come before the Commission, Mr. Thayer made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Wiggers seconded, and the motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Paul F. Madden, Chairman ATTEST: Dina C. Minneci, Secretary