MINUTES OF MEETING - The Village of Indian Hill

MINUTES OF MEETINGINDIAN HILL PLANNING COMMISSIONSEPTEMBER 20, 2005The regular meeting of the Indian Hill Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,September 20, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. in the auditorium of the Indian Hill Primary School locatedat 6207 Drake Road.Members Present:Members Absent:Officials Present:Officials Absent:Visitors Present:Paul F. MaddenRichard C. WiggersJane G. KoppenhoeferCharles E. ReynoldsDavid T. OttenjohnNoneMichael W. Burns, City ManagerGeorge C. Kipp, Project ManagerDavid M. Couch, Assistant City ManagerAndre Affatato, 5550 Miami RoadJeanie Affatato, 5550 Miami RoadDoug Ratterree, Robert Lucke Homes, Inc.Janet M. Gould, The Walnut GroupRachael RoweJoyce WillisJim Beck, Armstrong ChapelB. David Fish, 8380 Indian Hill RoadHelen Kereiakes, 5075 Drake RoadJim Kereiakes, 5075 Drake RoadLynne Schneebeck, 7540 Indian Hill RoadSusan Siemer, Armstrong ChapelGeorge Besuden, 6735 Tupelo LaneWells Coalfleet, 5155 Indian RunE. Michael Callan, 8440 Hopewell RoadAnne Stokley, 5350 Stonebarn RoadJanet Bell, Barrett & WeberPatrick Nesbitt, 4855 Burley Hills DriveKennedy B. Matter, 8385 Indian Hill RoadMuhammad Al-Lamadani, 5605 Pamlico LanePatricia H. Krehbiel, 7692 Cayuga DriveSteve Krehbiel, 7692 Cayuga DriveBryan Sanneman, Sanneman HomesSteve Ashbrock, Madeira & Indian Hill Joint Fire DistrictSteve Waxler, 8200 Indian Hill RoadTroy Blackburn, 5155 Stonebarn Road

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 2Erin Hively, 394 Wards Corner Road, Suite 117Bill Woeste, Jr., 8100 Varner RoadBean Parry, 7400 Indian Hill RoadMary Ida Compton, 4980 Miami RoadKathryn Al-Lamadani, 5605 Pamlico LanePeg Gillespie, 8760 Old Indian Hill RoadGreg Miller, 7690 Cayuga DriveJoe Rhodenbaugh, 8155 Indian Hill RoadMrs. Charles Spear, 8350 Eustisfarm LaneMrs. O. H. Coffman, 5055 Drake RoadJohn B. Scola, Cincinnati Bell WirelessNick Stevens, Cincinnati Bell WirelessPat McIlvenna, Cincinnati Bell WirelessMichele Fleming, Barrett & WeberSteve Overberg, Viox ServicesFeoshia Henderson, Cincinnati EnquirerMichael Zalzal, 5560 Miami RoadCheryl Zalzal, 5560 Miami RoadW. Roger Fry, 7920 Brill RoadPaula Watters, 8340 Indian Hill RoadVictoria LeBlond, 7815 Shawnee Run RoadNancy Stix, 5255 Indian Heights DriveCharles Stix, 5255 Indian Heights DriveElizabeth Bieser, 5150 Drake RoadRick Bieser, 5150 Drake RoadGalen Mills, 7600 Brill RoadRusty Myers, Cincinnati Capital PropertiesJeff Heller, 7555 Algonquin DriveTerrence Donnellon, Donnellon, Donnellon & MillerNoah Fleischmann, 5650 Drake RoadHugh Brandt, 6550 Shawnee Ridge LaneTom Breidenstein, 105 East Forth StreetGerold Von Deylen, 9140 Indian RidgeVictoria Watters, 7815 Shawnee Run RoadJim Gould, 5250 Drake RoadChairman Madden called the meeting to order and asked for comments or corrections to theminutes of the August 16, 2005 meeting. There being none, Mrs. Koppenhoefer made amotion to approve the minutes. Mr. Wiggers seconded, and the minutes were approved bya unanimous voice vote.Item Number 1: The Twin Lakes Development Company is requesting approval of the finalplat for “Twin Lakes at Indian Hill Subdivision” located along Hopewell Road.Mr. Ottenjohn recused himself from the case involving Twin Lakes at Indian Hill Subdivision.

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 3Mr. Rusty Myers, with Cincinnati Capital Properties, comes before the Commission, andstates that they have nothing to add unless the Commission has questions concerning thefinal plat.Staff Report: Mr. George Kipp states that the Planning Commission approved severalminor revisions to the preliminary plat at the August 16, 2005 meeting. Staff finds that thefinal plat is unchanged from the preliminary plan that was submitted and approved at theAugust 16, 2005 meeting. The final plat also includes the following notations:1) Responsibility of private sewer and effluent easements2) Ingress/egress and utility easements3) Natural resource protected areas4) Private detention/retention drainage easement5) Green AreasThe Village Engineer has approved the final plat, and Staff finds that it meets therequirements of the Indian Hill Subdivision Ordinance.Mr. Mike Callan, residing at 8440 Hopewell Road, asks the Commission if rental property isallowed, as a development, in Indian Hill, and if so, is this subdivision the largest rentaldevelopment in Indian Hill.Mr. Burns replies that the Indian Hill Zoning Ordinance does not distinguish between ownedand rented property, and that these six homes sites are most likely the largest rentalcommunity within the Village of Indian Hill.Mr. Reynolds made a motion to approve the final plat for Twin Lakes at Indian HillSubdivision. Mrs. Koppenhoefer seconded, and the motion was approved by a unanimousvoice vote.Mr. Ottenjohn rejoined the meeting.Item Number 2: Mr. & Mrs. Andre Affatato, residing at 5550 Miami Road, are requestingPlanning Commission approval to construct a new dwelling on a non-conforming lot ofrecord.Mr. Andre Affatato comes before the Commission and states that, although the majority ofhis neighbors are in agreement with the proposed plans, Mr. & Mrs. Zalzal have concerns.Mr. Affatato comments that he has met with the Zalzal’s several times to review the plans.However, the Zalzal’s are still concerned that the construction of the new home willdevaluate the property in the neighborhood.Mr. Affatato states that he had Willingham Associates, Inc. evaluate the proposal. Mr.Affatato comments that they believe the property would double in value, thereforeincreasing the tax base of the Village.

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 4Mr. Affatato mentions that the Zalzal’s are also concerned about the location of theproposed home relative to the existing home. They are concerned that they will not havethe view of Mr. Affatato’s back yard, but rather a view of buildings on both sides of theirhome.Mr. Affatato states that he has reviewed the Indian Hill Zoning Ordinance and feels he’swithin his rights in placing the new home further back on the property.Staff Report: Mr. Kipp states that the property is located in District “C” – one acre and is anon-conforming lot of record containing .8521 acres. The lot frontage is 90' and fails tomeet the 150' frontage requirement for District “C”.The existing house is located in a conforming location, meeting all the required setbacksand is situated 119.2' from the front right-of-way line. The proposed new one story dwellingis to be located 178.29' from the front right-of-way line and will meet all setbackrequirements. The Affatato’s would like to live in the existing home until the proposed newdwelling is completed and then the existing home will be razed.The next-door neighbor to the north side of the property is opposed to the proposed newdwelling being located further back on the lot. They state that the new location willnegatively impact their property value and block their rear view.Since the property is a non-conforming lot of record, the Commission is required to approvea new location for the dwelling per Section 53. Non-conforming Uses – 53.1 No nonconforminguse of a structure of land shall be changed to another non-conforming use,unless authorized by the Planning Commission as provided in 101.42(2) of the Indian HillZoning Ordinance.The Commission has ruled favorably to similar requests in the past where they found nonegative impact on adjacent property owners. In the following two cases, the Commissionapproved the request by the applicants to relocate their house further back from the front lotline on a non-conforming lot of record. However, in both cases there were no objectionsfrom neighbors.1) Mr. & Mrs. Blackwelder at 6325 Miami Road – the Commission approved a side yardvariance and approved the location of the house to be located at 75' from the frontright-of-way line. The decision placed the house further back from the adjacentproperties.2) Christopher Robins at 7365 Drake Road – the Commission approved the relocationof the new dwelling on a non-conforming lot of record. The Commission noted thatthe new house may be located further to the rear of the lot, meeting the requiredsetbacks.

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 5In making their decision, the Commission may want to consider Section 83. Front YardExceptions of the Indian Hill Zoning Ordinance. Section 83.1 states “When an applicationfor a building permit is made to construct a residence between two existing residences onthe same side of the street, where such existing residences are 500 feet or less from eachother, the least depth of the front yard of such new residence shall be the average depth ofthe existing front yards of such existing buildings or the required setback for the districts inwhich the applicant’s lot is located, whichever is the greater distance.If the applicant desires to locate such proposed residence at any other location, theapplicant shall make an application to the Planning Commission to otherwise locate suchproposed residence. Upon such application, and in order to assure orderly development ofthe land and provide for the health and safety of the community, the Planning Commissionshall take into consideration all relevant factors bearing upon the proper location of suchproposed residence including, but not limited to, the location of existing residences, the dateand time such residences were created, the conformity to the front yard requirements of thearea in which the lot is located, the terrain of adjoining lots and locations of buildingsthereon, the character and other features of applicant’s proposed residence, and probablelocations of other proposed residences on the same side of the street and any unduehardship which may result from requiring the front yard depth to be as above provided. Ifthe application to otherwise locate such proposed residence is denied such residence shallbe located as above provided in the first paragraph of this Section 83.1.”The Planning Commission has previously interpreted Section 83.1 of the Indian Hill ZoningOrdinance to allow a new dwelling to be constructed at a greater depth within the front yardsetback, but no closer than the least depth of the required front yard setback as long as thelocation was not injurious to the adjacent properties.Mr. Kipp ends his report by stating that Staff has properly notified all adjacent propertyowners and has received only one response. Mr. & Mrs. Zalzal, residing at 5560 MiamiRoad, state that they are opposed to the approval of the plans as submitted.Mr. Madden states that he has several concerns related to the height, location, andpositioning of the proposed dwelling. The plans show that the new house will sit severalfeet higher than surrounding homes in the area. The topography of the land also addsadditional concerns relating to the height of the structure.Mr. Madden comments that he’s also concerned about the location of the driveway as itrelates to privacy and sweeping of headlights upon the neighbor on the north side of theproposed dwelling.Mr. Affatato states that his existing driveway extends beyond the solarium and side porch ofhis neighbors house, and that he currently pulls his car past this area now. He feels thishas not been a problem due to the foliage between the properties. Mr. Affatato states thathe is willing to add any additional landscaping to ensure privacy between the properties.

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 6Mr. Affatato introduces his builder, Doug Ratterree, with Robert Lucke Homes, Inc. Mr.Ratterree comments that the new home is a ranch style. The foundation has been kept atthe minimum height allowable in order to not disturb existing tree lines. Mr. Ratterree addsthat the garage slab will be dropped by about two feet in order to lower the entrance to thegarage.Mr. Wiggers asks how contractors will access the site.Mr. Ratterree states that they will use the existing driveway. The existing deck will beremoved, and the current attached garage may also be removed to allow access withoutdisturbing the root system of existing trees.Mr. Ottenjohn asks Mr. Affatato if he has considered removing the existing house and thenbuilding the new house closer to the original position of the current home, as this will lessenmany of the concerns of the Commission.Mr. Affatato responds by stating that he has considered placing the new home in theexisting location of his current home. However, his arborist has advised him against movingtoo far forward due to potential damage that could occur to some large trees and their rootsystems on his property.Mr. Wiggers comments that, with the house positioned so much further back in line from therest of the homes on Miami Road, it is like a “missing tooth” affect. He feels it would bemuch more acceptable if it were moved forward and at a lower height, as not to imposeupon surrounding neighbors.Mr. Ratterree notes that it is possible to move the house up an additional 15', remove thedeck, and lower the house by about 1' - 1½'.Mr. Mike Zalzal, residing at 5560 Miami Road, comes before the Commission and statesthat he is the neighbor directly to the north of Mr. Affatato. Mr. Zalzal comments that he hasmany of the same concerns as the Commission has already mentioned. He explains thathe has two bedrooms, in addition to the solarium, on that side of the house. He feels theshining of headlights will be an issue with the proposed plan. He is also concerned aboutthe home being positioned so much further back than the rest of the homes on Miami Roadas well as the height of the structure.Mrs. Cheryl Zalzal states that the position of the Affatato’s proposed home will greatlyobstruct their view, which is a major reason why they bought their house. She feels it wouldbe much better if the home were placed in line with the rest of the homes on Miami Road.Mr. Reynolds comments that the Commission has approved similar locations where houseshave been moved back on the lot. However, it does seem to be better for all concerned ifthe house could be moved forward some and reduced in height.

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 7Mr. Madden reiterates that the applicant is proposing to move the house forward at least15', remove the deck, and lower the house by about 2', and create some form of landscapebuffer between the applicant’s driveway and the Zalzal’s home.Mr. Affatato indicates that he is in agreement with Mr. Madden’s statement.After brief discussion, Mr. Reynolds made a motion to approve the Affatato’s request withthe following revisions:1) The house will be moved forward a minimum of 15'.2) The house will be lowered by about 2'. The exact amount that the house will belowered will be determined by the applicant working with Staff to determine the bestelevation of the house, but will be in the neighborhood of 2'.3) The applicant will create some type of berm and/or landscape buffer between hisresidence and the residence to the north.Mrs. Koppenhoefer seconded, and the motion was approved by a four to one vote with Mr.Reynolds, Mrs. Koppenhoefer, Mr. Madden, and Mr. Wiggers in favor of the motion and Mr.Ottenjohn opposed to the motion.Item Number 3: Sanneman Homes is requesting Planning Commission approval of avariance application for the construction of a new dwelling to be located within the requiredfront yard setback. The applicant also requests a re-designation of the front lot line.Mr. Bryan Sanneman, of Sanneman Homes, explains that the property was purchased withthe intention of demolishing the existing home and building a new home to be sold. Hefeels the buildable area on this lot is too small to allow him to build a home that iscomparable to the surrounding area.Staff Report: Mr. Kipp reports that the property is located in District “C” – one acre and is anon-conforming corner lot of record containing .9 acres. The original house was razedapproximately three years ago and was non-conforming, being located 27' from the frontright-of-way line and 54' from the rear lot line.The applicant is requesting a variance to the front yard setback and a re-designation of thefront lot line to construct a new two-story dwelling. The lot is an unusual corner lot due tohaving the Indian Run Lane access easement located within the property line. The IndianHill Zoning Ordinance, Section 3. 37.21 Lot Line, Front states, “In the case of a corner lot,the owner shall, for the purpose of this ordinance, have the privilege of electing any streetline as the front lot line, provided that such choice, in the opinion of the PlanningCommission, will not be injurious to the existing or desirable development of adjoiningproperties”.The site plan shows the proposed dwelling facing toward Indian Run Lane and conformingto all setbacks with the exception of the front yard setback requirement to Indian Hill Road.

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 8Keep in mind that the Zoning Ordinance requires a corner lot to maintain two frontages perSection 5. 57.1 Yard Requirements on Corner Lots – “On any corner lot, the least widthof any side yard along the street side lot line shall not be less than the least depth of thefront yard required on the lot adjoining such corner lot in the rear, except that, if such cornerlot is back to back with another corner lot, the width of this side yard need be only one-half(½) of such front yard least depth”.Staff finds that the non-conforming lot severely limits the ability to construct a new dwellingin a conforming location and that orienting the house to face Indian Run Lane will be animprovement from where the original house was located. The proposed dwelling does notworsen the non-conforming conditions that previously existed. The Commission has ruledfavorably in the past when non-conforming conditions are not worsened.Mr. Kipp ends his report by stating that Staff has properly notified all residents along IndianRun Lane and adjacent residents who live on Indian Hill Road. If the requests areapproved, a variance of 48' to the street side lot line will be needed, in addition to a changeof address.After brief discussion, Mr. Wiggers made a motion to approve the variance request. Mrs.Koppenhoefer seconded, and the motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote.Mr. Madden comments that there will be a short break to allow Cincinnati Bell Wireless timeto set up for their presentation.Item Number 4: The trustees of Armstrong Chapel Methodist Church are requestingPlanning Commission consideration for a special exception to the regulations for theestablishment of a PWS facility to be located at 8300 Indian Hill Road.Mr. Ottenjohn informs all those in attendance that he has a cousin who owns propertyadjacent to Jefferson Schoolhouse. Mr. Ottenjohn states that he believes he can fairlyconsider the case and asks if anyone has any objections. There being no objections fromthose in attendance, Mr. Ottenjohn did not recuse himself from the case.Mr. Terrence Donnellon, with Donnellon, Donnellon & Miller, representing the Village ofIndian Hill, opens the discussion by stating that there are a number of issues that the Villagehas discussed with Cincinnati Bell Wireless that are not disputable under our code. Mr.Donnellon reviews those items as follows.Under Section 101.43 Standards for Special Exceptions; Additional Conditions of the IndianHill Zoning Ordinance, there are twelve standards to be considered for a special exception.The following standards are not disputable:• Standard 1 - The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special exceptionwill not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, convenience, comfort,morals or general welfare.

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 9Mr. Donnellon explains that the Village does not have jurisdiction to hear issues relative tohealth and safety. PWS facilities are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the FCC and cannot beconsidered by local zoning authorities.• Standard 5 – The special exception will not substantially diminish or impair propertyvalues within the neighborhood.Mr. Donnellon notes that there are a number of studies that have been brought forth fromvarious communities which establish that fair market value, in and of itself, will not beimpaired by a PWS system.• Standard 6 – Adequate utilities, drainage, wastewater treatment, and/or otherfacilities necessary to serve the proposed special exception already exist or will beprovided.There are no utility issues with this site.• Standard 7 – Adequate access roads, entrance and exit drives, and off-street parkingspaces already exist or will be provided and designed so as to prevent traffic safetyhazards, to minimize traffic conflicts and congestion in the streets, and to maintainthe rural residential character of existing roadways in the Village, without requiringimprovements that will increase the capacity of existing roadways or will encouragetheir use by through traffic.The Village cannot find that there will be a traffic impact by the construction of a PWS at thissite.• Standard 9 - The applicant has represented to the Commission that it has thecapacity to complete, maintain and operate the special exception as proposed andapproved, and has made or will make adequate legal provision to guarantee theprovision and development of any buffers, landscaping, public open space and otherimprovements associated with the proposed development.Cincinnati Bell Wireless does have the financial ability to follow through with their plan, if it isapproved by the Commission.• Standard 11 - All exterior lighting fixtures will be designed, directed or shaded so thatno direct light is cast upon any other property; and all driveways and off-streetparking areas will be designed and screened to minimize the illumination of adjacentresidential properties by automobile headlamps.There are no lights associated with this construction.

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 10Mr. Donnellon notes that there are eleven conditions to be considered under Section IV E(1) of the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Ordinance. The following conditions are notin dispute:b. The applicant has complied with the submission requirements of Section IV.D. (2).The applicant has given the Village all information required to consider this applicationbefore the Commission.e. All antennas mounted on or within an existing support structure are adequatelyscreened, painted, and/or architecturally treated so as to blend into the proposed orexisting architectural character of the structure. To the extent possible, equipmentassociated with PWS facilities on existing support structures shall be located withinthe support structure. If a new equipment shelter is included as part of a PWSfacility, it shall have an appearance consistent with other buildings or structures onthe parcel and will preserve the character of the Village as a rural neighborhood ofhomes, green open spaces and farms.The Village does not dispute that the pole is of acceptable construction materials under theterms of the code and that the support structure will match the architecture of theschoolhouse. The remainder of (e) is under dispute.f. The PWS facility use will not substantially diminish or impair property values withinthe neighborhood.As mentioned previously, there is evidence that we cannot dispute as a community becauseof other communities already finding that there is no impact on fair market value by theconstruction of this type of facility.g. The PWS facility use will have adequate access to utilities and public roads and shallprovide adequate space for on-site parking.This is not in dispute.h. All exterior lighting fixtures will be designed, directed, or shaded so that no direct lightis cast upon any other property.This is not in dispute.j. The PWS facility complies with the RF Emission Standards adopted by the FCC.This is not in dispute.Under compliance standards, Section IV E (2) of the Personal Wireless Service FacilitiesOrdinance, there are seven standards. The Village is not in dispute of the following:

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 11b. The use of an existing tower is not technically, structurally, economically and/orfinancially feasible.Studies show that there is no other available tower for co-location.c. The proposed facility has adequate capacity to handle a maximum of three additionalusers.The application does show that it will have the capacity for three additional users ifaccepted.d. No federal or state government land is available for the siting of the proposed PWSfacility.The study shows that this is correct.e. All towers shall maintain a galvanized finish or shall be painted a neutral color,consistent with the natural or built environment of the site.The applicant’s proposal does have a galvanized finish to their tower.f. All obstruction lighting and/or marking required by the FAA shall be approved by theCommission at the time the application is made.There are no lighting requirements dictated by the FAA.g. Ground anchors associated with any guyed towers shall be located on the sameparcel as the tower and shall satisfy the setback requirements for structures in thatdistrict.This is not in dispute. There are no ground anchors associated with the proposed tower.Mr. Donnellon comments that there are a number of miscellaneous standards under SectionVI of the Personal Wireless Service Ordinance. The Village does not dispute the followingstandards in Section VI.A. Parking – there is sufficient parking available on the site for the proposed use.C. Maintenance and Removal – the code requires that if at some point in time theapplicant abandons the site or if it becomes obsolete, that it must be removed. Ifapproved by the Commission, the Village would still need the specific ownerscovenant with the Armstrong Church indicating that the site would be restored andthe tower would be removed.

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 12D. Fences and Walls – The code requires an 8' high wall. The applicant is proposing a6'6" wall. There has been some discussion of a compromise on the height of thewall, should the Commission approve the special exception request.F. Tower Height – The height of the tower is restricted to 160'. This is not in disputebecause the proposed tower is at 110'.G. Modifications - Any modifications to a PWS facility approved under this ordinanceshall require the submission of a new special exception application. This is not amodification. Should one come up in the future, the applicant would have to resubmitfor modification.H. Prohibitions – This prohibits the tower from being placed in a Village Green Area,which is not the case.I. Transferability – Transferability is not applicable.Ms. Michele Fleming, with Barrett & Weber law firm, comes before the Commission onbehalf of Cincinnati Bell Wireless. Ms. Fleming notes that Cincinnati Bell Wireless andArmstrong Chapel Methodist Church are co-applicants in this request for a specialexception.Mr. Hugh Brandt, representing the interest of Armstrong Chapel Methodist Church,comments that he is a resident of Indian Hill and a member of Armstrong Chapel. Mr.Brandt states that the most important issue to the church is finding the right location for thetower. The church owns three of the four corners at Drake and Indian Hill Roads. Mr.Brandt notes that they have considered each of the properties and feel that the proposedlocation will have the least amount of visibility to neighbors and the community.Mr. Brandt states that the church has had several arborists evaluate the effect that theinstallation of the tower could have on the trees. The arborists have found that there is nosignificant danger to the trees. However, Armstrong Chapel’s lease with Cincinnati BellWireless would require Cincinnati Bell to replace any trees that may die as a result of thetower installation.Mr. Brandt mentions that the financial benefit that the church will receive if this application isapproved will fund programs for residents as well as surrounding communities.Mr. Brandt feels that there is an immediate need for the tower in order to enhance cellphone coverage and help close some of the gaps where there is no coverage in Indian Hill.Mr. Nick Stevens, with Cincinnati Bell Wireless, presents a PowerPoint presentation beforethose in attendance. Mr. Stevens displays a slide showing the existing cell coverage areas,cell towers, and the three micro cells along Miami Road. He also displays a slide showing

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 13the predicted coverage if the 110' tower were placed at 8300 Indian Hill Road. Although thetower will not close all gaps, it will help some of the surrounding area.Mr. Stevens comments that in 2002, Cincinnati Bell Wireless surveyed almost 2000 IndianHill residents to get their opinion on wireless coverage within the Village of Indian Hill. Morethan 78% of those surveyed feel that there is a need for improved wireless coverage in theIndian Hill area.Mr. Stevens notes that Cincinnati Bell Wireless has received 71 letters and 106 signaturesin support of the proposed application.Mr. Stevens comments that Cincinnati Bell Wireless has explored all areas in the Village inan effort to improve cell coverage.Mr. Pat McIlvenna introduces himself as a consultant for Cincinnati Bell Wireless that washired to help them identify and locate potential cell sites in a community. Mr. McIlvennanotes that Cincinnati Bell tries to identify existing structures of height to locate theirequipment on, as to minimize the visual impact on communities. However, in this area thereare very few existing structures that are feasible for cell tower locations. Therefore,Cincinnati Bell must look at specific properties for potential tower locations. Mr. McIlvennafeels that this location is the best possible location that will have the least impact onadjacent neighbors.Mr. Stevens notes that Cincinnati Bell does have letters from Cingular and Sprint indicatingthat they will co-locate on the tower if the application is approved.Mr. Stevens explains that a DAS (distributed antenna system) is a fiber fed network with lowsignal strength that requires several antennas throughout an area, and sometimes eventhroughout a building. The large number of sites allow for better coverage throughout anarea. The DAS has about one-tenth of the signal strength of a micro cell and thereforeprovides for a much smaller coverage area. The low signal of a DAS will not penetrate thefoliage and terrain of the Village. In addition, DAS can only be placed on poles. Therefore,in wooded areas or areas where there are no poles, no service could be provided. Mr.Stevens notes that it would take 75-120 poles to fill the majority of the gaps in Indian Hillusing the DAS. This is why he feels the tower at Armstrong Chapel is the right approach forthe Village.Mr. John Scola, with Cincinnati Bell Wireless, comments that Cincinnati Bell Wireless is stilltrying to understand the DAS and that there are still a lot of things that need to be workedthrough.Mr. Scola displays a site plan of the area surrounding the proposed tower location. Hecomments that the tower would be placed between the school building and the line of treesthat run along Indian Hill Road. A mound and additional shrubbery will also be added toshield the neighbors to the north so that they do not see the tower. Mr. Scola states that he

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 14believes the base of the pole and equipment cannot be viewed from any of the residentialhomes nearby.Ms. Fleming comments that this isn’t only the best site for the tower, but it is the only siteavailable for the tower. She explains that Cincinnati Bell strongly discourages againstcontracting with private property owners for cell towers locations.Mr. Scola mentions that all wires, antenna, and other apparatuses will be inside the pole sothat they are not visible. This is the first type of this style of pole that Cincinnati BellWireless has ever done.Mr. Scola comments that, because the height of the pole is limited to 110', the signal cannotpropagate very far and therefore will not reach an enormous amount of customers.However, it will cover all the drive routes and in building coverage of the homes in the area.Mr. Scola displays slides showing the 6'6" stone wall that will hide all the equipmentcabinets at the base of the tower. The wall is designed to blend in with the historicsignificance of the building.Mr. Donnellon points out that there seems to be some inconsistencies between theapplication for the special exception and what’s being presented by Cincinnati Bell Wirelesstonight. Mr. Donnellon states that one of the areas of consideration in the application iswhether or not the applicant meets the policies and objectives of the land use code. Underecology objectives, the applicant states that there is absolutely no impact from this stealthmonopole upon the natural landscape of the Village. However, the slide show presentedtonight and the arborist’s reports point out that the applicant will work to minimize the imageand promote future tree health.Ms. Fleming comments that their intention was to imply that it would not cause ecologicaldamage to the environment in general.Mr. Donnellon comments that, in part of the presentation, the applicant indicates that thebuilding itself serves as a screen and that the landscape mounds also serve as screens. Henotes that the highest point on the school building is 35', which is the bell tower. Thebuilding itself is 30' and the pole is 110'. Mr. Donnellon asks what part of the 110' pole dothe building and mounds screen.Ms. Fleming responds that they screen the base of the pole.Mr. Donnellon notes that the applicant mentioned that the tree stand will be used tomaintain the screening. But, we have heard that we may lose all or part of this tree stand.Ms. Fleming comments that, with proper care, the trees will not be lost and damage will beprevented by the type of construction techniques that will be used.

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 15Mr. Donnellon asks if the applicant has a statistic on the height of the tree line.Ms. Fleming states that it is about 65 to 70 feet tall.Mr. Donnellon notes that the tree line is only about two-thirds the height of the pole itself.Mr. Donnellon notes that the slides appear to show that there is absolutely no change incoverage on Miami Road with the addition of this pole.Ms. Fleming comments that Mr. Donnellon is correct. However, this pole is not intended toaddress Miami Road. The micro cells address Miami Road.Mr. Donnellon clarifies that the only area this pole will affect is on Drake Road fromEustisfarm Lane to just about Graves Road.Mr. Stevens replies that Mr. Donnellon is correct.Mr. Donnellon asks how long of a stretch of roadway will benefit from the proposedadditional cell phone coverage, and what is the traffic volume on Drake Road that willbenefit from not losing calls.Mr. Stevens replies that he does not know.Mr. Donnellon notes that the added coverage on Indian Hill Road is from just west of TaftPlace to Old Indian Hill Road. He asks Mr. Stevens if he knows the traffic volume of thisarea or how many homes overall will benefit from the added coverage.Mr. Stevens replies that he does not know.Mr. Donnellon asks if he understands correctly that Cincinnati Bell Wireless does not knowhow many poles will be needed to support DAS service in Indian Hill, and that CincinnatiBell Wireless is still trying to understand a DAS and is willing to work with Indian Hill toreview a DAS.Mr. McIlvenna replies that Mr. Donnellon is correct, and that they would like to continue towork with the Village on development of a DAS.Mr. Donnellon asks if there is any reason to push forward with this tower at this time whenthere may be more information to be shared with the Village’s Engineer and studies to becompleted. He also asks if there is an urgency that requires approval of the tower at thistime.Mr. Stevens comments that there is a sense of urgency on Cincinnati Bell Wireless’ part inorder to serve customers better. He had hoped to get a ruling on this macro system andcontinue to work with the Village on a DAS.

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 16Mr. Noah Fleischmann, residing at 5650 Drake Road, comes before the Commission andasks if the Village is required to give all wireless service providers equal access to theVillage in regard to constructing towers.Mr. Donnellon replies that the Village does have a requirement to treat all providers equally.However, he doesn’t think this is an issue where Cincinnati Bell Wireless is being deniedservice, but rather a question of them enhancing their service in this area. Cincinnati BellWireless would be picking up and improving coverage in a small area by adding this tower.Mr. Fleischmann adds that he travels throughout a wide range of area in and around IndianHill, and he does not lose cell service often. He feels there are other providers that offeradequate coverage for this area.Ms. Mary Ida Compton, of 4980 Miami Road, notes that she lives very close to one of themicro cells on Miami Road, and she does not get Cincinnati Bell Wireless coverage at herhome even though she lives about 100 yards from one of the micro cells. She commentsthat she does get coverage at her home through another provider. She expresses concernover allowing more and more towers in Indian Hill.Ms. Victoria Watters, of 7815 Shawnee Run Road, states that she agrees completely withMs. Compton.Mr. Jim Kereiakes, residing at 5075 Drake Road, comes before the Commission and statesthat he lives right across the street from Armstrong Chapel. He expresses that the visualimpact of this tower being placed so close to a main intersection is not worth the addedcoverage area.Mrs. Helen Kereiakes adds that she agrees with her husband and suggests that the towerbe built on school property in an effort to financially benefit the schools or in an area wherethe financial benefit would go to the Village.Mr. David Fish, of 8380 Indian Hill Road, states that he strongly disagrees with Ms.Fleming’s statement that this is the least obstructive place to put the tower. Mr. Fishcomments that he does currently have cell phone coverage in his home.Mr. Jim Gould, residing at 5250 Drake Road, refers to a previous special exception that wasissued to Armstrong Chapel. The church and surrounding residents came to an agreementwith the understanding that residents near Jefferson Schoolhouse would not be negativelyaffected. Mr. Gould feels that certain areas of the agreement were not fulfilled by thechurch.Mr. Gould expresses that he is strongly against placing a tower at Jefferson Schoolhouseand asks the Commission to consider the history of the time and effort that went intoprevious agreements between neighbors and the church and the previous special exceptionthat was issued to Armstrong Chapel.

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 17Ms. Rachael Rowe comes before the Commission and states that she is representing Mr.Gould, and is also the volunteer Juvenile Court Magistrate in the Village of Indian Hill. Ms.Rowe asks the Commission to consider the earlier special exception application from thechurch. She states that approving this tower will go against previous agreements and theconditions set forth for approving a special exception.Mr. Rick Bieser, of 5150 Drake Road, notes that he owns the property directly adjacent andto the north of Jefferson Schoolhouse and will be the resident most affected by the approvalof this tower. He feels this tower will affect his property value and is strongly against itsapproval.Ms. Paula Watters, residing at 8340 Indian Hill Road, mentions that she lives adjacent to thearea of the proposed tower. She states that she bought her home largely for the view in herback yard. If this tower is approved, it will be what she sees when she’s in her yard. Sheexpresses that she is extremely upset that Armstrong Chapel would even consider applyingfor this special exception especially after specific agreements were made in the prior specialexception that was issued to the church. She also feels that if this tower is approved, it willlower the value of her property.Mr. David Fish comes before the Commission again and comments that when the previousspecial exception was issued 1996, he believes it was with the agreement that the churchwould not request any additional special exceptions in the future.Mr. Burns comments that there is a portion of the finding from 1996 that states that theCommission finds that the Jefferson School building will be adequately screened by existingand proposed landscaping and that the applicant does not propose to expand the buildingor to place any new buildings or accessory structures on the property. Mr. Burns notes thathe does believe this was negotiated between the church and surrounding property owners.Mr. Greg Miller, of 7690 Cayuga Drive, states that although he does not live in theimmediate area of the proposed tower, he believes that the 1,500 telephone poles in IndianHill are far more intrusive than any one tower. Mr. Miller feels that cell towers are a lifestylenecessity in today’s world. He feels that it is an obligation on the part of the PlanningCommission and Indian Hill to maximize cellular service.Mr. Burns replies that the Planning Commission approved the three micro cells on MiamiRoad as an eighteen month test to see if they could possibly be a solution to other areas ofthe Village. Last year, Cincinnati Bell Wireless came to the Commission and presentedstatistics that showed that the micro cells were not performing as well as predicted, and thatthey were looking for other solutions. At that time, the Village engaged a consultant to lookat other alternatives. The consultant suggested looking at a DAS to solve the Village’scoverage problems. After receiving the report, the Village contacted Cincinnati BellWireless and asked to meet to review the report. Mr. Burns states that the Village isconcerned about cell phone coverage, and is looking for a solution to solve cell phoneissues in the Village.

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 18Mr. Steve Waxler, residing at 8200 Indian Hill Road, states that he feels the number ofpeople who will be served by the approval of this tower is minimal. He also feels that asurvey will not accurately show the number of people affected because not all thosesurveyed in the area are Cincinnati Bell Wireless customers. He feels that if the tower isapproved, it will only be a matter of time before more towers are requested by carriers. Mr.Waxler notes that he would like to hear more about the DAS from someone that does nothave a biased interest in the system.Mr. Charles Stix, of 5255 Indian Heights Drive, reads a paragraph from the book FromCamargo to Indian Hill by Virginia White pertaining to the value of the private, rural,residential character of the Village.Ms. Anne Stokley, residing at 5350 Stonebarn Road, comments that she is on her cellphone quite often and has no problem in Indian Hill. She feels that you just need to havethe right carrier.Mrs. Elizabeth Bieser, of 5150 Drake Road, makes reference to a photograph that wasdistributed to the Commission showing what her view from her home would be if the towerwere placed in the proposed location. Mrs. Bieser feels that the amount of increasedcoverage is not worth jeopardizing the community.Mr. Jeff Heller, residing at 7555 Algonquin Drive, states that he was baptized, confirmed,and married at Armstrong Chapel and attended Sunday school at Jefferson School. He isvery much against the approval of this special exception.Ms. Kennedy Matter, of 8385 Indian Hill Road, notes that she strongly agrees with all theobjections to approving the special exception. She states that she has fantastic cell phonecoverage.Staff Report: Mr. Burns reviews Staff’s perspectives on the application’s compliance withsome of the prescribed standards under Section 101.43 of the Indian Hill Zoning Ordinanceas follows:2) The special exception is not inconsistent with the Village's adopted Land UseObjectives and Policies.The applicant contends that the special exception is not inconsistent with the Village’sadopted Land Use Objectives and Policies. Staff agrees that the proposed stealthmonopole design is specifically consistent with the Community Services and Facilities of theVillage’s adopted Land Use Policies and Objectives, but there are inconsistencies withregard to the policies set forth under Character and Ecology. The Historical Society is onrecord as objecting to the impact of the installation of a 110 foot tall tower adjacent to arecognized historic structure, and the Village Arborist has determined that the proposedtower will severely damage the street trees which are identified as a vegetative screen tothe tower installation.

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 193) The special exception, either alone or in conjunction with other special exceptionspreviously granted or otherwise existing, will not injure, diminish, or impede the use,enjoyment, or normal and orderly development of other property in the immediatevicinity for uses permitted in the zoning district.The Commission has previously authorized the use of the Jefferson Schoolhouse forArmstrong Church offices and meetings. A companion PWS use will not injure, diminish orimpede the use, enjoyment, or normal an orderly development of other Armstrong Churchproperty, but as noted in response to Standard (2), Staff does feel that the location anddesign of the proposed tower will impact the historic integrity of the Jefferson Schoolhousebuilding and existing trees will suffer irreparable damage during construction.4) The special exception is consistent with the residential character of the immediatevicinity of the parcel proposed for development;Staff agrees that the proposed stealth tower is consistent with the neighboring institutionalchurch and cemetery property, but, due to minimal setbacks and ineffective screeningopportunities, we do not agree that the proposed pole is consistent with the nearby andadjacent residential properties.8) The special exception will not adversely affect a known archaeological, historical orcultural resource.As noted in the response to Standard (2), Staff agrees with the concerns articulated by theIndian Hill Historical Society with regard to the aesthetic impact of the construction of amonopole tower immediately adjacent to a recognized historically significant building.10) The special exception shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulationsof the zoning district in which the property is located, except where the PlanningCommission in a particular case grants a variance from the regulations pursuant toSection 101.5 or, if the regulations are of a type that may not be varied under Section101.52, where the Council in a particular case waives or modifies the regulationspursuant to the recommendation of the Commission.Staff finds that the proposed stealth tower, the wall enclosing the equipment area, and anyancillary equipment to be located within the walled area do not meet the minimum setbackrequirements set forth in the PWS Ordinance or the Zoning Ordinance. The PWSOrdinance requires a minimum 250 foot setback from the right-of-way line and the ZoningOrdinance requires a minimum 100 foot setback from the front yard line. The JeffersonSchool property line extends to the center lines of Drake Road and Shawnee Run Road andthe right-of-way line is not depicted on the applicant’s drawings. The proposed tower islocated only 36 feet from the edge of pavement of Drake Road and only 43.4 feet from theedge of pavement of Indian Hill Road. The proposed 6’6” high wall exceeds the height limitfor walls in a front yard area by 2’6”, but special exception walls and fences are exempt fromthe fence regulations, as long as the height is approved as part of the special exception

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 20review. The ancillary equipment to be located behind the proposed wall would similarlyviolate the setback requirements for accessory structures in District “B”. The ZoningOrdinance requires a 120 foot setback for accessory structures. The proposed equipmentwould be located entirely within the minimum setback area. Finally, the site in questioncontains only 2 acres (including the right-of-way) and Section 63.1 of the Zoning Ordinancerequires a minimum lot area of 3 acres for any public utility structure.12) All buildings and structures located within twenty-five (25) feet of the minimum frontyard, side yard or rear yard required under Section 63.1 or Section 73.1 will bescreened by landscaping of a type, nature and seasonal character that will ensurethe privacy of adjacent dwellings and will ensure that the visual character of the usewill be compatible with surrounding uses; and all accessory outdoor storage areas,mechanical equipment and waste disposal facilities will be screened from the view ofadjacent dwellings.Staff finds that the applicant proposes the installation of supplemental spruce trees alongthe north side of the Jefferson Schoolhouse building and small shrubs are proposed aroundthe base of the stealth tower. The landscaping plan relies upon the existing street trees forscreening along the Drake Road frontage of the property. As previously noted in (2) theVillage Arborist has determined that an uncertain number of the existing street trees willsuffer irreparable damage as a result of the excavation for the proposed tower and thescreen wall and, therefore, some of the existing screening will be lost. The proposed 6’6”stone wall will screen any ancillary equipment, but there is inadequate landscapingproposed to soften the view of this non-conforming wall.Mr. Burns comments that he will not review the standards in connection with Section IV E(1) of the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Ordinance since many of them have beendiscussed in areas he’s already covered.Mr. Burns moves on to Section IV E (2) of the Personal Wireless Service FacilitiesOrdinance as follows:a) The area proposed to be serviced by the PWS facility cannot be adequatelyaddressed by the establishment of a PWS facility on an existing tower or existingsupport structure.While there is no available tower, the Village has engaged a consultant to examinealternative PWS service enhancements aimed at improving the service coverage for allcarriers operating within the Village. His preliminary report indicates that the construction ofa Distributed Antenna System (DAS), utilizing existing utility poles, is a viable alternative tothe construction of much taller conventional or stealth towers. Staff has discussed thisalternative with CINCINNATI BELL WIRELESS and expects a continuing dialogueconcerning the construction of such a system in the areas of the Village where cell coverageis a problem. Staff has recommended to Council the appropriation of funds for completing amore detailed feasibility study and needs assessment to examine how to construct such a

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 21system. Action on this recommendation may be complete prior to the September 20, 2005public hearing on this application.Mr. Burns notes that he will not review the remainder of Section IV E (2), as many of thosehave also been discussed.Mr. Burns notes that the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Ordinance envisions a newtower being placed a minimum of 250 feet from the right-of-way line to a maximum of 1500feet. Because of this, an eight foot fence for security purposes is required under thisordinance. When you’re dealing with a location were the setback is virtually only a few feetfrom the right-of-way line, it’s inconsistent with the Villages’ zoning ordinance as it relates tofences and walls.If the Commission is inclined to approve the requested special exception, Staff feels that thevariance, as it relates to fences and walls, should require the wall to be at a 4 foot level andset the equipment even lower rather than place a wall in a setback that’s inconsistent withother walls in the vicinity.Mr. Burns reviews Staff’s comment with regard to the application for grant of six variancesas follows:Variance from PWS Thoroughfare Proximity Performance StandardThe applicants are seeking a variance from the minimum 250 foot/maximum 1,500 footsetback required from a principal street. The application indicates a setback of 43.4 feetfrom Indian Hill Road. The actual setback from the right-of-way is approximately 13 feet.Previously, the Commission has only considered PWS applications which do not meet thespecified minimum and maximum setback limits in cases where existing structures orreplacements of existing structures are considered for a PWS location. If the Commissionwere to approve the proposed location, a variance of 237 feet would be necessary.Tower Setback from Adjacent Property LinesThe PWS ordinance requires a minimum setback from adjacent property line of a distanceequal to the height of the tower, or, in the case of this proposal, 110 feet. As mentions inthe preceding paragraph, the proposed tower is located approximately 15 feet from theIndian Hill road right-of-way line. It is similarly located only 13 feet from the Drake Roadright-of-way line. It is noted that the property deed reads to the centerline of both Roads. Ifthe Commission were to consider the deeded area as the boundary, the setback from IndianHill Road would be the 55 feet, requiring a 62 foot variance, and the setback from DrakeRoad would be 45 feet, requiring a 62 foot variance.Variance of Required Distance from Nearby ResidencesThe PWS Ordinance requires a minimum setback of 250 feet between the equipmentcompound and any nearby residence. The proposed compound is located within 195 feet ofthe nearest residence to the north and 210 feet of the nearest residence to the east.

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 22Variances of 55 feet and 40 feet would be necessary in order to approve the proposedequipment compound location.Variance from Wall Height RequirementsThe applicants propose to screen the equipment area by utilizing a 6’6” high stone wallconstructed of a stone similar to the foundation wall on the historic school structure. ThePWS Ordinance requires an 8 foot tall fence or wall. It is important to restate that the 8 foothigh requirement was included in the ordinance with due regard taken to the fact that aminimum 250 foot/maximum 1,500 foot setback from the principle thoroughfare was alsorequired by the ordinance. The height requirement was certainly also specified due tosecurity concerns. As also stated in (10), the Zoning Ordinance places a limit of 4 feet onany wall located in a front yard, but special exception walls are exempted, as long as theCommission can satisfy the criteria set forth in Section 101.43 of the Zoning Ordinance. Ifthe Commission were to grant the request for special exception, a 1’6” variance on therequired minimum wall height would be required. Staff is of the opinion that, if theCommission was inclined to approve the special exception request, the maximum wallheight should be limited to 4 feet and any equipment located behind the wall should be setbelow grade to the extent necessary to screen it from view.Variance from Zoning Ordinance Setback Requirements for Accessory EquipmentThe Zoning Ordinance requires a 120 foot setback from the front lot line for any accessorystructures. The ancillary equipment contained within the proposed compound wall would beconsidered accessory structures and would, therefore, require a variance in order to bepermitted in the required setback area. The variance required would be approximately 60feet.Variance of Required Lot AreaThe applicants are proposing to locate the new special exception use on a parcel thatcontains 2 acres of gross land area. When the public right-of-way is netted out of theproperty, the residual acreage is just over 1.5 acres. The Zoning Ordinance requires aminimum 3 acres for a public utility special exception. As a result, a variance of 1.5 acreswould be necessary to approve the use of the property for a special exception use.Mr. Burns summarizes by stating that the variances proposed here are extreme. Staffrecommends that the Commission carefully look at all the standards before approving alocation that would set a precedent for other locations.Mrs. Koppenhoefer asks if four carriers were to co-locate on the pole, is it correct that thebottom carrier would be too low on the pole. So, in reality, the pole could onlyaccommodate three carriers.Mr. Stevens replies that with the tower only being 110 feet tall, the lower elevation would beless desirable.

Village of Indian HillMinutes of Planning Commission MeetingSeptember 20, 2005Page 23Mr. Ottenjohn asks Mr. Burns to comment on where the Village stands in its negotiationswith Cincinnati Bell Wireless as it relates to the DAS.Mr. Burns replies that there has only been one meeting with Cincinnati Bell, which wasabout four weeks ago. After that meeting, Cincinnati Bell Wireless did share their data withthe Village’s consultant. Mr. Burns states that he met with the consultant two weeks ago.The consultant felt that the data was extremely conservative, and that he felt he could showthe Village, through a feasibility analysis, that DAS will solve most of the Village’s coverageproblems.After further discussion, Mr. Reynolds made a motion to deny the application for specialexception. Mr. Wiggers seconded, and the motion to deny the application was approved bya roll call vote with all members of the Commission voting to deny the application for specialexception by Armstrong Chapel Methodist Church and Cincinnati Bell Wireless.There being no further business to come before the Commission, Mrs. Koppenhoefer madea motion to adjourn. Mr. Wiggers seconded, and the motion was approved by a unanimousvoice vote.Respectfully submitted,Paul F. Madden, ChairmanATTEST:Michael W. Burns, Secretary