Planning Commission Meeting

MINUTES OF MEETING INDIAN HILL PLANNING COMMISSION August 21, 2024 The regular meeting of the Indian Hill Planning Commission was held on August 21, 2024 at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers of the Village Administration building. Members Present: Richard Wiggers Joseph Rhodenbaugh Rita Stolper Barrett Tullis Donald McGraw Members Absent: Shayne Manning Officials Present: Jonathan West, Assistant City Manager Visitors Present: Chris & Elizabeth Hardy, 8670 Hopewell Road Mike Wentz, Wentz Design Dennis & Tammy Schuler, 8120 Shawnee Run Road Dudley Bogart, 8800 Hopewell Road Frank & Rosemary Welsh, 8660 Hopewell Road Michael Picton, 8140 Shawnee Run Road Kelsey Bendel, Wentz Design Item Number 1: Minutes and findings from the July 17, 2024 Indian Hill Planning Commission meeting: Mr. Rhodenbaugh made a motion to approve the July 17, 2024 minutes and findings. Mr. McGraw seconded, and the motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote. Chairman Wiggers asks for anyone planning to speak this evening to please stand, raise their right hand, and be sworn in prior to presentation of the cases. Item Number 2: Case #24-005: Christopher Hardy is requesting variance approval from Section 63.2 of the Indian Hill Zoning Ordinance to reduce the side yard setback for pool equipment from 20' to 4.5'. The pool equipment would be located behind an existing non-conforming structure. The subject property is located at 8670 Hopewell Road. Mr. Chris Hardy, residing at 8670 Hopewell Road, comes before the Commission and states that the house he purchased originally sat on 150 acres and was built in the 1930’s. During the 1980’s the lots were subdivided which resulted in the non- conforming accessory structure being 3.2' over the right side property line. Mr. Hardy explains that when they originally planned for the pool they were going to do a driveway on the right side where the pool is currently located and place the pool Village of Indian Hill Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 21, 2024 Page 2 behind the house where their current driveway exists; however, a neighbor had an issue with how they wanted to do the driveway so they decided against this plan. They then decided on the proposed location for the pool and hired a pool company who pulled all the permits, but after a year still did not break ground on the new pool. Mr. Hardy explains that due to the continued delays, they chose to go with a different pool company and moved forward with construction of the pool in its current location. Mr. Hardy notes that he told the pool company to put all the pool equipment behind the existing structure so it would not be visible by most neighbors. They were just finishing up the landscaping when they were notified that there was an issue with the accessory structure. Mr. Hardy states that he realizes they are in the wrong, but is requesting a variance based on this being a hardship. He adds that if they move the pool equipment 10' over it will be in view of all his neighbors. They also plan to put a 4' fence around the equipment and add landscaping. Staff Report: Mr. West states that the applicant is requesting variance approval to allow the existing pool equipment to remain 4.5' to the side lot line where a minimum of 20' is required in zoning District “A” per Section 63.2 of the zoning ordinance. The pool equipment is located on a concrete pad behind an existing non-conforming brick shelter. Staff issued the pool permit; however, the site plan did not include the location of the pool equipment. An adjoining property owner contacted the Village regarding the placement of the pool equipment. Upon inspection, staff notified the property owner that the pool equipment did not meet the accessory structure setback requirements per Section 63.2 of the zoning ordinance. The property owner filed for the variance. The brick shelter sits 165' from the street and 210' from the rear lot line. The brick shelter is 3.2' over the right-side property line and is part of the original home built in 1931. The home was on 155 acres before the property was subdivided in the 80’s. The property contains 5.405 acres and is located in zoning District “A” – five acre minimum. The applicant has stated that the variance application is based on undue hardship. Mr. West notes that the four variance review criteria were listed in the staff report previously distributed to the Planning Commission and available this evening. Staff was contacted by four of the adjacent property owners. The property owner to the east was not opposed to the variance subject to screening and landscaping being installed to block their view of the pool equipment. The two property owners to the north called to understand the specific details of the request. After an explanation was given, they did not have any comments. The property owner across the street inquired about Village of Indian Hill Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 21, 2024 Page 3 the request and upon understanding that the existing pool equipment was screened from his view by the brick shelter, he was favorable to the request. Mrs. Rosemary Welsh, residing at 8660 Hopewell Road, comes before the Commission and notes that she is the neighbor who will see the pool equipment all the time. Mrs. Welsh notes that she has two comments related to the application and staff report: 1. The application indicates that new houses on the lots were positioned close to the property lines on the side and front which created an issue with the existing building that is now non-conforming. Mrs. Welsh points out that is wasn’t the neighbors who created the issue. All homes surrounding the Hardy’s property were built within the guidelines of the zoning code. The issue is not the location of the surrounding homes, but the location of the pool equipment. 2. The staff report notes that neighbors do not object to the variance provided that there’s appropriate landscaping and screening. Mrs. Welsh explains that when she and Mr. Hardy spoke they discussed landscaping, not a fence. She asks that if the Commission is inclined to approve the variance request, that it be conditioned upon screening by live plants at least 4’ in height on the two sides of the structure facing her property. Mr. Dudley Bogart, at 8800 Hopewell Road, comments that he does not have any objection to this specific variance request; however, he has concerns regarding the precedent this may be setting. Mr. Rhodenbaugh asks who is responsible for maintaining the portion of the structure that’s not on Mr. Hardy’s property. Mr. Hardy states that he has been and will continue to maintain the entire structure if the variance request is approved. Mr. Tullis comments that he feels it makes sense to grant the requested variance. In regards to setting a precedent, Mr. Tullis notes that every piece of property and case is unique. Many variances that come before the Commission are not granted, but there are times when it makes sense to deviate from the established setbacks. In addition, the neighbors are in favor of the request if proper landscaping is added. Chairman Wiggers states that if this had come before the Commission beforehand, it probably would not have been approved as there are other places on the property to put the pool equipment. He feels it does not meet all four criteria for approval of a variance. He also has concerns about it setting a precedent. Village of Indian Hill Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 21, 2024 Page 4 Mr. Tullis comments that the standard is not whether or not there are alternative options, but is there a hardship which makes it not comply, as there is in this case. The Hardys could actually put the pool equipment in the middle of the yard and it would comply with the zoning code; however, that would not be the best end result for the neighbors or the Hardys and is not in spirit with the intent of the zoning code. Mrs. Stolper points out that they’re not faced with someone coming before the Commission stating that this particular location is where the structure should go, the structure is already there which makes a difference. This is an unusual case that does present a hardship. Mrs. Stolper expresses that she is in favor of approval if the structure is properly screened. Mr. McGraw adds that if the pool equipment is moved it will be equally, if not more visible to the neighbors. Mr. McGraw made a motion to approve the requested variance with the condition that adequate landscaping be added and reviewed by staff. Mr. Tullis seconded, and the motion was approved by a four to one vote with Mr. McGraw, Mr. Tullis, Mrs. Stolper, and Mr. Rhodenbaugh voting in favor of approval, and Chairman Wiggers voting against. Item Number 3: Case #24-008: Mike Wentz, on behalf of Michael Picton, is requesting variance approval from Section 73.1 of the Indian Hill Zoning Ordinance to reduce the right-side yard setback from 20' to 9.7'. The subject property contains a non-conforming home on a non-conforming lot located at 8140 Shawnee Run Road. Mr. Mike Wentz, with Wentz Design, comes before the Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Wentz states that the Pictons currently have a large stamped concrete patio that’s in excess of 1000 SF. They would like to replace the patio with 856 SF of covered living space, reducing the lot coverage. Mr. Wentz states that there’s an existing deck that comes off the back that will be removed. There was a second story deck that has since been removed due to being in a state of disrepair. Staff Report: Mr. West states that the property history was detailed in the staff report previously distributed to the Commission. The subject property is located on the north side of Shawnee Run Road between North Clippinger and Adams Avenue in zoning District “C” – one acre minimum. The lot is non-conforming due to the lot area being 0.51 acres where 1.0 acre minimum is required and a lot width/frontage of 85.42' where a minimum of 150' is required. The existing home was built in 1917 and is non-conforming due to not meeting the required front and right side yard setback requirements. The home is located 9.4' from the right Village of Indian Hill Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 21, 2024 Page 5 (east) side yard and 29.6' from the front lot line where 75' minimum is required. The existing lot coverage is 37.6% where a maximum of 25% is permitted. The applicant is requesting variance approval to raze the existing two-story porch and concrete patio and construct an 856 SF covered living area setback 9'-8 1/4" from the right side yard where a minimum of 20' is required per Section 73.1 of the zoning ordinance. The proposed setback does not worsen the existing non-conforming right side yard setback of 9'-5". The proposed addition reduces the non-conforming lot coverage from 37.6% to 34.9% where a maximum of 25% is permitted per Section 74 of the Indian Hill Zoning Ordinance. The variance application is based on exceptional practical difficulty created by the existing non-conforming home on a non-conforming lot. Mr. West notes that the four variance review criteria were listed in the staff report previously distributed to the Planning Commission and available this evening. Staff posted the legal notice in the paper and by direct mail prior to the hearing. Staff was contacted by the adjacent property owner with concerns about storm water runoff from the addition and wanting to make sure the downspouts do not directly discharge onto their property. Mr. West provided the Commission with historic aerial photos going back to 1996 to show changes to the property that have occurred over time. Mrs. Tammy Schuler, residing at 8120 Shawnee Run Road, comes before the Commission and states that they have dealt with ongoing runoff issues since 2006. She notes that they have lost trees and have spent thousands of dollars attempting to remedy the situation. She fears the proposed changes to the subject property will just increase the runoff onto their property, creating even more drainage problems. Mr. Schuler states that they have lost at least five trees and several shrubs in the past ten years. He adds that there is construction taking place on the other side of their property as well, so they are being inundated with water from both sides. Mr. Wentz comments that they will be adding gutters to the entire new structure which will tie into the existing underground gutter downspout system that drains towards Shawnee Run Road. After further discussion, Mr. Tullis made a motion to approve the requested variance subject to review and approval of the storm water plan by staff. Mrs. Stolper seconded, and the motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote with all members voting in favor of approval. Village of Indian Hill Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 21, 2024 Page 6 Item Number 4: Case #24-009: Nicholas and Nicole Estock are requesting approval to relocate the existing bridle trail easement between Lots 38 and 39 to the south side of Lot 39 and to swap the resource protection area easements between the new and existing bridle trail easement locations. The properties are located at 15 and 20 Schoolhouse Lane in the Meadows of Peterloon Subdivision, Phase 2. Staff Report: Mr. West states that the request is to relocate 6,009 SF of existing resource protection area (mature canopy forest) for 11,105 SF (mature canopy forest) to accommodate the relocation of the bridle trail easement. The homeowner would like to relocate the bridle trail easement so it is located on the garage side of the home, providing more privacy for the homeowner. The new bridle trail location is preferred by the Village. Staff mailed out the legal notice and have not been contacted by any adjoining property owners. Staff notes that the Planning Commission has been favorable to resource protection area swap requests when: 1. The Village ends up with more resource protection area; and 2. The Village receives higher quality resources protected. After brief discussion, Mrs. Stolper made a motion to approve the request. Mr. Rhodenbaugh seconded, and the motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote. There being no further business to come before the Commission, Mr. McGraw made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Rhodenbaugh seconded, and the motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Richard Wiggers, Chairman ATTEST: Jonathan D. West, Secretary Pro-tem