December 17, 1997

Council was called to order on December 17, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. by President of Council Randy Danbury.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by the governmental body and those in attendance. The Invocation was given by Mr. Knox.

Roll call was taken by Mr. Knox. Present were Council members Galster, Manis, McNear, Pollitt, Vanover, Wilson and Danbury.

The minutes of December 1, 1997 were approved with 7 affirmative votes.

The minutes of December 3, 1997 were approved with 7 affirmative votes.


RULES AND LAWS - Ms. Manis said they would be addressing the fencing ordinance after the first of the year.



PUBLIC WORKS - Mr. Vanover reported that the 1997 street program is totally completed. The Public Works Committee will discuss the 1998 street program in January with a report to Council at the February 4, 1998 meeting. They plan to take it to bid in late April and do construction from early June to September.


CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - Ms. Manis stated they met Monday night and discussed the S.R. 747 CSX grade separation. The scope of services meeting with ODOT has been held and the proposal for the final design phase was presented at the Capital Improvements meeting. They request an ordinance at the next meeting to award the contract. The Community Center pool improvements were to begin this month and are scheduled to be completed in April. The West Kemper Road construction public meeting is being scheduled for January 14. The Police Department HVAC renovation estimated construction cost will be $174,500. The proposed architectural/engineering fee is $26,000. They would like to have an ordinance for the architectural/engineering work at the next meeting.

FINANCE COMMITTEE - Mr. Wilson said CDS Associates has submitted a request for modification of their current contract. They are proposing to use the 1996 fee schedule and there is no adjustment to the base retainer. Wood and Lamping is requesting a 3.9% increase in the standard hourly rates and a 3.07% increase for litigation and labor negotiation matters. The standard retainer increase is requested at 3.03%. Finance Committee asks for legislation at the next Council meeting.

PLANNING COMMISSION - Mr. Galster reported they met December 9. Bill Syfert was elected chairman; Dave Okum, vice-chairman; and Bob Seaman, secretary. There was a proposal for Wal-Mart garden center expansion with no representation and that was dropped from the agenda. There was a request for a banner at the IDI building. Again, there was no representation and it was dropped. They looked at a preliminary plan for the Tri-County Commons PUD to allow the construction of Mars Music Store at 11805 Commons Drive. It was a pretty detailed meeting and in the end it was tabled 6-0. There are some issues they want to address and come back in with a better thought out plan. There was an appeal of a plan review and inspection fee by Micro 1, 155 Northland Boulevard. This has been an on-going problem. There was no mark up of the review fees for late payment. There was discussion as to whether their contractor had received notification that the funds were due. That appeal was denied 6-0.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS - Mrs. McNear stated the meeting was held last evening. They welcomed two new members, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Whitaker. The same officers were retained from last year: chairman, Mr. Squires; vice-chairman, Mr. Okum and secretary, Mrs. Ewing.

Michael's Crafts, 425 E. Kemper Road requested a variance to allow them to move their existing wall sign west of the current location. We had given them a variance a few months ago and they wanted to move it again. They asked that it be dropped from the agenda.

Maple Knoll Village, 11100 Springfield Pike, requested a variance to allow the construction of a patio room 29 feet from the rear yard at 609 Maple Trace. This was on the agenda the previous month and it had been tabled because they were trying to put a patio room in that did not conform with the rest of the complex. Earlier that evening they had had one that did conform with the rest of the building so that was approved. BZA asked that the executive director come to the meeting last evening so they could find out what Maple Knoll really wanted to do with that complex because they anticipate that there will be more requests for such a structure. Maple Knoll decided they had better take another look at what they want to do and they withdrew their request.

Charles Wilkins at 245 Harter Avenue requested a variance to allow the conversion of his garage into an additional bedroom. His ill mother has moved here from Florida and the house was difficult to accommodate her walker and wheelchair. They are converting the garage into a bedroom and are trying to use as much of the existing building as they can. That was granted with 6 yes votes and one abstention.

BOARD OF HEALTH - Ms. Pollitt said they met December 11. They addressed the invisible fencing issue and are awaiting information from Rules and Law Committee. The state will be increasing swimming pool license fees this year and about 20 pools will be affected in this city. They also reviewed nuisance animal control and the nurse discussed the cholesterol screenings which are currently offered twice a month. They will be offered once a month due to set up costs.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION - Mr. Coleman reported Civil Service acknowledges the probationary appointment of Landen Smith to the position of custodian effective December 1, 1997. On December 16, five officers took the sergeant's promotional test and today three officers took the lieutenant's promotional test.

O-K-I - Ms. Manis will be installed on January 8, 1998.

MAYOR'S REPORT - Mayor Webster announced the Christmas award winners. They were:


1st Place - Toler Family of 12065 Brookston Dr.

2nd Place – Runge Family of 799 Yorkhaven

3rd Place – Lee Family of 808 Ashcroft Ct.

Honorable Mention – Kortanek Family of 860 Yorkhaven Rd.

Honorable Mention – Walters Family of 894 Yorkhaven Rd.

Honorable Mention – Webster Family of 882 Clearfield Ln.

Honorable Mention – Reed Family of 12179 Kenn Rd.

Honorable Mention – Baker Family of 890 Cedarhill Dr.


1st Place – Veldhuis Family of 12095 Springdale Lake Dr.

2nd Place – Compton Family of 11850 Fairsprings Ct.

3rd Place - Foster Family of 699 Glensprings Dr.

Honorable Mention – Ramsey Family of 11856 Glenfalls

Honorable Mention – Greene Family of 667 Glensprings Dr.

Honorable Mention – Gresham Family of 11833 Knollsprings


1st Place Tie - Bosken Family of 681 Allen Ave.

1st Place Tie - Plum Family of 580 Cloverdale Ave.

3rd Place - Adams Family of 666 Allen Ave.

Honorable Mention - Singer Family of 693 Allen Ave.

Honorable Mention - Emerson Family of 696 Allen Ave.

Honorable Mention - Wolf Family of 462 Dimmick Ave.

Honorable Mention – Hamm Family of 517 Cloverdale Ave.

Honorable Mention – Smith Family of 653 Smiley Ave.

Honorable Mention – Laage Family of 616 Cloverdale


1st Place – Sandford Family of 591 Observatory Dr.

2nd Place – Foster Family of 577 Observatory Dr.

3rd Place – Audretch Family of 562 Grandin Ave.

Honorable Mention - Fenstermacher Family of 11493 Whallon Ct.

Honorable Mention – Roberts Family of 480 Grandin Ave.

Honorable Mention – Ball Family of 540 Observatory Dr.


1st Place – Stacy Family of 375 Cameron Rd.

2nd Place – Warken Family of 361 Naylor Ct.

3rd Place – Turner Family of 370 Glensharon Rd.

Honorable Mention – Williamson Family of 376 Cameron Rd.

Honorable Mention – Black Family of 309 Glensford

Honorable Mention – Kirkland Family of 483 Vista Glen


1st Place – Owens Family of 105 Harter Ave.

2nd Place – Salatowski Family of 11783 Van Cleve Ave.

3rd Place – Carroll Family of 11718 Van Cleve Ave.

Honorable Mention – Parrett Family of 196 Balsam Ct.

Honorable Mention – Audretch Family of 11833 Lawnview Ave.

Honorable Mention - Meyer / Vanover Family of 11817 Neuss

Honorable Mention - Nadaud Family of 11756 Neuss Ave.

Honorable Mention - Woelfel Family of 11708 Van Cleve Ave.

Honorable Mention – Reinhardt Family of 11772 Van Cleve Ave.



1st Place - Rish Family of 12122 Audie Ct.

2nd Place - Colegrove Family of 758 Ledro St.

3rd Place - Wolsing Family of 705 Castro Ln.

Honorable Mention – Riley Family of 773 Tivoli Ln.

Honorable Mention - Akers Family of 777 Castro Ln.

Honorable Mention – Ball Family of 978 Tivoli Ln.

Honorable Mention - Schmidt Family of 1003 Pilgrim Place

Honorable Mention - Atkisson Family of 780 Ledro St.

Honorable Mention – Corwin Family of 12149 Benadir Rd.

Mayor Webster said we announced these tonight to give everyone time to go around and look at those lights. If you only have time to drive down two streets, drive down Allen Avenue and Van Cleve. They are really lit up. Congratulations to everyone for making the city look beautiful.

Mayor Webster asked for resolutions at the next meeting confirming the reappointment of Pam Packer, Harry Haverland and Lynn Jones to the Board of Health.

He said the Community Pride Program ended with 290 requests for trucks this year compared to 298 for 1996.

From December 18 to December 25 if you receive a payout type citation from the City of Springdale, you may pay for that fine with food through the Food for Fines program. The fine schedule is as follows: moving violations, 5 cans of food and payment for state costs, which is $20; non-moving violation, 6 cans of food. The following citations are not eligible for this program: resisting an enforcement official; operation with disregard for safety; and operating without reasonable control.

There will be no garbage collection on December 25 and January 1. The garbage will be picked up the following day.

CLERK OF COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR - Mr. Knox reported that we have received the certificate of the results of the election. The Charter shall be amended to state "at no time shall any member of the Charter Revision Committee be a holder of any other position in this city." The final vote was 2,167 in favor; 463 against.

We are going to institute the new timekeeping system which was discussed extensively here a few months ago. A test will be run in January and it will be instituted in February. We will go to bi-weekly payrolls only which will affect approximately 27 city employees. If problems develop for the individuals we'll help them work that out during the transition period.

ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT - Mr. Osborn said I was just telling Mayor Webster that we can put the list of Christmas award winners on our homepage so if anyone has internet access they can find that at

Mr. Osborn stated we will be opening bids on both police and administrative vehicles between now and the next Council meeting. We'll check those bid results against the state bid for comparable types of vehicles. We would like to bring in an ordinance along with our recommendation at the next Council meeting so we can pursue the acquisition of those vehicles as quickly as possible.

As you saw in the newsletter we provided an opportunity for residents to indicate their interests in purchasing bricks or some other type of item that would help memorialize a family member, friends, etc. So far we have received 63 responses consisting of 68 bricks, 2 medallions, 2 benches and 2 trees. That's $7,800. After the first of the year I'd like to work with the press to get articles in the papers to continue to see if we can't generate interest in the project. In mid January we will probably have to make a decision about what we want to do with this project.

I just wanted to announce to the public that one of our major capital improvement projects will involve the installation of a storm sewer on West Kemper Road. The first phase will occur in 1998 from Rt. 4 west to just beyond Greenlawn. In order to apprise the public, particularly those who live on Kemper Road, with the details of the project we will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, January 14, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. I'll be glad to take any calls prior to that meeting but anyone with an interest in the project will be invited. We will be sending letters individually to all of the residents who live on the road between the limits of Rt. 4 and Kenn Road. The general public is also invited to the meeting.

LAW DIRECTOR'S REPORT - Mr. Schneider said Lisa Rammes will be covering for him at the next meeting.




Public hearing (continued in progress)


Mark Johnson, regional real estate manager for Target Stores, introduced Art Hardin, traffic and civil engineer; Tom Bonneville, site development manger from Target; Lori Wendling, adjacent owner of the Wal-Mart/Sam's shopping center; and Steve Brandt representing Target as their broker.

Shortly before tonight's meeting we received minutes from the engineer's report regarding our site plan. There has been quite a bit of discussion regarding the design and requirements of Century Boulevard. On November 25 we had a meeting here in Springdale and pretty much agreed to the proposed setbacks for access and curb cuts from Kemper Road and a majority of what is contained in the report, addresses some issues that are a result of our discussions from November 25. There are recommendations from staff that have significant implications on the facility that we would be depending on to be successful.

Mr. Hardin said Target is proposing to construct a125,000 square foot retail facility on approximately 15.5 acres along Kemper Road. Tri-County Commons is due west and Dave and Buster's is to the rear. Currently there are two main entries into Kemper Center; Kemper Commons Road and Commons Circle. As part of the original PUD Century Boulevard was proposed to come on through and tie in what is Century Boulevard now. Target was the trigger which initiated the concept of Century Boulevard coming in. There is approximately 60 feet of fall between Kemper Road and what would be the rear of the property, a distance of 800 to 900 feet so topography becomes a key element in the overall design of the project.

As part of a Planning Commission meeting in August, Target agreed that they would defer for a year before coming back in to ask for development of the adjacent property. We did have a roadway that went straight through which tied in the Kemper Commons development, went through the Target parking lot and onto Century Boulevard. The key issue that became apparent after the City's overall traffic study was the actual location of this entry point and how it fed into our parking lot. As we went through our last iteration we came through with a drive that comes in and ties in 275 feet back from the proposed driveway to Kemper Road. We came to an agreement with the City staff on that and that is what is shown on our document. The next driveway back would be 150 feet from that. Initially we had 596 spaces. The latest parking plan shows 584 spaces. We have looked at staff's comment. We are approximately 40 spaces short of what Target likes to put in and if we put in a throat that will take out another 14 spaces. Additional comments were to add additional islands along the drive which would take out an additional 11 spaces. Our concern is that we currently meet the green space criteria exceeding 20%. We recognize that we have taken down a lot more trees than what we can actually put back. We have worked with staff and have come up with compensation to the city's tree preservation fund that we think is agreeable. The only concern we have now is the true configuration of a driveway and the throat issue. We would ask that City Council accept our plan as a parking lot plan and the drive going through as a parking lot drive, not as a main roadway.

Mr. Galster passed out a preliminary plan review summary to the Council members. He said we've had conversations in Planning Commission for a number of months and the plans have changed over the course of time to what we have today. So I have a list of issues that not only Planning Commission but also staff has on the new proposal as well that I want to go through one by one and make sure that we have an understanding and I know exactly where these issues stand.

1. Calculations are to be provided to confirm that maximum 20% open space that you had talked about. We have no calculations on this new submittal to confirm that. You tell us you are but we haven't seen anything as to how you came up with that number and we want the calculations to come up with our own formula.

2. There had been a previous concern that all parking area landscaping and potential directional signs must be located on subject property. I have gone through the plans I have and it seems like all of that has been accomplished but I also want you to understand that that is also a condition from Planning Commission.

3. We have a one year development moratorium from the certificate of occupancy of Target on the future development of outlots which is basically the panhandle. That can be gotten rid of if we have a proposal that incorporates all the remaining residential property. From your statements I understand you have no problem with that as well.

Mr. Johnson said relative to the moratorium it was my understanding in reading the covenants that were drafted by Mr. Schneider that the moratorium began from the date of approval which is different from the date of certificate of occupancy. It's probably going to take us close to a year to do site work, construct the building, fixture and inventory and then open for business. I want to clarify because there is a discrepancy in what you are saying and what is stated in the declaration.

Mr. Galster said if it is going to take you a year to build it then we really had no moratorium at all. If the clock starts with approval and it takes a year to build this, theoretically development moratorium could catch up and you could start at the same time.

Mr. Johnson responded theoretically that's possible; realistically I don't think that's possible. We have been negotiating with North American on potentially buying that property from us and we have made some progress. There is still some horse trading that has to go on but I think we're getting closer than we were two hours ago.

Mr. Galster replied if that happens the moratorium is really not an issue anyway because we will have a complete development project for all the residential area.

Mr. Johnson said but if for whatever reason, Lori and I cannot work out our agreement, I want to have some flexibility to try to recoup some of the investment we are making in this property. The land costs are high, the site work costs are expensive and from a financial perspective, having our hands tied for that period of time puts additional burden on our carrying costs. That's specifically why I'm bringing it.

Mr. Galster stated originally Planning Commission was looking at something in the neighborhood of five years. When that topic was discussed at Planning Commission, Planning Commission was settling in on two years. That's when Mr. Bonneville said it would be a problem. If, in fact, this becomes too tight of a time frame in my mind I wonder if it shouldn't go back to Planning Commission and start over there again because that was a pretty major issue to protect that residential area. I know my vote would be different if I wasn't comfortable with the overall plan for the whole area leaving the residents sitting there with retail literally shoved down their throats. I understand your position. Understand mine in the fact that I think we have already come down from 5 to 2 to 1. Now we're just saying when does that one year start.

Mr. Johnson said I appreciate that and I apologize. I wasn't party to those initial negotiations. I took over for Norm Brody a few months ago. The thing to keep in mind is that a lot of time has transpired from the time we made application to us appearing before City Council this evening. There is a lot of business opportunity lost to Target because of a lot of the issues that have been important: the carry costs associated with the property, the cost of not being able to get the store open in October 1998 when we originally tried to open the store versus fiscal 1999. I appreciate the fact that there has been flexibility in going from 5 to 2 to 1. But also, I just want to let you know that time has past and there are some significant issues that we're trying to address. That's why I'm making this request tonight.

Mr. Galster said the future development lot, the panhandle, is a very basic fundamental issue that was before Planning Commission. If we are trying to speed that up I have a problem with that as the Council representative of Planning and would recommend possibly that this go back to Planning Commission. Therefore, the amount of time you are talking about in order to get your building built, if it does get voted on and approved tonight, is going to be quite a bit longer. The time frame it has taken to get to this point, while we have a lot of traffic issues, Target has to take a lot of that burden upon themselves for creating that time lapse. I guess I want to make sure we are clear on how important that future development is in the delaying of that, if in fact, there are residents still left there. If we can't come to an agreement on that timing and stretching that out to what I believe was the intent from Planning Commission, then I would have a major problem proceeding much farther than where we are right now.

Mr. Johnson said, Mr. Schneider, am I correct in what I'm reading in the declaration as written? What's the starting point of the moratorium for one year? Is it zoning approval or is it C of O (certificate of occupancy) because that's pretty significant?

Mr. Schneider responded you stated pretty much what is here right now. That says Phase II shall not commence the development approval process sooner than one year from the date of this declaration. That's when these documents are signed unless incorporated into a larger, comprehensive development and thereafter, only in accordance to applicable law and site plan approval. That's my understanding of where we have been in the past somewhere. The past has traveled here a bit. I am going to draft them the way the majority of this Council directs me to draft them. If Council feels Planning Commission or one of the earlier reviews was not correct, or perhaps I misunderstood, they will be redrafted as this Council directs me to do so tonight.

Mr. Johnson replied I realize whom you work for. I just want to clear up the discrepancy here. When you said C of O that's why I made noise over here in the corner.

Mr. Schneider said I made that comment so that you know the process is yes, this body could refer back to the Planning Commission to make some clarification from what was understood or misunderstood at that time. That's one option they have or they could agree on some terms tonight that they are willing to approve, but for us to approve the declaration of covenants, it's a contractual arrangement between the developer and this City so there has to be some agreement to reach this. If there is general agreement then this Council can move forward on approving a preliminary plan. If there is not agreement and we can't agreement on the covenants, then there is certainly no basis of moving ahead on approving the preliminary plan. If I have the document such that we are in agreement on principal and the form is in order, then ultimately the wording your attorney and I can work out as we go toward the final development plan approval process. If there is not agreement in basic principal on what the requirements of the covenants are, then certainly as attorney, I can't say that they are in such form that we think we can work out the details.

Mr. Johnson said to Mr. Galster, you're of the position it's certificate of occupancy and he needs to redraft the covenant.

Mr. Galster replied yes, that's my understanding. I don't speak for everybody on City Council but I'm trying to relay to you the flavor of all the Planning Commission meetings that have happened in the past.

Mr. Johnson stated I understand. I would like to resolve it now instead of having it lingering.

Mr. Galster said I am trying to move forward and make sure that all the small issues and the fundamental issues are addressed; everybody is aware of them; there's no question; let's get it to a vote and go from there. This is an extremely important issue. It’s a basic fundamental issue that needs to be answered.

Mr. Schneider asked are we at 5 years in your recommendation or are we at one year?

Mr. Galster said we originally were at 5 in Planning Commission. We did go down to 2 years in discussion with Mr. Bonneville. Mr. Bonneville offered the one year and it just kind of sat there. There wasn't a debate about whether it should be 2 or should it be one.

Mr. Schneider said I just want direction tonight on whether you want it one or five.

Ms. Manis asked can I ask some more questions before we decide? If Ms. Wendling's deal falls through, will the people still be bought out or will they be there? If they are bought out that won't be a problem. I don't care how long we have to wait when there's not going to be any building if the people are still there. I thought that was one of the initial things we talked about at the very first meeting. I thought nothing would be done until that was taken care of. I don't care if you start building on there tomorrow if all of those people are taken care of and gone.

Mr. Johnson replied I can't answer that question.

Mr. Osborn asked what is your construction schedule? Suppose you get approval in Planning Commission in January. Would you be looking at a fall opening?

Mr. Johnson replied it would most likely be March 1999 assuming we could start site work in April. If not and there are unforeseen delays due to weather, etc., then most likely it would slide to July 1999.

Mr. Osborn said if we assumed a year's moratorium from the time the document was executed, that means there would be no activity in terms of coming before Planning Commission. The period that it would require to serve out the moratorium and then go into a planning process will extend well beyond a year. We could figure a year and three months or a year and six months given the normal pace of going through a plan review process. The real time frame of a one year moratorium from the time the covenants are executed would probably translate out to 1 1/2 years to actually see new development out there.

Mr. Danbury said the only reason I think we are going through this exercise is that there has been a lot of miscommunication. There have been a lot of delays. From my understanding after speaking with Mr. Shuler, this issue here is significantly different. I don't want to keep the residents on McClellans Lane out on a string. I don't want to keep you out on a string. I think we need to move forward and deal with these issues. But we need to have assurances that what we are going to approve, if we do approve it, is basically what Planning Commission had looked at and approved at one time. It appears that the proposed site right now is bypassing the Planning Commission with a lot of the issue. That's why I spoke with Mr. Galster to see if he can do a summation of what was originally approved and what was proposed tonight.

Mayor Webster said I have just briefly reviewed Mr. Galster's letter and we spoke briefly in my office prior to the meeting. Ninety percent of the issues listed here are Planning Commission issues. I happened to be in attendance at the last Planning Commission meeting when a vote was taken to recommend this to Council. Mr. Galster is exactly right. We're hung up on the second item out of four pages and I think we will continue to get hung up as we go through here because there were a ton of issues that were not resolved at Planning because the developer wanted to get it to Council. What we are doing tonight is a Planning Commission effort. We've held everybody at bay far too long. I don't want to see everyone strung out on this but this is a Planning Commission meeting we are having here this evening.

Mr. Galster said I agree but I think you will find a lot of these issues have been taken care of and we're just cleaning the board and making sure they are addressed because there are new people involved. We want to make sure there is nothing out there hanging and that there are no question marks. If there is going to be development on there without those other residents being incorporated into it, I don't want to see that developed for ten years. If they have a combined plan, I have no problem with it moving forward. If they don't I'd just as soon have it be as long as possible and I believe that was the feeling of the Planning Commission. I think this is a very fundamental issue that should kick it back to Planning if we cannot come to an agreement. Otherwise, I think it's just a matter of cleaning things up. I understand that this forum may not be the proper place to do it but that's where we are.

Mr. Johnson responded it is not our intention to bypass the Commission by any means. I just wanted to get it out in front of the Council, let our position be known. You can take any position you like on it. That's your prerogative, but as an applicant, an owner, investor in the community, I wanted to at least try and discuss the issue and see if there is a little flexibility. Obviously there isn't so let's move on but let's at least establish when that moratorium begins and when it would expire.

Mr. Danbury said I made the insinuation, and I didn't mean to, that you are bypassing Planning. It just seems that the process has gone an extremely long period and has taken an extremely difficult turn. I've never seen anything drag on like this and have residents have dragged on. We have to have an agreement on everything.

Mr. Osborn said I don't really think this is all that abnormal as to having issues unresolved when the matter comes before City Council. Many, if not all of the items listed on the document Mr. Galster put together, have been addressed in negotiations between the staff and the developer. I don't think we will have the same long discussion on everyone of these items, but I also feel that this item we're on right now is the heart of the issue. I don't think it's a matter that Planning Commission can resolve and then come back to Council. I think Council has to make the decision here; how long do you want to see a moratorium run, when do you want to see it start? If the C of O is a sticking point, maybe we could go for eighteen months from the time of execution of the document. Would that work better for you?

Mr. Johnson replied I think that would be fair.

Mr. Schneider said I thought Mr. Johnson indicated that he didn't want to go with the certificate of occupancy date. I'm the scribe for getting it down for a legal, binding obligation. I'm hearing Mr. Galster maintain a pretty strong position. He went from five years to ten years. I'm not quite sure that was the right direction. I'd like to keep it back closer to where we were. If you are saying let's move on I have to know that you are willing to go with one year development and the certificate of occupancy. Then I have what I can put into the covenants that was agreed to by the parties. If you are not, then we have to look at an alternative. I know Mr. Osborn is trying to find an alternative.

Mr. Johnson stated what Cecil just proposed is agreeable. There isn't any room for misunderstanding there. From what I understand from what Cecil just said, eighteen months from the time that this development agreement is signed nothing can occur on the panhandle property unless an agreement is worked out between Target and the developer who develops what we call the McClellans Lane property. Is that correct?

Mr. Osborn said my point is that, that effectively gives us two years from the time the document is executed.

Mr. Johnson said, if we get approval tonight, it goes back to Planning and we get approval at that level, then at what time does the agreement get signed?

Mr. Osborn replied you sign the document and it gets approved at the January meeting. I'm saying eighteen months for the moratorium to run and then I'm saying typically three to six months for any project to go through a development discussion so we're looking at an effective date of two years before we see a new development open on that east property.

Mr. Johnson said I thought you said that it would be a one-year moratorium and then typically it takes six months to get through.

Mr. Osborn replied no, I said how about running an eighteen month moratorium and starting it at the date of execution, effectively giving us about two years.

Mr. Johnson responded I guess if that's the way you want to propose it, that's fine, understanding that if we can get our agreement with North American, then it's a non-issue.

Mrs. McNear said I don't know why we don't just toss out occupancy or when the documents are signed and say when the last resident is gone. Because then I don't think any of us care when you build on there.

Mr. Galster replied I have no problem with one year from certificate of occupancy. I don't think we can hold them and tell them they can never develop that land as long as there is a resident in that community. If that's the case, then we should be telling them they can't build Target until there are no residents there. I think we are trying to come up with a compromise because it's very obvious that the residential zoning is not proper for that area and we're trying to allow the residents an opportunity to create a window to get something together. What if one person decides he/she wants to stay there forever and have Target in their front yard. Are we saying nothing else can be developed because that one person wants to stay? I think we're better off either sticking with the certificate of occupancy or eighteen months from the signing of the covenants to the submittal of any additional future development for that site. I am comfortable with either way. If this board wants to go one way or other; if the applicant has a preference please express it now.

Mr. Johnson said I prefer the eighteen months from the covenants signing until any future development.

Ms. Manis made the comment that "then we should tell Target they shouldn't build until the residents are gone." I thought that was basically what we said at the last meeting when we discussed this.

Mr. Wilson asked what's the status with the residents? Have they all committed to sell? Do they have move out dates?

Lori Wendling, North American Properties, said we do have executed agreements with all the homeowners on McClellans.

Mr. Danbury said so the issue with the residents could be a moot point, if they all have deals.

There was no disagreement from Council on that issue.

Mr. Galster continued with the preliminary plan summary.

4. The eastern most parking aisles are further addressed in the engineer's report so I will defer to Mr. Shuler.

5. The southern most parking space on the eastern side of the second parking aisle also deferred to Mr. Shuler.

6. The north access drive in front of the store - can it be extended to Commons Drive the way the topography of the land is?

Mr. Hardin said the grade would be a 12% grade, well in excess of what is considered safe.

7. The parking spaces facing Kemper Road need to be kept at a minimum of 3 feet from the retaining wall so that we can allow some overhang from the tires to the front bumpers of the cars so that we're not smashing into that wall. Do you have a problem with three feet?

Mr. Johnson replied we could put some bumper blocks up.

8. The sidewalk at the front of the building needs to be extended through the landscape island on the east side of the building. Right now you have it stopping at the corner of the building as opposed to continuing on the east side. Is there any problem extending that to where it goes through that landscape island.

Mr. Johnson asked, if we are going to extend the walk, are we eliminating the landscaping there?

Mr. Galster replied I believe that the drawing I have shows plenty of room for trees and shrubs. It's just to make sure that the people in that parking area have a sidewalk to get on. Mrs. McNear, do you want to comment on how wide that sidewalk should be? Should it be the full island?

Mrs. McNear answered no, I don't think it should be the full island. We can work with the applicant on the sidewalk and landscaping.

9. Storm management is detailed out in the engineer's report.

10. During construction full dust control procedures shall be utilized on the site to protect the residents during all phases of construction. This was agreed on in Planning Commission. I assume you continue to not have a problem with that.

Mr. Hardin replied there are standard regulations that we have to follow.

Item B - Landscaping Plan

1. The tree replacement policy - right now we are missing by 772 caliper inches over what the City requires them to replace. During Planning Commission we did come up with a number of $44 per caliper inch that could be donated the City's tree replacement program. There doesn't seem to be a problem with working out the replacement of the trees. This amount can be contributed at the direction of Planning Commission.

2. Tree planting at Kemper Road shall remain at 40-foot center lines minimum. I did see the new drawings showing the landscaping tonight and that's where they are at so it's no problem.

3. We have a 25' "Do Not Disturb" area continuing around all the property. In the panhandle we won't move any dirt plus we're going to plant the additional trees. So there is no problem with that one.

4. Plant material shall be installed in all curbed islands and shall include shrubbery to supplement the tree plantings. No problem with that.

5. The screen that screens McClellans Lane needs to be year round type screening to provide an adequate screen for the residential areas (evergreens, etc.) That's no problem.

Ms. Manis asked if you worked out a deal with the whole property, would you say then that you don't need to do that because there are no residents.

Mr. Galster said if Phase II gets developed and they take those trees down, then they will need to be replaced again. Until we have an actual plan for Phase II there is no way to know that. We're trying to keep them around the borders so that if the moratorium would run out, we'd still have as much possible screening there in the meantime.

Mr. Schneider said by mutual agreement you can modify these things. The best thing I think everyone is saying up here is, to develop these in conjunction with each other is the best. Then you wouldn't have to put trees there because that could be modified and there would be some cost savings to the Target people as well if it could be done now. But if there isn't and they are in, that's where they go. If there is development later, they come out and Target owes us calipers of trees. But there can be modification of the plan by agreement between the property owners and the Council.

Mr. Vanover said I agree that that screening should be year round and it should be substantial because what is on that property right now is sincerely a joke. It doesn't screen anything. I would want solid assurance that we have a substantial screen there because I wouldn't want to have to look at it.

Mr. Hardin said that comment came from a previous landscape plan. We have since added in additional evergreens and staff has reviewed it.

6. Ornamental trees to be planted on the west side entrance at the base of the pylon sign, if in fact, a pylon sign is approved; as well as along Century Boulevard. There was an old comment by Ms. McBride. I assume those have been taken care of or if they haven't, you don't have a problem putting them there.

7. All lawn area tree and shrubbery massing shall be in mulched, shredded, hardwood beds.


1. Light poles and fixtures are to be copper colored with a maximum height of 28 feet unless applicants can show the Planning Commission why this is not feasible. We keep coming back at 38 feet. Planning Commission left it at 28 feet, but the new plan has them back at 38 feet again. I know there are some cost considerations but for the approval tonight to move on, and it can still be debated at final plan approval, I recommend that this board not recommend anything higher than 28 feet until that goes back to Planning Commission.

Mr. Johnson said I think that is another point that was left a little gray at Planning Commission. We did go back and take a look at properties to the rear of us. They have 40-foot poles. Across the street there are 36-foot poles. In the Kemper Commons area they are 40-foot poles. We have no problem going with the bronze color and what we had drafted in the covenants was that the Target portion would be a 38 foot pole. Anything on the panhandle portion, unless it is incorporated in an additional development would be a 25-foot pole.

Ms. Manis asked, is it because it takes more poles to supply the foot candles?

Mr. Johnson replied yes, the actual reach that a light fixture can maintain is proportional to the height. The higher the pole system, the more efficient the system. You get so high up and you start losing. The 38 foot is optimum from a photometric standpoint and in terms of snow maintenance. You have fewer poles; therefore you have less obstacles to hit during snow removal.

Ms. Manis asked, if all the other places around have them higher, then why are we insisting on these being low.

Mr. Osborn said the comments Mr. Galster is referring to go back to last July. Since then we've had this dialog and the compromise of 38 foot poles on the Target site with 25 foot poles on the residue site. That was something that we felt was consistent with the original desire of Planning Commission to protect that residential area; yet, it recognized the fact that we have 40 foot poles on the developments bordering the site on two sides and just slightly under 38 feet on the third side. In the covenants we have used this language of 38 feet on the Target site and 25 feet on the residential. Again, the comment Mr. Galster is referring to is in blue on his sheet and that goes back to a comment from last July.

Mr. Galster responded it was but it was also brought up in the latest review as well so I wanted to get some clarification from Ms. McBride as to what is the desired height.

Ms. McBride said our initial concern on this was light spillage onto the residential property. At that time they were not under contract for redevelopment. I don't think the Target poles at 38 feet would cause any hardship. They are not showing any light spillage onto that property.

Mr. Galster said so we're back to 38 feet at Target and 25 feet in the panhandle if it gets developed without the other residential area being developed. If it all goes it can go back to 38 feet in the panhandle.

Mrs. McNear said I just want to go back to the contract Northwest Properties has with the residents on McClellans Lane. If this gets approved will there be a buyout.

Ms. Wendling said when all the conditions we need to go through (tenants, design, site plan review, etc.) then we give the residents notice that we intend to close within a certain time period. If Target is approved, that does not necessarily mean everything on our end is ready to go. Once they are approved we can start working full force on our side.

Mrs. McNear asked, then you don't already have a tenant in mind that might be interested in purchasing a parcel of property this size.

Ms. Wendling responded that there are parties interested but until they know if it's really viable you can't get a firm commitment.

Mrs. McNear asked then you don't have any idea the length of time that the residents will still be residing on this street.

Ms. Wendling said they would have four to six months time to look for new homes, etc. I would say best case, maybe a year before everything is put in place and they are actually moving.

Mr. Danbury said this seems to be a sticking point with the original plan approved by Planning Commission at 28 feet. The Administration and Ms. McBride don't see a problem with that. Does Council want to continue with 28 feet or are you happy with 38 feet?

Mr. Galster said as a representative of Planning Commission I'm fine with the negotiation the City has come up with.

2. Delete

3. No light spillage shall occur on any adjacent property. We are going to provide the documentation that shows that that doesn't happen. All lighting shall be positioned and/or screened so that they do not adversely affect the driving public, whether that be the light on the back of the building, etc.. There's no problem with that.


To date there has been no sign package approved by Planning Commission and it was to be submitted as a separate issue. I don't know if you are looking for sign package approval tonight. If that is the desire then I would say the only items Planning Commission was comfortable with was the pole sign 25 feet, 80 square feet, self elevation, Target logo at 204 square feet, pharmacy logo on the south elevation of 55.5 feet. They were not comfortable and additional discussions still needed to happen as far as any of the other elevations go.

Mr. Danbury said Mr. Schneider, due to the fact that they are entitled to some signage due to the square footage, as long as they meet that they wouldn't come here.

Mr. Schneider stated we have provisions. Presumably signs were considered and there was a sign and striping plan that was submitted. I don't know the latest update. We left that blank in the covenants. We do have a covenant provision and they must meet those plans. What you see is what you get so they should have their signs in place for the PUD, at least preliminarily. In the final plan we'll have the final destination of those.

Mr. Galster said we have not had a formal submittal of any sign package at Planning Commission to date. That was to be brought in as a separate issue. The covenants would be drafted in the final process and would not have to be executed until after final plan approval is granted by Planning Commission. We still have the option today, because those covenants are not in effect yet, to either say ok, you need to come up with a new sign package and complete that submittal at your final plan stage; or we can say this is what we will give you tonight as the minimum, where there were no objections from Planning and any increase you will have to bring back before Planning.

Mr. Hardin stated we did submit a sign package as part of our initial submittal that had signs on the north side of the building and the west side of the building as well as the south side of the building. At the Planning Commission meeting there was a lot of discussion, particularly about the sign to the north. Target said they would be more than willing to remove that sign. We did resubmit another sign package showing that sign being removed. The latest building elevations that were submitted to the City do show that sign at the rear being removed but we did want to retain the siding on the west face. We did submit additional information on that.

Mr. Galster said but the sign package has not been before Planning Commission for approval. We got your original submittal. There was a lot of discussion about the north and west sides. If today, you are asking for some signage approval as part of this project as opposed to bringing it in as a separate issue, based on the discussion, my reading of the minutes and going through all the Planning Commission minutes, I'm not comfortable with approving a west elevation sign until Planning Commission has an opportunity to see the whole signage presentation.

Mr. Hardin asked so we would go back to Planning Commission for signage approval but we would still have the right to ask for as much signage as we are permitted by code?

Mr. Galster replied sure. This approval process has absolutely no signs in it at this point.

E. 1 To establish responsibility to maintain all landscaping, including but not limited to, the buffer at McClellans Lane. I believe that's already in the covenants.

2. Restrictions should be in place to limit future retail use; i.e., fast food, drive-thrus, auto repairs, etc. I have not seen the covenants to know if that has been covered at this point.

3. Restrictions should be in place to not allow any outside storage of or sales of any kind including but not limited to shopping carts. That's the way Planning Commission originally put it forward. I notice in the modification that we now have outside storage of carts that are now screened behind some walls. Planning Commission has not seen that and probably would not approve that, but if Council does wish to allow the outside storage of carts then this area shall be screened by a 4 foot wall and shall not be visible from any of the parking areas.

4. Adequate sidewalk area must be provided between the storage area and the parking lot and no additional outside storage or sales shall be permitted. My personal opinion and my feel for Planning Commission is that no outside cart storage would have been permitted.

Mr. Osborn responded this is an item that we negotiated with the applicant. We felt the intent of Planing Commission was to prevent the storage of carts from cluttering or detracting from the appearance of the store. In talking to the applicant it became clear that they do not have sufficient room in their store to accommodate all the carts that are required for the store. It's typical for this model store to have carts on the outside. There would be a 4 foot wall in front of the carts so the carts could be stored outside the building but behind a 4 foot wall so they would not be visible from the public view. It was our thought that that would meet Planning Commission's desire to protect the appearance of the building and accommodate the applicant's need to store some of their carts outside.

Mr. Galster asked to see that area on the plans and said I have no quarrels with the 3B option. Adequate sidewalk area must be provided between the storage area and parking lot area. I think on the plan I saw one area looked awfully tight.

5. To establish responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of all the detention basins including the regional basins located on SK property. It's my understanding this is already in the covenants according to the engineer's report that I received today. Target will be responsible for Kemper Road improvements as well as construction of Century Boulevard across their property. This covenant is to ensure that Century Boulevard roadway portion at the north property line will be finished by Target on the SK property. Part of the reason for this covenant is, it should be done before an occupancy certificate is issued due to the loading dock problems that were cited in Mr. Shuler's report. I am going to hold this off until his report because there are other issues that this impacts.

6. Easements for ingress and egress need to be in place on the property designed for outlots and the area proposed for the detention to assure access for future development from McClellans Lane to Century Boulevard. Ms. McBride brought up that two points of access are provided connecting McClellans Lane to Century Boulevard. I assume that, if in the future there was development there, we would just have access somewhere farther down the road or are we trying to get it in the two outlot areas?

Ms. McBride said prior submissions have shown access and again we have not tied them into a specific point because we don't know how this property is going to develop. We don't want these properties to be cut off from any access onto Century Boulevard.

Mr. Galster said all access for ingress and egress issues will continue regardless of the future businesses operating on the subject property according to a note from Mr. McErlane's observations of the covenants.

Mr. Schneider stated the easements run with the property.

Mr. Galster read paragraph c: "As long as there is a business operating on the Target property it may present a concern for Tri-County Commons. . . The need will continue regardless of the future of the businesses operating on Target property." So that paragraph needs to be slightly reworded so that we cover it whether Target is there, not there, up and running, not running, etc.

8. Delete

9. Target and any and all other property owners involved in the extension of Century Boulevard shall be in place prior to any final approval. Approval to proceed with construction. I assume that this is a major issue that needs to come forth with Mr. Shuler's report.

10. All necessary and required right of way dedication to be in place and to meet the approval of the City of Springdale. I think we have indication that that is on the new plans.

11. Satisfactory approval of all of the covenants by the City of Springdale and legal department.

Mr. Danbury said I apologize to everybody in the audience. I know this has gone on for a long time. I want to make sure we're on the same page. As I see it, the only issues we have are that the signage should be dealt with individually with the Planning Commission and then there should be an eighteen month moratorium from the signing of the covenants until the submittal of any additional plans.

David Okum, vice-president of Planning Commission, said I was one of the dissenting votes on Planning Commission. I have several items regarding the project and I have verbalized most of those. I think Council needs to consider the following items: the gentleman here indicated standards for dust control are preset. The flavor of Planning Commission's issue was maximum dust control as long as the residences were involved. It was not just standards ordinary and customary to construction. I don't think that was portrayed by the comment I heard this evening.

Mr. Danbury asked Mr. Okum to define dust control.

Mr. Okum said during construction, depending on the period of time this is going on, there is going to be an enormous amount of dust generated by the earth movement that is going to occur. You've seen the elevations and contours. The contours are going to require massive dirt movement in order to accomplish this. Winds blow northwest/northeasterly which happens to be in the same direction as these residents. These residences are going to be invaded by massive amounts of dust unless it's under major control. I am not comfortable with just ordinary standards and I was not comfortable with it when it was presented to Planning Commission and when I made my motion. By the way, I did make the motion and I did vote in opposition to the project. The screening and buffering for the residents on the outlot I thought was 40 feet. The plan showed 25 feet, not 20. I do have some concerns regarding the rear of the building screening. This building is going to be elevated approximately 70 feet off Commons Boulevard. It is going to be a monument sitting on top of that hill. I've been to Western Hills. I've been to basically every Target there is, including Orlando, Florida. Mr. Okum showed a picture and said it was the back end of a Target Store. That is what you are going to be looking at when you come up the hill. Mr. Okum showed a picture of a dock configuration. Although the applicant has done a fine job at working on some screen, those issues are still issues that concern me because that's what we as the general public observe when we drive by a business or drive in the neighborhoods. I do have some very strong concerns about how that's going to appear to our community. Another item I have is truck staging and dock access. I've been totally separate from that report, Mr. Shuler, so I have no idea what that report covers, but I will address it from my observation from the plan that has been presented. I have serious concerns about trucks bringing materials into the store and staging. They have the docks that are located right on Century Boulevard, which means if they have three docks there and four trucks in, the fourth truck has to find a location to go to. Does that mean that that truck is going to sit on Century Boulevard? Not only are you going to be looking at that but trucks could be in the roadway. From my understanding, Century Boulevard when it does extend to Commons Drive, will be the main access into that development and that means cars will be driving around those trucks going up the roadway at that point. I think the applicant has made an effort to address the safety issue as far as cars coming into the main development. I did have a primary concern when the original development plan showed the primary entrance across the front of the building for public safety. I believe that moving the entrance back 250 feet from Kemper Road will certainly help. I certainly hope the general public, if this is approved, does not choose the main entrance next to the store because that's where I as a participant in purchasing a product in that store, would be walking. I think that they have fit as much on this lot as they can. Certainly it would have been better if they had a better site but this is what they chose. They made it fit. It's not quite clear if they truly meet all of our setback requirements that would go to Board of Zoning Appeals for a zoning variance but this is a PUD and it's in Council's hands.

Mr. Hardin said there will be approximately 4 trucks per day. They will come in around 7:30 a.m. and leave around 1:00 p.m. The loading docks are unfortunately a necessary evil you have to have for any type of operation. We have made several attempts to try to screen those. We've added landscaping along the southeast side and landscaping in other areas. There are loading docks and you will be able to see them. They are part of the operation as a whole. As for staging within the road right of way, the program is not designed for that. They will drop off their goods and be gone within two hours. As you know, most truckers in today's market want to get unloaded and get back on the road. They are not interested in sitting and waiting on someone else.

Mr. Danbury said I don't think it's feasible to build four docking bays for four trucks a day. You can build four and you may get five.

Mayor Webster said I'm sure the public right of way will be posted no parking. If they want to park out there and wait for a spot to open up, they better hope one of Springdale's finest doesn't come along.

Ms. Manis asked if that road is used by anyone else.

Mr. Hardin replied we have a few parking places in that area but it's primarily for the truck traffic. We've increased the width of that drive to accommodate the trucks.

Ms. Pollitt asked on the truck entrance area, could you restrict that parking so shoppers would not try to go into that area and be in jeopardy of injury from the trucks? I would like to see it not used as parking spaces the public could use.

Mr. Hardin said when the traffic flow comes in most people try to take the first point of access. That area would probably be used very little. Target would not like to designate it as employee parking or any specialized parking.

Mr. Danbury said from looking at the parking earlier, that is part of their density for parking spaces which they are dangerously close to right now. If we eliminate that we'll have to go back to the drawing board.

Ms. Pollitt said it could be employee parking only. I don't like the thought of children being in cars back in that area especially if it's going to be used for queuing up for trucks.

Mr. Danbury said Mr. Okum brought up dust control and that's a valid point.

Mr. Hardin said my concern is how do we define maximum dust control. There are state regulations in regards to dust control that contractors are required to follow. Beyond that it's hard to set what a standard is in terms of dust control. We'll make every effort to have a minimum amount of dust going over to the residences. I cannot stand here and give you a guarantee that there will not be any dust. We do have standard specifications and regulations that we require the contractor to follow and maintain. We will put that burden on the contractor for him to maintain those standards and anything beyond that we would have to address on a one on one instance with the residents who are impacted.

Ms. Manis said when Glenview was being built they were supposed to be doing dust control also and it was a terrible problem. You can guarantee that if there is not adequate dust control, you will know about it and something will be done to alleviate it.

Mr. Hardin said part of Target's program for development is that they do have an on-sight representative from Target. Once construction starts Target does not walk away and say I'll come back when you're ready to open the store. My name is on the construction plans and my phone number as well. You can always call me and I will make every effort to pass along your concerns.

Mr. Shuler said when we finished our comments on the new site plan we were discussing in the office that our comments were on a plan that Council had not yet seen and was a different plan than our original report. So we felt it was best to include our comments from October 8, update the issues that were addressed in that report and address to Council comments and a response on the issues that were raised at the November 25 meeting of staff and the applicant, and in a memo that summarized that meeting on November 26. The third section of our report was on the new plan we received last Wednesday and some issues we felt were important on that plan as well. It may be helpful to go through some of the issues that were in the original report and our understanding that these items will be taken care of when the final plans are developed and submitted to Planning Commission.

In the areas where right of way is being donated, the grading should be accomplished with this development for the future widening that the City will undertake on Kemper Road and Century Boulevard. In addition, on Kemper Road, since the sidewalk is going to be required to be relocated because of the widening the applicant is going to be doing across their frontage, we have requested and I believe they have agreed to reconstruct the sidewalk in its future location at the proposed right of way line so in a couple of years when the City comes through and puts the additional turn lanes in, we're not tearing out something they just put in. It made sense to us to do all of that at one time. I hope that would be agreeable and it would be a condition of approval.

The next item dealt with the truck traffic. It is our understanding that the truck traffic would enter the site as was explained and when the trucks exit the site they will be already traveling north or northeast and they will pull out on Century Boulevard. They will continue to travel north and then make the turn at the intersection to come back to Kemper. Our concern was in the intermediate time period before Century Boulevard is developed, it appeared that there was insufficient turning radius for those trucks exiting the docks to make that swing completely around and then go back on Century. If that is the case we'd like to see some kind of temporary turn-around built in conjunction with Century Boulevard so we don't have trucks pulling across Kemper or Century, going over the curb and rutting up the right of way area. That would be a temporary measure until Century is completed and they would exit as intended to.

One of the comments early on was on storm sewers. The storm sewer system is going to be designed to carry a 100 year storm across Century into the detention basin. The detention basin did come into discussion when we discussed the additional right of way we would like the applicant to donate on Century for the addition of a northbound lane that the City would be building some time in the future as traffic requires. The concern was if the right of way was widened and that lane put in, they could not build the detention basin as proposed on the development to accommodate the City's requirements for storm water detention. We suggested that at the time the project is built that the detention basin be constructed to accommodate the City's requirements for total detention and then when the City develops that additional lane northbound on Century, if it is going to interfere with the detention basin, we will look at methods to accommodate the greatest extent possible retaining as much detention as we can, but not so to reduce the volume of the detention basin at this time for something that may not happen for some years down the road. I think it's also been suggested that with the development of the area to the east of Century, that detention basin may be moved some time in the future and incorporated into an additional facility to serve a bigger area. We would suggest that the detention basin be built at this time to accommodate the full requirements of the Target development and then we will deal with any modification of that if we have to in the future.

The next section of our October report dealt with traffic. The issues have changed. At that time we were talking about the concern for safe egress and ingress to the site and the proximity of the driveways to Century Boulevard. We'll get into that in more detail. The third area of the October report dealt with future right of way which was discussed in the November 25 meeting. The plan that has been submitted last week does represent the right of way we had requested which will include, not only the improvements that the applicant is going to provide as part of this development, but will also provide the City the additional right of way we feel we will need in the future to accommodate the additional turn lanes and capacity as outlined in the corridor study.

I'd like to go through the items that were discussed and the status of each of those, which is the meeting that occurred November 25. The summary memo was done November 26.

Kemper Road - Was the additional right of way necessary on Kemper Road and placing the sidewalk at the back of that new right of way? As I indicated a minute ago, the right of way has been shown as we requested it. The plan that we received still shows the sidewalk along the back of the curb as it will be constructed as the applicant widens Kemper. We would recommend that that sidewalk be put back at the new right of way line so it's not money wasted in having to do that twice.

Safe ingress and egress of the sight and to locate a driveway into the site that would accommodate the applicant's need and be in a location that we felt was safe and would not interfere with the movement of traffic on Century Boulevard. With the applicant's desire to turn left into that first driveway and the desire to have that as a through connection to the property to the east of Century, we felt it was essential that we had adequate space to accommodate all of those traffic movements. We arrived at an agreement that the first through driveway would be no closer than 275 feet from the proposed future right of way on Kemper. The plan shows that there is a difference of about 7 feet from the existing right of way. That could probably very easily be accommodated in the final development plans. The second issue is that that driveway was proposed to be moved north. It then became clear that the main drive across the site and the drive across the front of the building were becoming dangerously close together and again, would be confusing and unsafe for vehicles entering and exiting those driveways with the width of Century Boulevard so we also placed a requirement that those driveways be no closer than 150 feet, which they have done on this plan.

The next item dealt with the new or proposed southerly driveway. You may want to refer to the sketch that I have attached to our report which is just a copy of the section of the plan. Our concern and issue is that with most of the traffic being assumed to be turning left off of Century into the site at that first driveway, the first row of parking on the site is extremely close to Century Boulevard. If there are vehicles on that drive waiting to pull across Century or turn out onto Century and will be blocking those parking areas, we did not want vehicles entering the site to stop and wait for those vehicles to clear, thereby backing traffic up onto Century Boulevard. Again, it's a safety issue and we have a concern about having the parking aisles this close to the main entrance to the site and are recommending that both of those parking aisles be blocked off and become part of the curbed entrance drive to accommodate that safety issue.

Maintain concrete median in Century Boulevard - If there are any driveways that are constructed at any time in the future in that first 275 feet, we wanted to assure that they would be right-in, right-out only. We know it's a very difficult issue that we've dealt with in a number of locations around the City and we also know they are high accident areas and we want to prevent something from happening in the future.

There were a few items that were new based on the site plan that was submitted. The first one dealt with the two drives themselves as these were redesigned. The curve of those two driveways, the reverse curb on both the north and south driveway, appear to be about 85 foot radii which are very sharp turns for a through drive or street through the shopping center. For comparison, for a 20 mph speed limit ODOT recommendations would be that that be a 200 foot radius. ASHTO requirements would be that it be 115 foot radius. That curve on the entrance drive to Tri-County shopping center just south of the interstate is 130 foot radius. We feel that the 85 foot radius is less than desirable and would like to see that increased if at all possible.

The next issue dealt with the width of the main drive across the site. The plan indicates that the drive is 25 feet back to back. It appeared, looking at the plan, that there is a 2 1/2 foot curb and gutter section. The drive itself only scales about 20 feet in width. Our requirements for aisle width in parking stalls is 24 feet and as this is the main drive across the site we'd like to see a minimum of 24 foot width.

There were two issues dealing with parking. The first one dealt with the parking aisles that would be exiting onto the main drive. Every other one of these aisles has a protected island. The intermediate parking aisles have parking right along the main drive. We see two problems with that. If someone is parked in one of those aisle widths with that 20 foot drive they could open a door right into a vehicle that is driving down that aisle width. Secondly, with vehicles parked there, there would insufficient site distance for somebody trying to pull out of one of those aisles onto the main drive. Therefore, we're recommending that those parking stalls adjacent to the main drive be converted to landscape islands and that would be at a loss of 12 additional parking places.

There were a number of locations where parking spaces were placed that would require vehicles to back out into a driveway or main aisleway to exit those parking stalls. In all those locations where vehicles could back out into a travel, which we've indicated on this drawing, we feel would be unsafe for someone backing out. They could back out into traffic. We would recommend that those parking stalls be eliminated. That would be an additional loss of eleven. I believe I heard earlier that the parking that was proposed on the site was 584. With the loss of those 23 that would bring the proposed parking down to 561 versus the requirement of 631.

On the semi truck movement we just wanted to make sure the trucks could make the movement and stay on the pavement area after turning off Century, going through that aisle width and that we have sufficient turning radii to accommodate that.

As the plans were presented they showed less than sufficient lane width on Century. However, I think that could easily be accommodated by restriping that area and no plan change would be required.

These are observation and I think most of them can be addressed as part of the final development plan that will be submitted to Planning Commission. The only issues I think are of critical nature are the safety issues dealing with the drive aisle widths, parking and the restrictions on turning movements into the aisles.

Mr. Hardin said in regards to the truck circulation and traffic movement from the loading dock around to Century Boulevard that was one of the first items that Target asked us to look at from their standpoint. We did check it for truck maneuverability. They can and we can provide that documentation to you. As far as the south drive through the parking lot, the width of the drive is intended to be 24 feet. There is an extra visual line on the documents. If you start drawing lines too close together in a real world and plot it out, it becomes one big, fat line and you can't tell the difference. The visual line represents a curb. If you measured it in the computer it's probably 4 or 5 feet wide but the intent is for 24 feet through that area. We do propose to use straight curbs along those islands. With regards to the traffic movement through the south drive, I would like to point out that this is a parking lot. We are not trying to design a road through here. I understand the City Engineer in regards to a 200 foot radius. That does throw that way into the parking field. As far as the 85 feet he mentions in terms of the radius, we might be able to increase that slightly but I wouldn't want to go to 200 or even 115 with the super elevation. We have to remember that this is a parking lot. We have graded this thing out so it is not designed as a roadway. If we're at 85 or 100 feet we could work within those confines. Beyond that we have to really take a strong look at what the City Engineer would propose or how we could work that out.

A major concern is the number of parking spaces. If you take into consideration his numbers we are now down to 561 spaces. We were already 40 spaces short of what Target can utilize and accept as an operational facility. We're now down another 23 spaces so we're 10% short of what they even desire. Making some of these modifications is an additional hindrance. If you put a throat at the bottom then that area becomes separated from the balance of the development and the balance of the property. Basically you are putting in parking spaces that are not being utilized and if people do park there, they are being forced into the field and they are not going to look at anything behind them. This is not a main through road. The entire development was developed in that manner and that's the way we would like to approach this. We recognize there will be traffic coming from Kemper Commons but the amount of traffic we are anticipating does not warrant a roadway design.

Mr. Vanover said on the northern most entrance where he is proposing that the trucks will do the dog leg through, come by the side of the building and then back into the docks. That radius looks awfully tight.

Mr. Shuler stated it's part of the whole issue. We just want to make sure when we get to final plan approval by Planning Commission that we have put all the turning radius templates on their drives and we are assured that the vehicles can make those maneuvers and stay within the pavement that is designated for them.

Ms. Manis said I do think that these endcaps on all the ends are very important.

Mayor Webster asked have you even considered building an employee parking lot across Century Boulevard on the other side to get some relief there?

Mr. Hardin replied that has not come up. Initially when we brought the site plan in we were showing some development over there. We were anticipating the use of some parking over there and at this time we have a moratorium on it. We have taken that out of the picture and that was agreed to at Planning Commission.

Mayor Webster said I've heard the conversation about the moratorium. I have to think if that would resolve the parking situation that people here would be receptive to at least listening to that. Ten percent less parking than what you need is pretty drastic.

Mr. Danbury said I would have no problem if they used that for parking.

Peggy Damron, 11666 McClellans Lane said we are all under a signed contract. It does have a two year expiration. If things don't get taken care of that would expire in September 1999. We are all happy. I don't think we could get through that again. We haven't had any problems and we're hoping everything goes smoothly and goes through quickly.

Ms. Manis made a motion to adopt and Mrs. McNear seconded.

Mr. Galster said I'm wondering about making some of these issues like an addendum so we make sure all these fine tuned points are included in any motion that would be approved or denied.

Mr. Schneider said I think we've had the two basic issues discussed and resolved by both parties. I will accommodate those in the covenants which are preliminary approval. I will draft those and send a copy to the attorneys for the developer and to the City staff and Council for review. I consider it in the minutes so we recognize that. As long as you feel it has been recognized by the other side as well we can put it in legal form. I don't think you need anything in particular over and above what you have already. I could state what I understood them to be if you want. There may be some others but we have a draft of the covenants in hand and the key was the 18 months accommodation of the development timing and the signage which is approval for the amount of signage applicable to law right now and no modifications have been approved at this time. Planning Commission is hereby granted the authority to make such modifications at the time of final plan approval as it deems appropriate. That's my understanding of how you wanted to handle the sign approval.

Mr. Galster asked if Mr. Shuler's recommendations are part of the agreement that we are about to vote on?

Mr. Schneider replied we have accommodated specific elements in the declaration of covenants and commitments and his report to my knowledge is going to be accommodated within those final covenants and commitments as well as other requirements.

Mr. Osborn said I didn't hear that. I think there are still a number of issues outstanding that are relevant and significant to the ability of the site to function. The idea of the additional aisle caps that Ms. Manis brought up and the radius of the reverse curve that Mr. Shuler points out and the closure of the two eastern most aisles that are recommended in Mr. Shuler's report are all unresolved. They are still issues that need to be resolved with the developer. Perhaps what could be accomplished here is that Council could make their approval of the plan consistent with Mr. Shuler's recommendations. We're at the preliminary plan stage. The developer still has to come back to Planning Commission for final development plan. Many of the items that were in Mr. Shuler's recommendations will have to be addressed at that level in any event. I guess unless the applicant is prepared to try to resolve some of these tonight, if they do everything Mr. Shuler requested, they are going to be 10% under what they want for parking. The dialogue has been made about the consideration of putting some parking on the other side of the road. Those kinds of details can be left to the final development plan. We're talking about this as a preliminary development plan with a more comprehensive perspective on is this the right site, is this the right use, is this the right circulation? Planning Commission still has the ability to say no, we're not going to approve this detail of this parking lot layout unless you accommodate the engineer's comments. That would be my suggestion rather than try to work in every finite issue that has been raised here, perhaps adopt an approval of the preliminary plan as commented on by the City Engineer and then Planning Commission can choose to refine those recommendations along with the developer.

Ms. Manis said I will withdraw my original motion. Do I need to do that? Mr. Osborn replied no.

Ms. Manis said as far as parking goes I know you have requirements. I've been here through Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and several other major developments that have come to town and they've all had a required number of parking places that were needed. However, we drive by that lot every day and see numerous empty spaces in the lot every day. In my mind, although I know your parking spaces drive your store, they are not a major factor in my mind when you are considering the safety of the residents. I do think these would be a big sticking point but I also think our Planning Commission will be tough about them also. I would not have a problem making a motion of that nature and I will.

Mr. Schneider said I understand that the motion you are making is that these reports be included as part of the exhibits and attachments set out in Section 1. In our ordinance we provided for a preliminary development plan approximately 15.461 acres on East Kemper Road which has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in accordance with the exhibits listed and described in Attachment 1, which are incorporated hereby references, hereby approved. I think we need to insert in there and any subsequent reports by the engineer.

Mr. Osborn said we have a stage process here. We have a preliminary development plan and a detailed development plan. Why have a second stage if we are going to do all the details right here right now. My point is the process allows for a refinement of these types of details before Planning Commission. I'm just suggesting that to make it clear to Planning Commission that Council is approving the preliminary plans subject to the comments of the staff. At that point Planning Commission and the applicant can attempt to work out the details at the Planning Commission level.

Mr. Schneider stated then we want to change the ordinance that we want to add to Section 1 subject to the comments of staff that have been submitted.

The motion and second have been withdrawn.

Ms. Manis said I move that we adopt this ordinance and that Planning Commission take into consideration all the staff's comments in making their decision, which is what they normally do, correct?

Mr. Osborn responded yes. I don't think we need to amend the ordinance. I just think Council's motion here is to approve the preliminary development plan as proposed by the applicant in the exhibits subject to the comments of the engineering and planning staff. At that point those comments become part of the record and pass onto the Planning Commission for their part of this process.

Mrs. McNear seconded the motion.

Mr. Vanover said I wholeheartedly would ask for that subject to consideration because this has been an exercise in futility. Not even some of the more infamous developments that have come before the City have been drawn out to this extent. I think in protecting everybody we need to get that requirement in. There have been numerous comments made about us making things difficult. A lot of the points being presented were on the table in the very beginning. I find this very frustrating and agitating that it has gone on as long as it has and under the guise of some of the discussions and work sessions that have had to go to this point. Without considering these comments there is no way I would support this.

Mr. Danbury said this has been a very long night, very tedious and I've never been through this. I'm not pointing fingers but I'd like to at least stress the importance of deadlines. We've had deadlines given to us numerous times and we've agreed upon deadlines and these deadlines have passed. We're getting some information back from various representatives from the presenters like at the last second. That's why we're doing all of this. Our staff has not had adequate time to look at this and review a lot of these things. It's frustrating for Mr. Shuler and his staff and Mr. McErlane and we're bending over backwards to be as accommodating as possible. It's been very, very difficult for us to do a good job. If we're going to have a good plan coming in here and we want Target here and we want businesses here, we can't just throw things up there just because someone gives us something at the last second. That's why we've spent 2 1/2 hours on some of these issues.

Mr. Osborn said I just want to make it clear that when I expressed the proposed process here that these comments become part of the record but in the detailed refinement, Mr. Shuler may find an alternative way of addressing some of these so his comments may change in the future as more dialogue continues. So it's not like this is our final word. We're going to have a continuing dialogue with the developer to try to resolve these issues in a mutually beneficial way. While these become part of the record and state Council's position, it's with the understanding that Planning Commission will be able to approve a final development plan if it's consistent with the engineer's recommendations.

Ordinance No. 60-1997 passed with 6 affirmative votes. Mr. Vanover voted no.


Ms. Manis made a motion to adopt and Mr. Galster seconded. Ordinance 59-1997 passed with 7 affirmative votes.

Council recessed at 9:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:56 p.m.

Public Hearing


Ms. Manis made a motion to adopt and Mr. Galster seconded

Mr. Knox said this is an annual event we have in the City whereby the Council is apprised of exactly what the money was spent for to this point and what remaining funds are to be expended during this year. A lot of work goes into this and I'd like to take this opportunity to point out the work of Mrs. Rhonda Burton, the City Finance Officer and Mrs. Marty Holden, our account clerk who worked a lot of late hours and came up with some real good work here. Some of the numbers you see here are negative numbers. The reason for those negative numbers is that funds were carried over from last year and those are the funds that are used to make those things positive. So actually all that money was there but we're just addressing 1997 and the carry over from 1996 is not addressed.

Ordinance 80-1997 passed with 7 affirmative votes.

Public Hearing


Mr. Osborn said because of the lateness of the hour and the fact that the audience has all left I will not give my slide presentation. I've handed out a summary this evening that is an extract of the high points. I think you are all familiar with the budget and I prefer at this point to leave it to your discretion.

Mr. Knox said I must point out the work done by Mr. Osborn and Mr. Parham helping him. This is one heck of a lot of work and I think they richly deserve our thanks.

Mr. Vanover made a motion to adopt and Mrs. McNear seconded.

Ms. Manis said I've discussed the Rec Center expansion with Mr. Osborn. I would like to see a committee started to look into things. Some of the thinking has changed such as how the building should be built. Maybe we could get more for our money if we build more rather than do so much renovating. Maybe we could get a committee together and start looking at other buildings, taking in what we want and don't want and getting with the engineer to do some pre-planning this year.

Mr. Osborn said we haven't budgeted any money for pre-planning but we have budgeted for formal design in 1999 and construction in 2000. I think pre-planning is oriented more towards our leg work and elbow grease than it is professional services. It will take some professional services but it will take community involvement to develop parameters on what we want to see happen at the Rec Center.

Ordinance 81-1997 passed with 7 affirmative votes.


Mr. Galster made a motion to adopt and Mrs. McNear seconded. Ordinance 81-1997 passed with 7 affirmative votes.


Mrs. McNear made a motion to adopt and Mr. Galster seconded.

Mr. Osborn said this is our annual compensation ordinance. This does provide for 3.5% across the board increase for Table I and Table II employees in the City of Springdale. In addition we have made two other changes. Under Table I we have inserted the new position of Inspection Supervisor at Grade 16 as provided for in the budget and we have increased the police lieutenant's classification from grade 18 to grade 19, which effectively creates a 10% spread between the police sergeant and police lieutenant ranks.

Ms. Manis asked if we increased the pay for the part-time employees. Mr. Osborn replied yes, we increased the minimum rate to the current minimum wage. On Exhibit C we have increased each part-time and seasonal position by $1 at the top end of the range.

Ordinance 83-1997 passed with 7 affirmative votes.


Mr. Vanover made a motion to adopt and Mr. Wilson seconded.

Mr. Danbury said it's a pleasure to have Mr. Borden on board. He has been a loyal member of our audience for years and I think he will be a good addition to whatever board he is on.

Resolution 27-1997 passed with 7 affirmative votes.


Mrs. McNear made a motion to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded. Resolution 28-1997 passed with 7 affirmative votes.

Mr. Galster nominated David Strange for the Civil Service Commission. He served on the City's Equalization Board in the past and has been a member of the Princeton Strategic Planning Session. He is in management at Xerox. I think he's a great applicant for this position.

Mr. Strange was nominated by acclamation.


Mr. Galster made a motion to adopt and Ms. Manis seconded. Resolution 30-1997 passed with 7 affirmative votes.


Mr. Vanover made a motion to adopt and Mrs. McNear seconded. Resolution 31-1997 passed with 6 affirmative votes. Ms. Manis voted no.


Mr. Wilson said I would like to revisit the issue of noise barriers. I talked with Mr. Osborn and Mr. Shuler and what we have to tell Mrs. Maymir is that the issue hasn't been resolved. Mr. Shuler's office has tried to reach ODOT to no avail. Hopefully by next meeting we will have an answer for our resident about the noise barriers on I-275. I think we are also going to talk about the issue of rerouting traffic.

Mr. Vanover said it was my understanding that ODOT said if we didn't want it, it's a dead issue.

Mr. Shuler responded that was my understanding too and we are just trying to confirm that for Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Osborn said ODOT was going to do a study on the necessity and value of sound barrier walls, look at the alternative of landscaping, etc., and once they published that report the state was going to take further action. We don't know the outcome of all that.

Mr. Knox said I have one communication that I purposely held until Old Business.

"Springdale Senior Citizens Club to City Council Members: A letter was sent to the Council in July and, to date, we have never received any response. Assuming that it got buried unintentionally or was never received, we are again presenting our suggestion for your review and consideration. (Mr. Knox stated neither he, the Mayor, or anyone in Administration had any record of this being received).

Several of our Springdale Senior Citizens drive for and deliver "Meals on Wheels". They have said sometimes it is very difficult to find the correct address of the people waiting for delivery of their meals. This is due in part to the lack of house numbers on many homes. It was stated that a few years ago house numbers were painted on the curb in front of each home.

We are requesting that consideration be given to implementing this procedure again. If the house numbers were to be painted on the curbs again it would aid delivery people and, also, EMERGENCY vehicles to find the correct address more quickly. We would appreciate receiving a response in regard to this.

Sincerely, Jean Jones, President, Springdale Senior Citizens

Mr. Osborn said I discussed this with the Mayor and we'd like to sit down with the Public Works Director about reinstituting the practice of painting the numbers on the curb. I can't tell you that we'll get all of them done in 1998.

Ms. Manis asked if volunteers didn't do it one year? Could the teen group or another non-profit group do it? Mr. Osborn replied yes. The problem is some people come around unsolicited and do it and we frown on that because it is not consistent. We like to have it done under our direction.





Underground fences - Being looked at

Resolution for municipal funds - next meeting

Resolution 29 for Mr. Darby - next meeting

Resolution requesting advance payment from the County - next meeting

Ordinance for purchase of 4 police cars and administration car- next meeting

CDS engineering phase ordinance - next meeting


Adjustments in pay schedule for CDS and Wood & Lamping

HVAC for Police Station

Resolutions for Board of Health reappointments

Council adjourned at 10:32 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



Edward F. Knox

Clerk of Council/Finance Director

Minutes Approved:

Randy Danbury, President of Council


__________________________, l997