Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

7:00 p.m.

  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman William Syfert.


Members Present: Councilman Steve Galster, James Young, Robert Seaman,

Councilman Tom Vanover and David Okum.

Members Absent: Richard Huddleston (Arrived at 7:10 p.m.)

Robert Seaman (Arrived at 7:20 p.m.)

Others Present: Doyle H. Webster, Mayor

Cecil W. Osborn, City Administrator

Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

William K. McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Anne McBride, City Planner

Mr. Syfert stated Mr. Seaman will be here a little later, and I have not heard from Mr. Huddleston.


Mr. Okum moved for adoption and Mr. Young seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present, except Mr. Young who abstained, voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with four affirmative votes.


    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster stated that MARS was before Council last week and they were granted a change to the PUD by a 7-0 vote.

    3. 2/25/98 Memo from Cecil Osborn re Metropolitan Growth Alliance Newsletter
    4. Mr. Osborn reported that this is a group of businessmen from Northern Kentucky and Ohio who are trying to develop some coordination of effort in the development of policy. It is an ad hoc group, not a governmental organization but in the private sector. We will participate in order to have our voices heard and learn from them. Mr. Syfert commented I found it quite interesting; are we participating as the City of Springdale? Mr. Osborn responded we have no official membership. They will have a meeting later in March, and I plan to attend that.

    5. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Ė 20 January 1998

D. Thoroughfare Plan



    1. Approval of Signage Package for Showcase Cinemas Ė 12064 Springfield Pike

Gene Bare of United Signs stated with the addition of the 20 cinemas, Showcase needs to make changes to the identification sign. Most of the changes are face changes. This is taking the existing sign and reconfiguring it for all 20 cinemas on the same frame.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Two


Mr. Bare continued for the entrance sign, there is no physical change, except to the face. This also is true of the pole sign that faces the interstate. Mr. Syfert commented so you are taking Cinemas 1 through 9 off and replacing it with Showcase Cinemas.

Mr. Bare added there are various directional signs on the site to get people to the right locations. Finally there is the replacement of the existing lettering on the building. I think this package is less than the original variance granted for square footage.

Mr. Huddleston arrived at 7:10 p.m.

Mr. Syfert asked the colors that would be used on the signage, and Mr. Bare answered all the lettering will be red faces. The various numbers will be different colors on the cinemas, to distinguish the 1 through 20.

Mr. McErlane reported that the free standing signs are under existing variances. The existing attractions sign is 16í x 37í per a variance granted in 1974. The change consists of reconfiguring it to 20 screens. The high rise pole sign is 12í x 35 Ĺí and exists under a variance granted in 1972. The Crescentville Road sign exists under a variance granted in 1988, and is 11.95í x 11.85í. The biggest change to that sign is that it currently includes attractions and would now be a large directional sign which includes an arrow. The intent is to attract the attention of people at the intersection of Route 4 and Crescentville. It also will be relocated to where the new drive comes in.

The building signage shown on the west side of the building, the Showcase Cinemas sign is 3í x 54í, a total of 162 square feet. Each of the National Amusement logos are 9í-4" in diameter, which works out to 87 square feet apiece, totaling 174. The entrance sign on the east side is 18" x 14í-3" or 21.4 square feet. It is questionable whether or not that even gets included in the sign package because it may not be visible from the public right of way; it faces the building Fresh America is in.

The total square footage for the building signs is 357.4 square feet. The existing signage on the building is 405 square feet. Total square footage for signs currently is 1541 square feet, and they are proposing 1515 square feet. In 1972 there was a variance granted for 1600 square feet.

Ms. McBride reported the only additions is would make would be that the applicant is proposing a series of directional signs at the different access points on North Commerce Way, Northwest Boulevard and on the service road. They are proposing directional signs of 6 square feet in area which is fine and at a height of 6í-6" which staff feels is a little tall for directional signs. We would recommend 4 feet, which would be consistent with what we are recommending in our new Zoning Code.

Around the pylons on Springfield Pike I-275 and Crescentville Road, we would like to see landscaping beds around the base of those three signs.

Mr. Syfert asked the applicant if that would be a problem, and Mr. Bare responded he didnít anticipate that it would be, but he would have to go back to Showcase to confirm that. Mr. Syfert commented I doubt if it will be as nicely as they have done everything else, but our motion should include that.

Mr. Galster said on all these signs that we are replacing the faces on, are we doing anything with the actual structures? If we are going to re do these signs, I think we should take the opportunity to clean them up or paint them if necessary.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Three


Mr. Okum stated I had an opportunity to visit the Showcase in Maumee. They have the information sign with all the movies horizontal across the property, which is 36 feet. Did you consider changing the sign to the way they did it in Maumee?

Mr. Seaman arrived at 7:20 p.m.

Mr. Bare responded the owner instructed us to use the existing structure and resurface it. I am sure they considered a relocation or changing of position. Why they opted to keep it the way it is, I canít answer.

Mr. Okum added I think the 36í sign is dead center to the main entryway, so it is hard to read as you drive down the roadway. Is it normal to do them broadsize?

Mrs. McBride said the only alternative would be some type of V sign, but you would be looking at square footage on both sides. To get the number of screens and make them legible with the speed of traffic might be difficult. Mr. Okum said it is Showcaseís cinema, but I think they are doing the front of their building a disservice by having a 36 foot sign across that right of way. Mr. Galster said I like the fact that it is turned that way; I like the fact that I donít see it going up and down Route 4, and itís not blocking my view.

Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mr. Syfert asked if Planning were within their jurisdiction to approve this sign package since it is not exceeding totals? Mr. McErlane responded it is within the total signage allowed. The only question is does the variance for the wall sign on the existing building that will be demolished, still a valid variance for the building under construction? My understanding is that the variance runs with the property regardless of whether or not it is on the same building. So it is legitimate, and no additional variances would be required.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the sign package with the following exceptions, that the directional signage be lowered to 4í in height, and that the landscaping be per the plannerís recommendation.

Mr. Young seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Young, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

B. Final Plan Approval of Proposed Target Store, to be located at Century Boulevard and East Kemper Road

Art Harden of Woolpert stated with me tonight is Tom Bonneville of Target and Richard Natila of Poblacki & Sons, our sign person. We have received approval from Council, and there were comments which we have incorporated them into the documents. We have been discussing several issues with staff, and I think we have all of them resolved..

The topography on this site is very extreme. There are three main drainage basins that run to the north and one to the east. When we are completed with construction, we will have an extensive amount of fill, and we will create a building pad.

One of the big issues that we have worked out with your traffic people is circulation. Currently you have Tri-County Mall, Kemper Commons, Kroger complexes, the Best Buy development and car dealerships and other properties in the immediate area.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Four


Mr. Harden continued this remaining area was undeveloped and has remained as residential, and there were a lot of questions about how traffic would flow in and around and how this would fit together. Target has under contract approximately 15 acres, and we had proposed to put their site development on there. We found the Kemper Commons properties and this development area have square footage almost equal to the mall when it comes to traffic. With the new Thoroughfare Plan, you will have four access points into this shopping complex.

In one of our earlier scenarios, there was a drive that went across the parking lot. They wanted to maintain control for a flow through traffic and since then we have taken another look at the parking lot. The actual pass through in the parking comes in, goes to the south and then around the parking and back out.

One issue we presented was the store image, the look of the development. The Middletown Target Store is a very comparable type facility since the parking lot is below the existing roadway and the building is below the existing roadway. In Springdale, the parking will be five feet down and the building will be four feet down.

We also presented a superimposed picture from Century Boulevard of what the building would look like. The key item brought up was cart storage in front of the building. We have shown on the documents and building elevations a screen wall along the front of the building to hide the shopping carts. The wall is the same material as the building.

On the issue of signage on the west elevation of the building, we have looked at several other facilities around Springdale. Immediately across the street, Best Buy has a west elevation sign as well, and it is clearly visible from a large distance away. We feel Best Buy is a good example of how signage is critical to making the center and store work properly. They also have two other free standing signs where Target currently is only looking for one, so in terms of signage we feel we are meeting Code, and we would like to have the sign on the west elevation.

If we are permitted the western sign as we are requesting, it would give us a wider range of visibility for the store itself. The parking lot is heavily covered with trees as required, and that is another reason we feel we are a little restricted in terms of being able to see the signs. When we looked at Best Buy and compared the visibility of their corner and front signs, there is an extensive amount of visibility that they have, and unless we receive approval of the western sign, we will be losing to the competition.


Another similar facility in the immediate area that has signs on its side is the Home Quarters Warehouse. It has two signs on the southern face as well as on the front of the building, which faces west.

The last key issue was lighting. Since our first submittal, we have come up with an agreement to use 38 foot poles on the parking lot for Target itself and 25 foot poles on the future development area, unless that property is incorporated into a larger development and we would defer to city staff on the height.

We heard that wall packs were a key issue. This is your typical wall pack but we are proposing a residential shield that goes across the top of it. That would allow the light to go directly down, to make the area secure. I think we have addressed everything in the staff reports.




Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Five


Mr. Shvegzda stated we had discussed several issues with Target, and since that time the majority of the items have been satisfactorily addressed. There is the possibility of an additional catch basin on Kemper to prevent bypass from flowing across the proposed intersection.

There is a question on utilizing a specific type of catch basin to accommodate the three storm sewers coming into these locations, and there are questions on minor calculations for the detention basin outlet structures. The concrete drive apron detail needs to be provided on the site plan and also some additional spot elevations. On the public improvements, there is still a question on additional geometrics for the east curve line in one area where it is independent from the actual center line information.

Mr. Syfert said if I understand it, you agree in principle but donít have all the paperwork put together. Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this.

Ms. McBride reported that Target is proposing 588 parking spaces and a total of 615 would be required under the Code. Staff feels the 588 is more than adequate to service the 125,000 square foot building.

Our Code requires 20% of open or green space and the applicant is proposing 22.2% or 2.31 acres. A large portion of that is the detention area east of Century Boulevard.

We previously indicated there would be no outdoor storage or display permitted as a part of this. The applicant has indicated they need to store carts in three specific areas in front of the store. As long as those are screened completely from view, we donít have a problem with it. They are proposing a four foot high wall to be made of materials that would blend in with the front elevation of the building. We would want to make sure that four feet is high enough to screen the top of those carts.

The applicant has added a four foot high chain link fence around the detention basin. We would ask that it be constructed of black vinyl coated chain link and that there be a provision for maintenance of the fence. Since that is visible from the road and from the residences, we want to make sure that it is kept in good condition.

There are two inconsistencies in terms of setbacks. One is the building setback from the western property line; they are proposing a seven foot setback and the other is the parking area from the southeast corner; they are proposing 5 inches at that location. Given the tightness of this site and surrounding uses, we donít have a problem with either of these.

The applicant realizes that no approvals are being given for the future commercial development area to the east between Century Boulevard and McClellans Lane.

We have met with the applicantís representative to review the landscape plan, and all of our concerns have been addressed. They have added a series of landscaped islands throughout the parking lot, mixed up the plant material, screened the detention basin and provided buffering for the existing residence on McClellans Lane, so we feel they have done a good job with the parking and appreciate their meeting with us.

In terms of lighting, they do exceed the minimum1/2 foot candle we require in the parking area. The fixtures are to be mounted on 38 foot high poles and they are to be bronze in color.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Six


Ms. McBride continued we had initial concerns about whether or not there would be light spillage onto the residences on McClellans Lane for as long as they remain residences, and they have taken their photometric plan beyond the property lines and we are satisfied that there will be minimum light spillage onto those properties.

They are proposing one free standing pylon sign 30 feet in height and 144 square feet per side and we donít have a problem with that. In terms of the on-building signage, the front or south has the Target with bullseye logo, Pharmacy signs for 259 Ĺ square feet and they are requesting that the west building elevation sign to say Target with the logo as well at 204 square feet. We have a concern about that signage on the west side of the building, the need of that signage given the elevation of this site, the size of the user and the sheer mass of the building. We donít particularly feel that signage is warranted.

In conclusion, we feel the 588 parking spaces are adequate, that the outdoor storage should be limited to the three designated areas with the carts completely screened from view, the variance setbacks are appropriate, the comments regarding the fencing and maintenance of that around the detention facility, and we are suggesting the deletion of the signage on the west side of the building.

Mr. Young wondered if the light poles they are proposing are consistent with the area (Best Buy and Samís). Ms. McBride confirmed that they are, and Mr. Young added I see red poles for the pylon sign, and Iím not real crazy about the red; I wonder how everyone else feels about that.

Mr. Okum said none of us see the rear of the building currently, but eventually the roadway will travel past the building site and wrap around the back of the building. Do you feel the applicant has adequately addressed that elevation with landscaping to tie that building into the area? Ms. McBride responded they have added landscaping to that area. Because of the topography, it is a little difficult to do extensive work, but we have asked them and they have planned for additional landscape material in that area.

Mr. Okum wondered if there will be masonry finishes on all four sides of the building. Mr. Harden answered the front is split face block, but the sides and rear are a painted masonry block. Mr. Okum asked if the applicant had considered the same masonry finish on all four elevations. Mr. Harden responded on the western side of the building, that is the more visible side of the building and may be appropriate there. For the rear of the building with all the screening of the trees and limited access back there, I wouldnít see a need for it. On the east side of the building where the loading dock areas are, in front of the loading docks I see no problem with going with split face block if need be. I would think the rear of the building would not necessarily have to have split face block, because no one would be back there to see it. Mr. Okum added so you believe that the landscaping would be enough buffering and screening to that side of the building that you wouldnít need it. Mr. Harden said the landscaping will not screen the total building, but you are at such a distance away from the building, even if it were split face block, you wouldnít be able to tell the difference between the two.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum wondered if they were going to paint the stripe on the building, and Mr. Harden confirmed this. Mr. Okum continued if it is not noticeable why would the stripes be needed on the rear of the building? Mr. Harden answered it is part of their pattern package that goes all the way around the building.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Seven


Mr. Okum then said so you have indicated that you would have no problem with carrying the same masonry finish on three sides of the building, and Mr. Harden answered that they would not.

Mr. Okum commented I agree with Mr. Young in his comment on the red poles. Mr. Natila the sign consultant reported the prototype signing for Target has red columns. He showed photographs. The red columns were designed by Target Architecture to tie in with the red bullseye as well, and they are designed to draw your eye in a lineal fashion to the copy of the sign. They feel it works quite well. This sign is meant to be a landmark coming on a very heavily traveled Kemper Road to direct traffic into the proper entry and to give the drivers adequate time to change lanes to turn. The red columns help draw your eye to the sign and focus.

Mr. Vanover said there were some issues with the interior flow of the parking lot and curves and closeness and backing out into the flow of traffic. Have these been taken care of?

Mr. Shvegzda reported the parking spaces that were considered not functional have been eliminated and the driveways have been reconfigured, not only for the normal functioning of cars but to allow emergency vehicles to access the site.

Mr. McErlane stated the parking setback in the southwest corner of the site is Ĺ foot (5 feet is required). Building setback on the west property line is 7 feet (12 feet required). Building to land coverage on the main Target lot is approximately 29% (25% required). There are 588 parking spaces (615 required). The pole sign exceeds the 50 square feet permitted by Code, and there are two wall signs that exceed 150 square feet permitted.

The total caliper inches of trees to be removed is 3511 caliper inches which requires a replacement of 1756 caliper inches. There are 957 caliper inches to be planted or 54% of the required amount. The balance, 799 caliper inches will be offset by a donation of $35,156.

The drawings now show outside cart storage which in the original drafted Covenants was a prohibited use. It also was shown to Council and approved that way. That also has been drafted out of the current Covenants.

On the Covenants, attachments still need to be included, and there are several places where dates relating to plans approved by Planning are left blank and will need to be filled in when plans are filially approved, when they are acceptable to the City Engineer and Planner. The current tree balance will need to be modified to 799 caliper inches and $35,156. There also is a reference to the east/west access drive in the Covenants. The plan does not clearly define an east/west access drive, so that should be modified to indicate that an access drive will be provided. The cart storage has been removed from prohibited uses in the Covenants and the standard height of the light was left as an item to be reviewed by this board at final plan approval. The consensus is that the approach they are taking is a good approach. Paragraph H should be modified to reflect the current number of parking spaces.

Mr. Seaman wondered how you arrive at 949 square feet total allowable sign area for the building; it seems huge. Mr. McErlane responded because it is on a corner lot, the building is allowed 40% of their building frontage on that side street to be added into their total frontage. That is why it is so much larger. Mr. Seaman said you mentioned 150 square foot limit. Mr. McErlane stated the maximum size of any particular wall sign is 150 square feet.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Eight


Mr. McErlane stated on sizeable developments, variances have been granted for larger wall signs. Mr. Seaman wondered if there were a limit to the number of wall signs, and Mr. McErlane responded only that when you total them up, they fall within the allowable square footage for signs.

Mr. Okum stated if the applicant feels the stripes are necessary for all four sides of the building, it would seem to me that rear exposure should be treated the same, with masonry finish. I tend to agree with Ms. McBride on the sign on the west elevation. We are looking at a building that does not meet the current setback requirements; they are squeezing it onto the site and I donít think that sign is a necessity. I also do not agree with the request for the pole sign to have the red poles. I donít think it is necessary to the function of the sign itself. I do have one concern regarding that access drive. It is shown on the plan I have, so I assume it is confirmed and part of the plan? Mr. McErlane said the Covenants refer to it as an access drive and at this point there is not a clear defined access drive so it should be modified to allow access through the site, not refer to an access drive. Mr. Okum said there is an access drive on the plans. Mr. McErlane responded I donít see where it is clearly defined as an access drive across the site, and that is how it is referred to in the Covenants. It would be an easement for access through the site, but not clearly defined as a specific path.

Mr. Okum asked if it needs to be defined? Mr. McErlane reported the scope of what is happening on the public street systems has changed quite a bit since that was defined as a public street on the Thoroughfare Plan. At that point, Common Driveís access to Kemper Road was to be cut off and that was placed as an access to a traffic signal without having to go through some circuitous route. Now we are not closing off Commons Drive to Kemper Road; we are closing it off to certain movements, so it is not as critical as it was. It still is critical in terms of left turn movements out of the site, so the critical issue is gaining access to and from Commons Drive to Century Boulevard, but not necessarily defining that specific route.

Mr. Okum said regarding the light packs on the building which are necessary for security, they have gone to a downlit unit. With the topography, is that going to be a problem for people driving up the extension area of Century Boulevard? Ms. McBride answered no, not based on the photometrics that they have submitted. We asked them to factor in the street lights that would be on the Century Boulevard extension as well.

Mr. Okum asked if the applicant were constructing the street lights on the extension they are putting in, and Mr. Shvegzda answered yes, adding that it is shown on the Century Boulevard construction plans.

Mr. Okum wondered if the applicant had any comments concerning the masonry finish all the way around the building. Mr. Harden stated we will go ahead and make the entire structure the split face block.

Mr. Galster commented the only concern I have left are the red poles on the sign. I am more inclined to look at any signage that would be in addition to the front signage to in the back of the building as opposed to the west elevation. I think ultimately that will be where your traffic will come from and it will be the best spot for it.

In reference to the line of sight for all the signs, Iíll be able to see your Target from S.R. 747 whether the poles are red black green or whatever. You are at the top of the hill with a 30 foot pole sign on top of that. Iíll be able to see that sign from Sweeney Chevrolet; I can see the Best Buy sign from there. So, I donít see the need for the west elevation sign.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Nine


Mr. Galster continued the issue I still have is the red color on the poles and the signage on the western elevation.

Mr. Natila responded I have been doing Targets for a long time and this west wall will be highly visible. The pole sign will not be nearly as visible as you think it will be. One of the reasons is when you are going eastbound on Kemper Road, you will be going over a rise and for quite a ways you will be trying to see over this rise. With the amount of traffic, you will not be able to see that sign as clearly as the Best Buy, because the Best Buy will be about 400 to 500 feet east of the Target sign. Targetís pole sign will probably be 10 or 15 feet lower than the Best Buy sign, which will put it down almost to a monument size. That west elevation will be a big blank wall setting up there with a red stripe on it. The front elevation letters are not going to be visible coming eastbound on Kemper at all. We found that big blank walls just donít look very good and signs are one thing that can break them up and identify a building like that. I did recommend a set of letters on the rear elevation as well, primarily to get some type of exposure out to the freeway. It would have to be a large set of letters but it is my understanding there were concerns about that.

I drove around the area and looked at a number of locations, including Dave & Busterís. They have a sign on the front and the rear. Cookers has three building signs on three different elevations plus a free standing. Ethan Allen has three building signs; Hardeeís has a pole sign and two building signs, so itís not like we are setting a precedent here at all. It is just additional coverage for viewing areas.

The front elevation signs will not be very visible with all the landscaping and the amount of traffic on that road. That west sign will be prominent and it will help advertise in the mall parking lots as well as Samís and Wal-Mart areas. I would have to still recommend to Target that this would be a very important sign for the project.

Mr. Galster asked if he didnít think the pole sign would be viewed as far away as the Best Buy sign? Mr. Natila answered it absolutely will not be.

I drove it again today to look at it specifically to see how prominent it is. Best Buy sign is on the northwestern corner of their property and Targetís would be on the southeast quadrant over the hill. Mr. Galster wondered how much elevation would be lost, and Mr. Natila responded I am guessing 10 to 15 feet at least. Yes they will have some visibility, but not prominently like you think it will be. Mr. Galster commented I still think it will be visible from 747. Mr. Natila said a 12í x 12í panel is not that big when you put it up in the air 30 feet. Mr. Galster said my eyes seem to be attracted to a target; I donít think we need the red poles, arrows or any other red pointers to them. Those are the issues that need to be addressed.

Mr. Vanover said we mentioned on Commons Drive that we will not close that off, but we will remove the signalization from that intersection. Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this, adding that there will be physical barriers provided that will restrict it to a right in right out only. For clarification, those modifications are not the responsibility of Target.

Mr. Vanover added I would echo the western view signage as well as the red poles. If the sign isnít going to be that visible, why put the red poles on it? This site will be extremely visible; it is the top of the hill. Iím sure our traffic designs are such that traffic can easily navigate into the site. My contention would be if we can live without the western sign, I think I can live with this.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Ten


Mr. Young said you said that the front elevation wasnít as important as that west wall. If that were the case, does it make a difference if we put a pole sign or a monument sign, if the front elevation isnít important but the west side is. I can tell you we would be much more in favor of a monument sign instead of a pole sign.

Mr. Natila responded Iím not sure I said that; I might have inferred that, and I apologize if I did. The front elevation sign is important as well, but it is not going to be as visible or as prominent as the west elevation sign. Mr. Young said so in your opinion the west elevation sign is of more importance than the front elevation sign. Mr. Natila answered it would have more visibility, especially in light of the fact that most of the commercial business is to the west of this property. Mr. Young asked if there were a reason why the pole sign is a must. Is it something we can bring down to a monument sign? Mr. Natila answered because of the topography coming up over the hill, the number of lanes of traffic, the amount of traffic, the speed Ė it is a landmark to safely direct traffic and give them time to change lanes and get into that entrance point. That is one of the primary reasons.

Mr. Harden added the building will be 14 feet below the roadway and we also are required to have shrubs screening immediately behind the sidewalk so that will block some of the visibility as well. By the time you put the building 14 feet down, you add two or three feet for screening, you are 20 feet down and that is what you are trying to look over and see.

As far as the building being the high point of this area, it really is not. Your high point is the Best Buy. That building is setting another six feet higher than the roadway is right now. So with our14 feet plus an additional six feet we are 20 feet below the Best Buy building. There are some extreme topography relief across this whole development, and that is another reason we feel that visibility on that western face is very critical to us. We would ask for the same consideration you gave Best Buy in terms of signage so that we can compete equally.

Mr. Natila said based on staff calculations, we should be allowed 950 square feet of sign; at this point we are asking for 608 square feet total, which is 340 square feet less than allowed, although we are asking for some variances in term of some individual signs. If we delete this west elevation sign, we would be less than half of what code would allow on this project. To me that would be somewhat unfair.

Mr. Huddleston said I would echo the sentiments in terms of the red poles and might suggest that if we were to permit the west elevation sign, would the applicant consider doing a ground mounted sign at the Century Boulevard entranceway? Mr. Harden responded at this point, with the visibility, we would like to retain the pylon sign. That is consistent with other signage, particularly Best Buy across the street. I donít think we could delete it and go to a monument sign at this time.

Mr. Huddleston continued I can basically support this plan. I would prefer not to have the red poles and eliminate the west elevation.

On the construction documents, I see the Phase II by others with regard to the Century Boulevard extension into Commons Drive. When how and by whom will that be completed?

Mr. Shvegzda responded as of this date, there is no answer on that. There has to be an agreement from Springdale Kemper Associates; they are the property owners.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Eleven


Mr. Osborn said that is a very valid question. As you note from the commitments, the developer, Target will build to his north property line. At that point SKA has responsibilities for picking it up and relocating the road under their existing Covenants with us for the improvements they committed to as part of their original development.

We have been caught in a dilemma here in that while we have the ability to cause Target to construct the road and make it available at an agreeable point of contact in terms of design, we have not been able to get the two parties together. I know both have representatives here this evening. I talk to one group, Target, and they say we never got anything from SKA. I talk to SKA, and they say Target doesnít call us. I would like to hear from the two parties represented here tonight. Maybe we could start with Target, and you could give us an update as to where you think you are, and maybe SKA could tell us where they think they are. Ultimately this road will be relocated, and we will close down access to Commons Drive to right in right out only. So, it certainly is in both partiesí interests to have this road completed. I would like to take this opportunity to hear from the two principals involved as to how they see this occurring.

Tom Bonneville of Target said in March of 1997 we had our first conversation with SKA, with Mr. Stewart Lichter. He is in California and is one of the partners. Since then there have been perhaps five telephone conversations that have been very frustrating for both parties. At one point we offered to build the road down the hill, the embankment and not the paving not the lighting, not the drainage. We were providing all the dirt, compacting that and bringing it to a point where it followed in an alignment that fits with where the road is today and where it has been since last April. That particular scenario was rejected by SKA. We then took all the dirt and redesigned it with the grading so it would give a better plan along Kemper Road. All of that dirt has been committed and we are trying to reach a point where you have what is called an engineered balance of all the earth movements on the site.

In each conversation that we have had with SKA they have not really negotiated; they have demanded certain things of us that we are not economically able to do. We are operating when we can in an independent way. I know your question is valid, but we can only operate with what we can do. Iíll be happy to hear anything from SKA, but Iím not going to negotiate with them in this meeting.

We want to do whatís right here; we want to have a store in your community; we have been trying to do this for a year. On the signage, I appeal to all of you for your fairness in this business situation. Your Code allows for what we are asking for and quite a bit more.

Mr. Thomas Bopp, Assistant Secretary of Springdale Kemper Associates said I am not personally aware of where the process of negotiation with Target stands at the moment. There has been some intermittent communication. To my knowledge at least it has not been consistent.

SKA has pledged to the City Administration that we will take all reasonable steps to cooperate with Target in the construction of the Century Boulevard Extension. Iím not sure what that means in specifics, but I think there is an agreement in principle to get that extension done on a cooperative basis. I donít have those details at my command, but we can get those for you in a relatively short period of time.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Twelve


Mr. Osborn added we defined where the road has to be quite some time ago. The City has committed to absorbing the costs of altering the alignment of the extension of Century Boulevard with Commons Drive because there is going to be a geometric change there. To ease the negotiations between these parties, we stepped in and said weíll take that out of the equation; we will pay for the cost of the realignment of that intersection.

We are about ready to go to construction and if the City is compelled to become an aggressive part of this process, if we have to seek litigation, it will get a lot more expensive for all parties. I donít think that is necessary here. We have commitments from Target, and I believe Target will meet their commitments to build the road the way they have proposed to build it. We have commitments from SKA that they are going to construct their part of the road. They are committed to do that already under the Covenants that exist with their site. We didnít feel it was fair to Target to give SKA a veto power over whether or not Target happens. We could have done that, but we tried to be fair. We worked around that by telling Target to design it to the point where a Phase II can be picked up without interruption, and you have done that.

We feel we have in our pocket right now a commitment from SKA and a commitment from Target to build the road. We really do want to see that resolved between the two of you because if we have to step in, itís going to get more expensive. I would encourage you both to try and come up with a timely plan, particularly SKA, because you will be coming back in and seeing us again. There are other projects or development that you will want to do on that site, and the good reputation and relationship with the City that you have developed will be in jeopardy if this issue is not resolved. So this is critical to be resolved as soon as possible.

If you are not empowered to speak for SKA, I wish you would identify for us who is so that person can be put in contact with Target and we can resolve this thing. Mr. Bopp responded I would be most happy to do that.

Addressing Mr. Osborn, Mr. Huddleston said I would have a concern if this development is permitted to proceed without that commitment in some way being crystallized or cemented. What are our options? Could this be bonded?

Mr. Osborn responded I think we missed the boat when we wrote the language in the PUD agreement with SKA, because the language in there says that at such time as Century Boulevard is extended, Tri-County Commons will be closed. We should have said it the other way around, because we donít have the absolute power to compel SKA to do anything other than jawbone them or proceed with litigation once Target is on record and committed to do the project. I donít think it is fair to Target. Their representations to us have been that they are prepared to work with the other party to build the road to the degree of providing all the fill material and doing the rough grading for the project. I am aware that they made that commitment and it was rejected. Target was prepared to work out a situation where they would use that small lot for detention. In my mind the bigger lot that was created is a more marketable situation. What I care about is that SKA has made a commitment to build a portion of that road. I donít feel it is appropriate to hold up Target. We should have had clearer language in our deal with SKA up front. That is why we are in this bind.

I would disagree that we should hold Target at bay while SKA negotiates an agreement. We have had plenty of time to do that already and it hasnít happened. I think the Cityís next step is to go to court to enforce the language in our Covenants with SKA.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Thirteen


Mr. Huddleston wondered if it were possible with a further development off Commons Drive, that we could approve that development subject to their response to this requirement? Mr. Osborn said I believe that is totally within Planning Commissionís authority to make any future approval of proposals for that development subject to a resolution of the issue we have here this evening.

Mr. Galster said I know on the Kemper Road and Century Boulevard extension, there were comments made regarding erosion and dust control, but there is nothing on the drawings, and we have talked about making sure to have the best dust control we can have on this project because of the residents and the amount of dirt being moved. Do we have those procedures tied down?

Mr. Harden responded in addition to those construction documents, we have a set of technical specifications which outline standard rules and procedures. We are using erosion control blankets where possible to minimize the erosion. Dust control can only be handled by monitoring the site. Target generally has an on site representative who is there constantly during construction. Other than watering for dust control, there is not a lot of sophistication for that; we will minimize the dust as much as possible

Mr. Galster commented I would like to have that part of the motion.

Mr. Okum wondered how the screening of the mechanical units be handled. Mr. Harden answered the rooftop units are set toward the middle of the building, so they really are not that visible. Mr. Okum continued if we had language indicating that mechanical units shall be screened from the public right of way, that would not be a problem for you? Mr. Harden answered when you start attaching to the unit itself, you are changing the roof structure and other things. Iíve seen all types of screening, but it is not something we have considered at this time. Mr. Okum continued the top of this building will be lower and what you will see from Kemper Road is some of the top of the building, is that correct? Mr. Harden answered no, the parapet is 27 feet tall, so you will not be able to see it from Kemper Road. Mr. Okum responded so the mechanical units will not need to be screened. If they need to be, will you take means to screen them?

Mr. Bonneville responded again I would like to appeal to you. If you decide unilaterally, weíd have to run parapets up to the sky. We want to be clear about this. Our roof is around 22 feet. The high part of the parapets at the front of the building is 27 feet. The road is still lower than the top of our building. If you go to the west far enough, like 747, you will see our rooftop units. Mr. Okum responded I am considering Kemper Road in front of the site. Mr. Bonneville answered you wonít see them from there, it is 300 feet. Please donít arbitrarily decide something, because we will be hurt by it. Mr. Okum responded I donít want it to be arbitrary. Screening at that distance could be painted out adequately. Mr. Bonneville continued the rooftop units are 4.5 feet high and painted the same color as our exterior finish. Mr. Harden showed a picture of the Middletown facility, and you cannot see the units.

Mr. Okum continued one of the things I noticed at one of your other facilities was outdoor containers for storage of overflow goods. I feel this site does not warrant that and I would like to see in the Covenants that outside storage containers and/or trucks with storage of materials are prohibited. We currently have that in the North American Properties Covenants; is that correct? Mr. McErlane reported temporary storage containers are prohibited in our Zoning Code in all zoning districts. Mr. Okum responded so itís not necessary to be in the Covenants.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Fourteen


Mr. Okum said I was looking for the dumpster enclosure and wasnít sure how that was handled. Mr. Harden answered it is not a true enclosure. The dumpster is in the back of the building in the loading dock area. Mr. Okum continued screening would be necessary; this is standard. We require dumpster screening and surrounds on almost every site that is built in the City.

Mr. Bonneville stated Iím not sure we can screen it any more than we have. We have done our best to try to screen it. You are talking about a 42 cubic yard compaction device that is a pulloff unit; most larger buildings have these kinds of units. We are screened in the way we have arranged our diagonal dock area as seen by people coming up the hill, partly by landscaping. Because of the driveway entrance onto Century, we canít screen that entirely; it is impossible. Mrs. Harden showed the dumpster unit on the plan. Mr. Okum said I am talking about a split face wall with a gate similar to what you are using for your cart corral.

Mr. Bonneville said between the truck and the compactor we wonít have room to put it. There is a problem with trucks just positioning themselves in this very tight dock. It is a convoluted route and it is difficult for the trucks to back into position, and if he backs into that vertical wall, heíll do a lot of damage to himself and the wall. Mr. Okum commented he could do the same thing running into your dumpster. Mr. Bonneville answered he could, but the pulloff unit is further away. One thing to remember is we will probably have a truck in that dock area more than 50% of the time. The truck itself is not a pretty sight, but it will screen that pulloff unit if you want to call that screening. Please visualize coming in from Kemper and driving down Century you have three levels of screening. You have a row of landscaping right at Century, a row of landscaping at the building face in that general area, the truck dock which is depressed four feet below the finished floor elevation, so at least four feet of the10 feet of truck is below that grade and it in itself is screening the pulloff unit. Coming up the other way, it is mostly elevation and landscaping thatís doing the same for you. You will get a quick glimpse of that pulloff unit, but it is almost impossible for us to redesign the site any other way to screen that out from view. You will see the end view of it no matter what happens.

Mr. Okum said you planted five lindens in this area but they are not evergreens so during the winter there will be no screening. Mr. Bonneville answered we will be happy to change from linden to an evergreen if thatísí what it takes. Mr. Okum commented I think an evergreen would be better in that area. Itís hard for me to tell other developers that we expect their dumpsters to be enclosed and screened with gates, and Target is not held to the same standard. I have a problem with that. I understand the continuity and difficulty of trucks turning around, but I also have to treat every developer uniformly. Maybe the trees would help screen it, but coming southbound on Century Boulevard when it is extended, your trucks and dumpster container unit will be setting out there in plain view. That dock area is a very integral part of your site, and what people will see when they drive on Century Boulevard.

Mr. Harden commented as you go around the outside of the dock, the far area to the north where it goes out to a point and goes back in a southeasterly direction is actually a retaining wall. That retaining wall is four foot above the finished floor elevation, so we basically have a four foot wall which goes all the way around there. Mr. Okum stated this is a 20í-2" retaining wall with five feet of earth mounded against it. There will be a concrete element on the back side that will be in view, is that correct?


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Fifteen


Mr. Harden answered the very north point of the loading dock is the highest point. On each side of that point the grade gets shallower and the wall gets shorter very quickly. It tapers down to the four foot level. By the time you get to the roadway, we are at the four foot elevation. One of the reasons for that additional height wall was because we knew we had two tractor trailers back there and we were concerned about a railing of any sort being strong enough, so we incorporated the wall as part of the railing to protect the trucks and anyone else.

Mr. Okum said I would request that evergreens be planted on the back side of that wall. The lindens can stay there, but I would think Ms. McBrideís landscape architect could do something with that wall that is exposed there.

On the dumpster enclosure issue, I tend to agree with you that with the wall there, you probably wonít see it. Mr. Bonneville responded we recognize that as you go by the driveway you certainly are going to see it on end.

Mr. Okum continued I do have a question on how you are treating the detention area surrounding it. Are you fencing it or is it an open area? Mr. Harden answered it is fenced as part of the requirements requested by staff. Originally we had a four foot chain link fence and it will be a white vinyl four foot fence.

Mr. Vanover said like Mr. Huddleston, I would have expected all the iís to be dotted and tís crossed. We have loose ends flying out there, and I canít understand why, because the scope of this project is not that massive to warrant this much time, and that is unfortunate.

Mr. Harden said there were several key elements in the review process. The City was looking at doing a traffic study along Kemper Road, and that delayed part of it. Part of the issues regarding access to our site were tied to the Corridor Study. We have been able to address the Cityís issues primarily concerning the distance of the first entry back from Kemper Road. When we got to Council there were comments and changes and it took time to redesign to accommodate everybody. Although the site itself may seem small in comparison, there are a lot of complex issues regarding Kemper Road, Century Boulevard and its final alignment.

Mr. Osborn added while this has taken a long time, there were starts and stops. The involvement of the Thoroughfare Plan was outside their control. After the December Council meeting, we met with Target representatives, and we all decided to get this right. We will not come back to Planning until we can put all our comments on one sheet of paper. We tried to knock down all the issues we had heard from Planning and Council. There have been a number of things discussed this evening related to signs, and we did not discuss signs. The issues that you feel are at loose ends have been brought up this evening, not ones that we worked with. Over the past several months Target and their representative Woolpert have shown every cooperation in trying to resolve the outstanding issues. This has been a complex project and has taken along time, but I would hate to blame the applicant inappropriately for that time line, because there have been outside factors that have influenced that. Since Council meeting, we couldnít have asked for a better working relationship with the applicant. You can make the decision on the project as you see appropriate; I just didnít want you to feel there was some sort of delay or connivance on their part to prevent a full airing of all the issues. They have been very forthcoming with their side of the presentation.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Sixteen


Mr. Seaman commented I think Target has come a long way even tonight agreeing to split face block on all sides. I am very impressed that they have been able to adequately address all the landscaping concerns that Anne brought forth. I think there has been a lot of give and take on a lot of things. I would like to know our options on the poles for the pole sign? To me the red looks a little gaudy. Mr. Natila responded what probably would be appropriate would be a light tan color from the building, and it would tie in with the building architecture.

Mr. Seaman continued I donít like the red poles, but on the other hand I donít see a problem with the building signage on the west elevation. You are substantially under the guidelines for total signage, and I would prefer not to stare at a blank wall, even a blank wall with a stripe on it. I think the word Target draws you to it a little better. I have to compliment you; you have come a very long way.

Mr. Galster said for clarification, this pulloff unit is not like a typical dumpster where it has flaps on the top and doors on the sides. That is one of the reasons we screen these dumpsters. This is only allowed to be fed from the inside of the building, so there is no opening and open garbage from the outside of the building. I think that is the key difference.

Like Mr. Seaman, I really donít have a problem with the west side sign, but I do have a problem with the red poles. I think either bronze or matching the building color would be preferable. Iím not sure about the west side sign. I think we should clarify that before we make a motion.

Mr. Okum commented I think they have come a long way, and certainly precedent has been set in regards to signage on the side elevations. I donít think size is necessarily as important; the image is most important to you. Would you have any difficulty with putting just the bullseye on the elevation Section 1A. I would be inclined to allow a larger bullet than requested on that elevation. It is similar to what HQ has on their corner.

Mr. Galster commented I would rather have Target than the bullseye. Mr. Natila suggested as a compromise reducing that from 204 square feet to 150 square feet and be in conformance with the code. It would be a similar place on the building.

Mr. Okum moved to grant approval of the proposed Target development with the following considerations:

    1. Incorporate items listed in Mr. McErlaneís comments, Mr. Shvegzdaís traffic comments, and Ms. McBrideís comments
    2. Signage changed on the west wall to 150 square feet
    3. 588 parking spaces be approved
    4. Outdoor storage of carts be in three designated areas provided that they are completely screened from view on the front elevation of the building
    5. Seven foot setback for the building from the west property line and a 6" setback from the southeast property line from the parking area
    6. Construct a 4 foot high black vinyl coated chain link fence around the detention basin which shall be kept in good order.
    7. Split face masonry on all four sides as applicant has agreed;
    8. Mechanical units within a 300 foot line of sight shall be screened or painted out
    9. Extensive dust control shall be maintained through construction
    10. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

      10 March 1998

      Page Seventeen


    11. Retaining Wall C802 on the dock area shall be screened with appropriate vegetation so as not to be obvious coming south on Century Boulevard. This will be approved by the city planner
    12. Red pole signs will be changed to the building color as suggested

Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Young and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

Planning Commission recessed at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:26 p.m.

C. Final Plan Approval of Proposed MARS Music Store at 11805 Commons Drive

Bob Zobel of MARS said I have regrets from Mark Begelman Chairman of the Board; he planned on being here but he is ill. In his absence we have brought a short video tape to communicate something to you. It is difficult to describe why we do what we do and it is difficult to describe Markís feelings about the industry and the development of music in adults and entry level musicians. This video was prepared for us, and I think it will communicate better than anything I can say to you the passion that those of us who are in the musical instruments and products industry feel about both the industry and what we do. Mr. Zobel showed the video.

Dave Eyrich stated with us tonight is Chris Hendrix who will discuss the details of the plan and Mike Flannery of Woolpert. At the December meeting, there were a number of comments to the preliminary development plan, and we came back in January reacting to those comments. That plan moved onto Council, which approved it last Wednesday evening. Basically that is the plan you have in front of you.

In addition, at the January meeting of Planning, there was quite a bit of discussion about the façade and how it would look. Cornices came up a number of times, and the final motion said in the final plan review we will reach an agreement concerning the detailing of striping with neon and the cornicing. That is how the motion read. In response to that, since that preliminary development plan did not have cornicing, we have an amendment to that plan, and I would like to introduce Mr. Hendrix to go over that final plan.

Mr. Hendrix stated I have a couple of drawings to show you that are different from what you have that reference the cornicing and some of the topics we have had as we have moved the project along.

The color of the building was talked about in the preliminary discussions. On the first set of drawings submitted there was some confusion as to the color. Dave & Busterís is more of an earthtone yellowish, and the Roberds color is the existing color of the building that we are going into. Last time we determined that we will continue with the coloration of the building as it is, which is the same as Roberds.

For safety, we extended from the building a canopy to be able to have some type of enclosure for our customers to walk into so they wouldnít come right out of the store and into the street. We moved back the grass berms so we could have better access with customers driving around and not be hit. We put pavers in that street to make a break from the regular pavement. Also, we put a couple of ballards that have been put on for protection for the building and traffic.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Eighteen


Mr. Hendrix added dumpsters in the back have been enclosed. I want to show you something that will have cornicing on the front canopy of the building, similar to Dave & Busterís to create a cornice depth structure .

There was concern on the sign structure itself looking like a billboard and being attached to the building. We have increased that with some depth to be able to show that there is more to it than that that will hopefully answer those questions.

In the last presentation, Option B with 6 foot letters, the monument sign that was dropped down to 6 foot letters on the building with the signage on the building, and we added some neon to get dimension to the building which ties in the center with Roberds and Dave & Busterís. That has been continued forward, and you will see that here. We changed the cabinet signs (Instrument Sound Stage and Recording) to channel letters. They are off the building approximately eight inches and we have painted behind them the purple banding which is the same height of the original letters to create some dimension and show off the channel letters better.

Based on the preliminary review, we lowered the canopy. The original canopy with eight foot letters was approximately 44 feet and we lowered that to 36 feet at the top of the arch. The bottom of the arch is 32 feet, and the top of the building is 22 feet, whereas Dave & Busterís is 44 feet tall to the building and 52 feet to the top of the parapet.

The only signage we have available on the building is this sign on the building. To compare, Dave & Busterís does have signage on the back of the building as well as the front of the building as well as the pylon sign, which we would have loved to have had but was not available and still is not available to us.

Mr. Hendrix showed a large picture of the cornicing similar in design and shape to the Dave & Busterís. The approximate depth is 1Ĺ feet compared to Dave & Busterís 2 Ĺ feet. We did leave the neon, channel letters and pavers and created more depth. Before this was eight to 12 inches and it is twice as much to create more dimension to that area.

I have a little plan I will pass out to show how it looks based on us compared to the adjacent tenant. You can see the cornice on it. I also enclosed pictures from daytime with Dave & Busterís to show coloration and the height of the parapet. There also is a shot at night. Dave & Busterís really stands out from not only signage and neon but also the canopy that is lit. I have a larger picture showing the heights in comparison with Dave & Busterís. Realize that 32% of our business is drive by and signage is extremely critical and important to us. Hopefully you will see that we are in proportion to what needs to be there. You will notice that the Dave & Busterís sign is fully lit. MARS letters will be lit and Musicianís Planet will be lit, but that nine foot radius of the Mars planet is just ľ inch aluminum drawing so it is not lit at night.

Mr. Syfert said your neon is at the bottom below the instruments, at the top and on the red. Mr. Hendrix said it is painted red with a neon stripe on top of it, very similar to Roberds. The cornice is just on the canopy, so the canopy itself is 44 feet wide and 10 feet deep. It covers the entire canopy that sticks out from the building, so there is approximately 64 feet of cornice material on that building.

Ms. McBride reported we have repeatedly asked for details on the waste receptacle which they have provided. They are going to use a six foot high masonry block wall with wood gates, and that is acceptable.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Nineteen


Ms. McBride added the developer has planted the plantings required as part of the Dave & Busterís approval which is great, but we need to relocate those where the MARS development would be, so we need to find where those will be relocated to on the site.

On the signage issue, what was submitted is what was submitted previously. We did meet with representatives of SKA concerning this proposed development related to signage. There were a couple of ideas discussed at that meeting that I thought had some warrant. They had suggested looking at signage for the overall development, assigning a specific number for the whole development square footage wise and putting a cap on a specific user. This would allow them some latitude as to who would get what within the development, driven by the type of user and their need for exposure. Staff encouraged them to explore that option but that was not a part of this submittal.

We have heard repeatedly from the applicant that the size of this sign is being driven by the fact that they cannot get on the pylon. All of the free standing signage for this went to Dave & Busterís; we made the developer aware of this fact at the time Dave & Busterís was approved. Now there is signage available on the North American pylon and we have asked that they contact North American to see if there is an option for them to secure some of that square footage. We even passed the MARS name and phone number along to North American, but we havenít heard back on any of those attempts. We would ask the Commission to take those items into consideration when they consider the request.

Mr. Zobel said we were very interested in getting on the North American pylon when we first started looking at this project. We did make inquiry to the people responsible for placing signage on the pylon. We were given a very negative response. We were told that all of the pylon space had been allocated to retailers whose buildings were located behind the building that we proposed to occupy. We asked our sign company to maintain contact, because they would be the people who would put together signage if we were successful in obtaining space on the pylon. At this point, we are unaware of their being any pylon space available on the North American pylon. We have been following along with that trying to ascertain what signage would be available to us and as recently as the past week, I am sure the people controlling that pylon sign who know of our interest in that would have contacted us even before Ms. McBride gave them our name and phone number.

Mr. Hendrix stated regarding the trees, Ms. McBride is correct that when the canopy goes in there will have to be some relocation of some of the shrubbery that is there. We realize that; once we start our development, we will make the appropriate recommendations for whatever is necessary. If we can give any type of assurance to you now to make sure that we take care of that, we are happy to do that.

Ms. McBride said regarding the North American pylon, it is my understanding that initially when this development came forward, the square footage on this sign was committed to Wal-Mart and Samís as Mr. Zobel indicated. Since then, they have indicated to North American that they are not interested in putting panels on that sign so that sign area is up for grabs. I know that I personally forwarded your card on to Lori Wendling at North American Properties, who indicated to me that someone from their office had at least placed a call in to MARS. That is why I was a little disappointed that at least that option had not been explored.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Twenty


Mr. Zobel responded Lori is the person we spoke to, and I would be delighted if you would be in a position to speak for them, because we would be happy to entertain any kind of discussion about the size and location and the cost, the latter being of great significance of going on that pylon. At this point, we have no knowledge of any of that information or that the space is available to us.

Mr. Galster said if you would fall into this windfall of pylon signage space, what would you propose on your building? Or, would you consider the pylon as being in addition to? The argument we are hearing from you is that proportionately this is the signage you need on the building in order to make the building look right. If we decrease that it will look out of proportion.

Mr. Zobel responded more importantly it is not going to attract our customers. Mr. Galster continued I am the one that tries to knock as much signage out of every project I can, but having seen the actual proportionate drawing showing Dave & Busterís and this project, I feels it is very proportional. I think if the pylon space were obtained, we would be looking at an applicant asking for more signage than what they have on top of their building sign. I would rather keep it the way it is and hold the other signage for the tenant who will take the remaining square footage in that building. I donít think this development needs any more signage, and I think the way it is presented right now on the building looks proportional.

Mr. Zobel responded we know what we are trying to accomplish; we know we are ready to go forward with that which we know to be true. I canít comment on what might be available down the road, but I do know what we are prepared to do today.

Mr. Galster said if you would get approval today, and a week from now the pylon would become available, I donít think you would expect this Commission to award you any additional signage on that pylon, so I donít want to have you build up those type hopes either. Mr. Zobel answered I would not have those expectations if the approval is granted tonight.

Addressing Mr. Osborn, Mr. Okum said you referred to Covenants pertaining to this development. My understanding is the MARS inclusion in this development requires modification to the existing Covenants.

Mr. Osborn responded it required an amendment to the preliminary plan, which has been accomplished. The language regarding the obligation of SKA to build the portion of Century Boulevard that crosses their properties is the problem. As indicated earlier by Mr. Huddleston, Planning Commission at any point can say that the approval of this project is subject to further resolution of the agreement with SKA. In talking with Mr. Bopp of SKA tonight, I feel he is committed to find a resolution. To summarize my conversation, the property is owned by three separate owners scattered across the country. This gentleman is the person we should be working with, and he is the one that would put a presentation before the three owners and get their approval. He seems highly motivated to get something done. That is not to say that we shouldnít keep the pressure on, but I would not want to jeopardize this project any more than the applicant would want to see the City take a more aggressive position. I think we can say something to the effect that we have to have an agreement resolved before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. That way we wold both have plenty of time to get something resolved. I donít know if Mr. Bopp feels this is something we can get done that quickly.




Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Twenty-One


Mr. Bopp stated it is clear that with the Target proposal, SKA wants to cooperate. I am not personally aware of what the timing requirements would be, but certainly with the approval tonight of their development, there is absolutely no reason to hesitate or hold back or delay the completion of those necessary plans any longer. At this point I think it is a situation of full steam ahead.

Mr. Osborn continued I guess we should have been talking with Mr. Bopp earlier; it is our failure of not communicating with the right party to some degree. On the MARS project specifically, you know the objectives for this site, the need to find users that have relatively low turnover in terms of traffic, with fairly high out the door ticket prices. MARS certainly meets those criteria. This is an ideal type project for the location, so I am torn. We have an ideal candidate for the location, but this is one of those opportunities we will have to tell SKA to get the deal done on the road. Perhaps we can reach an agreement with SKA and get this thing put to bed before the project goes to Certificate of Occupancy. Addressing the applicant he asked how long they anticipate the build out.

Mr. Zobel answered if we are approved this evening we will be in for permits by the end of March. We projected opening the store on August 5th.

Mr. Osborn continued there are several hundred thousand square feet to go on this project, and Mr. Bergman has already mentioned another user who expressed an interest that seems to fit the mold we are looking for. There are additional thresholds coming up, and it is up to Planning Commission to make the call. I would not want to see this project lost, but in the big picture we have to get SKA to comply with their covenants.

Mr. Okum added if we are adding an extra use to the site, we have to look at the best interests of the City of Springdale, and the continuation of Century Boulevard is a key point to that. If we are going to make a motion, we should make it strong enough so when this kicks in, this occurs. The Certificate of Occupancy probably would be a fair point as a catalyst to induce SKA to get the proper agreements into effect and get their ducks in order. It does put MARS on hold if all those things donít happen, but on the other hand, MARS can do their development and we need some incentive to get the whole thing resolved as a City. We need to get the roadway system done and tied down; we cannot allow it to be pushed off any further.

Mr. Zobel responded I appreciate your concern. You have an issue that predates when MARS started its process in the City. There are two problems from our perspective. One is we donít know when Target will be ready to go forward with their plans and when they would be ready to have that road construction work done, when they would have completed the grading on the property, when they would have gotten all their work done ready for the road work to be completed.

The second thing is in our negotiations with SKA, it would add an extreme measure of uncertainty from our perspective. We donít feel we can put the dollars into the development of the property, without the knowledge that on the day that the work is completed and we are ready to open the store, that we can go ahead and open it. We have some investors who have seen fit to back our company and allow us to go into the expansion mode that we are in. at the same time, we do not have unlimited resources, and we donít have the ability to develop a property and not have it open generating revenue. It would put too much of an economic strain on us.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Twenty-Two


Mr. Okum responded I understand that, and I donít think that is the intent. You are a good use for the site. We need to make sure that all the pieces fall together. We have heard indications from SKA that they are willing to do that. As a City, we donít know that will happen.

Mr. Osborn added I was just talking to the Mayor, and I think his take on this is appropriate. We are catching MARS in the middle of an ongoing dispute. We have the ability to say to SKA that we will not even allow anything to come before Planning Commission until we get an agreement in place on how to build out Century Boulevard. That gives them incentive to get a deal done with us on the road and it allows MARS to move forward on their own merit. That way we are not handicapping MARS because of any negotiations we have with SKA, just like we didnít want to handicap Target. That may be the most prudent way to go here. We certainly have given SKA plenty of notice that this is a high priority issue and that might be part of this approval process tonight.

Mr. Huddleston said I would like to ask if this improvement couldnít be quickly bonded by SKA. Mr. Osborn answered certainly, but I think at this point the more critical thing is getting their commitment in writing as to what their intentions are in terms of timing and so on. The way the language in the Covenants are written, it is almost their initiative to build the road and then we can close off Commons Drive. If they commit to us legally through some sort of document that they are committed to starting Century Boulevard construction by a certain date, thatísí what we are looking for. I think there will be some incentive for them to try to link up with Target on the contraction of the roadway in terms of economy of the project. Mr. Bopp was talking to Mr. Bonneville this evening about that possibility. I would think the tripwire is that they canít come back before Planning Commission until we have a document binding them to begin this project by a specific date.

Mr. Huddleston commented I feel a little differently only to the extent that you have more than a civil matter here of who is going to do what and when and the urgency of that, but rather you have a public safety issue. If we permitted Target to go forward and permit this, albeit a light traffic load to go forward, and we donít have some hammer to insure that the SKA people meet what they feel is their commitment to do that, we are placing the public and public monies in jeopardy for what we are doing on Kemper Road.

Mr. Osborn responded I think the hammer is that they will be allowed no other development on the site. That should be a real incentive for them, because there is a substantial amount of space yet to be leased out. Certainly if you would like to consider imposing a requirement for a bond to be put in place, we can try to negotiate that with them as well. The more critical thing is MARS gets considered this evening and from this point forward, nothing else happens on that site until we have a binding agreement with them as to the completion of Century Boulevard.

Mr. Huddleston commented we would lose significant leverage of time and I would not be comfortable with Target opening with that still hanging out there.

Mr. Okum said I do have some difficulty in holding MARS responsible. Had we not approved Target this evening, the roadway issue would not have been considered, so MARS has to be weighed on its own merits unfortunately. It is foolish for SKA not to go with the roadway, because they would have two corners to be working with; it seems silly not to carry the roadway through and get it done. There are substantial warehouse space that could become something of value to SKA and the community.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Twenty-Three


Mr. Okum continued I am going to push that aside for now, but state very strongly that I absolutely will not listen to any other proposals or concept discussions about another development on that site until that roadway is on schedule to be built along with the Target development so it is tied in and done at one time.

Mr. Okum added on the signage, proportionally I donít have a lot of concerns with it. I donít have good feelings about the neon lighting placed directly on the facade without some encasement. The neon lighting on Dave & Busterís was almost all indirect neon, inside the canopies or cornices. You will have three main neon stripes on this building, two purple and one red. That is a little bit heavy, and I am not quite sold on this neon all the way across.

Mr. Hendrix said there is some cost in reference to the cornicing. We have limited resources, and this will be the most expensive project that we will have done in 1997 or 1998. We did create the cornice. On the neon, there are only a couple of ways to do it. It can be done; there is some added cost to doing that. I would like to hear a recommendation from Planning. We can do the neon in a surround so it is thrown back to the building rather than being exposed. There is an additional cost to that, but if it will make the approval sail, my recommendation would be to do that.

Mr. Okum responded that is exactly what I was referring, there is a mirrored curvature that reflects the neon inward instead of outward that is being used quite a bit.

Mr. Hendrix stated we currently have $6,000 in just the neon for the building. I do not have a price on what that would be, but typically it is 20% to 30% more.

Mr. Zobel said there is no question that this project is running 20% to 30% higher than any other store we have built or that is on the boards for this year. I am starting to tax my CEO and board in terms of approving additional financial commitments to this project. If we are talking about 30% of a $5,000 to $6,000 item, we are talking $1,500 to $2,000. If that is the amount, I donít think we will have any problem there. At the same time, I would want to hear if there are any other items before I start committing myself. In the context of what you are talking about, that would be acceptable to us as a means of shielding the lighting and showing it on a more indirect basis.

Mr. Hendrix added also it would be a less expensive way to do it. Other than cornicing the entire building, we could do the cornice for the red and have it enclosed, but on the purple stripe that is more towards the center of the building, there is no way to do it on a directional-nondirectional basis without what you have explained.

Mr. Okum I think making it less directional would be important. I also feel we put the restrictions on Dave & Busterís Ė all lit or not lit. .Dave & Busterís light went out two weeks ago and within 48 hours it was relit. It would require that you have separate switching devices for your neon from your basic building lighting so you could execute that. I still would like to see your cornice carry across that red band.

Mr. Vanover said I was one of the sticklers on the sign issue, and I still feel this is excessive. However, I am much more impressed with the spirit of cooperation this time than the last. The cornice does look nice, and I am willing to concede the additional square footage because of that. I agree about the indirect neon lighting. I could live with the red exposed and indirect the purple band.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 March 1998

Page Twenty- Four


Mr. Vanover continued on the road issue, the conditions out there will add to your success. I agree that I canít pin this on you definitely think it is time to say enough is enough from this point on, until we have a written agreement in hand that the extension will go forth, we are done. If we can agree on those arrangements, I say letís go.

Mr. Hendrix responded it would be wonderful if the red could be exposed and the purple could be channeled or directional. We would be very acceptable with that.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the MARS project with the indirect neon lighting on the purple bands, all lit no lit on all neon lighting, detail on the landscaping and replanting at the front of the building to the satisfaction of the landscape planner.

Mr. Young seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Young, Mr. Syfert, Mr.Vanover, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Okum and Mr. Huddleston. Approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

Mr. Zobel said thank you, and weíll see you at the opening August 5th. Mr. Okum said you canít open the first Wednesday; it is Council meeting night. Mr. Zobel said for the City Council, weíll open Thursday the 6th.

  2. Mr. Okum said over the weekend I noticed that the masonry work had started on the Duke properties (the former Swallenís). The applicant had submitted elevation drawings on three of the sides of the building, and one did show 2 sections of it being the split face block and the rest of it (south elevation) a solid masonry unit painted out. Therefore at the last Planning meeting we directed them to build it as submitted to us. I donít think we can hold them to it because they had submitted that elevation. We need to make sure that all four elevations must be submitted to this Commission. When we are submitted samples of materials that are going to be used on it, those samples must depict truly what we are seeing and what is being approved for the entire building.

    As far as the other building was concerned, we are protected because we saw all four elevations. Mr. McErlane reported we saw three elevations. Fortunately with the other building we only saw one, and what they submitted for permit was the south elevation with the first two bays in split face block. The north elevation was with all the bays back to where the building juts back to the loading area at split face. That is what we issued the permit for, and they came in and wanted to change it to smooth face on the sides. I told them to come to Planning Commission. Mr. Okum said so they came to us and we directed them to make it split face. Mr. McErlane responded I donít know that you can hold them to something that you didnít approve previously and that I have already issued permits on.

    Mr. Okum commented it is something that we can learn from the experience. If we accept what they present to us, we have to hold them to it. Mr. McErlane said the onus is on us upon submittal to make sure that we get all four elevations.

    Mr. Huddleston said I apologize for being absent last month and I will be out of town on April 14th.

    Everyone else will be present on April 14th.

    Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

    10 March 1998

    Page Twenty-Five


Having completed all business, Planning Commission stood adjourned at 10:28 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



______________________,1998 ________________________

William Syfert, Chairman


_______________________,1998 _________________________

Robert Seaman, Secretary