Springdale Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

7:00 P.M.



The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Chairman William Syfert.


Members Present: Councilman Steve Galster, David Okum, Robert

Seaman, Councilman Robert Wilson, James Young

and Chairman Syfert.

Members Absent: Richard Huddleston (arrived at 7:08 p.m.)

Others Present: Doyle H. Webster, Mayor

Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

William K. McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Anne McBride, City Planner


Mr. Galster moved for adoption and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. By voice

vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative




Ms. McBride stated we had a meeting at 7:00 p.m. last night, and several

people in the audience were present to discuss some potential land use

plans for the McClellans Lane area. The Cityís initiation to create those

plans were based on the survey that we had taken of the residents and

property owners on McClellans Lane. Basically, I have two of the land

use plans that were discussed at the meeting. We went over several

land use concepts for that area, and it is my understanding that it was

the consensus of the residents there that they would explore the possibility

of the area being used for something other than residential land use. If

the Commission likes I can show you two of the plans that were discussed.

The first concept shows a proposed big box retailer such as Target in this

location and two potential restaurants, a retail use, another major anchor retailer and a potential office building to the rear of the development. This proposal

includes all of the property on McClellans Lane being involved, including the

church parcel on the corner and would include part of the Kroger property.

These are concepts only; we did eight alternatives altogether, trying to mix

different land uses to get a feel as to what might work on the site. To the

rear of this big box would be an office showroom type use.

The second concept shows a little bit different types of uses. It shows some

smaller office or retail type uses, a larger sit-down restaurant encompassing

the church property at the corner, smaller "B" type shop retail oriented towards

Century Boulevard, potential health fitness club and office and office showroom.

This does not include the assumption that any additional property would be

acquired from Kroger. We did a lot of different alternatives. Some assumed retail, a big box on the site; some assumed smaller individual retailers, some all office and some were a mixture of more office than retail. Mr. Seaman commented I notice you put a lot of landscaping on your drawings,

and I appreciate that.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Two


Mr. Okum commented the total square footage of developable retail space

was in the neighborhood of 300, 000 s.f.? Ms. McBride answered in that

neighborhood, and depending on the plan. Mr. Okum continued even with

all that landscaping, 300,000 s.f. of retail could fit onto those sites. Please outline the proposed Target area that is being considered this evening. Ms. McBride responded it includes this portion and the extension of Century Boulevard and this portion of the property here, the east side of Century Boulevard.


A. 6/11/97 Letter to Randy Danbury, President of Council from Bob

Seaman, Secretary of Planning Commission regarding the approval

of the proposed hotel at 12037 Sheraton Lane

B. 7/1/97 Letter from Cecil W. Osborn to Residents of McClellans Lane Area

C. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes - 20 May 1997


A. Preliminary Plan Approval of Proposed Target Store to be Located at

Century Boulevard and East Kemper Road (tabled 6/10/97)

Tom Bonneville stated we would like to request approval of the Target concept plan as it has been revised. We are here after having met with staff members prior to this meeting and there are some optional things we can talk about as needed. Art Harden is here also from Woolpert, and he will be available to answer some of the more technical questions.

We have 125,000 square foot Target Store in the back portion of the property with landscaping all around the perimeter. We have the extension of Century Boulevard that we show not only through the property but conceptually beyond Target. I say conceptually because that portion beyond our boundary is the area that SKA would be involved with, the owners of Lot 7 to the north. The rear slope is all landscaped; the entrance on Kemper would be a fully operable signalized intersection in all directions and as I understand it, Commons as it now strikes Kemper would be modified by North American Properties. I understand that might become a right in - right out or some other decision you would make here at the City. On this plan, McClellans remains untouched by us; we have no access to McClellans Lane.

We have retention ponds for Phase 1 which are capable of our entire runoff under a 10 year storm. There are some means to handle 100 year storm which we will address with the engineers.

We have only conceptually shown two outlots on the front of the panhandle portion of the property, because we visualize that as Phase 2. That can be occurring other than what we are going to propose here, and would occur in a future development, possibly with the lots to the north of it, Lots 1 2 3 and 4. North American Properties has options on those four lots.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Three


Mr. Bonneville said conceptually there may be other things that can develop from all that, but what we would like to propose as a minimum for our development is (A) the full development of the Target site which is everything west of the extension of the road, and (B) to do the outlot area from only a grading and some landscaping standpoint, no site lights or anything like that for the time being as long as there are residences there. I canít tell you the timetable, and I am open for discussion on that aspect, but that is the general proposal. There are four reports before you that outline most of the other things that we are doing so I wonít go into great detail about it.

Mr. Harden added since our last meeting, we have done computer imaging to give you an idea of the topography and this is the birdís eye view. In looking at the project, there are existing drainage swales that run down off the property and into the SKA property behind. This gives you an idea of the magnitude and difference in topography. You can see the extension of Century Boulevard as it comes down; this would be a flat graded out pad which would be the two outlots in the area.

Mr. Bonneville stated the area that Art is talking about that is flat is the panhandle, and because we have a tremendous amount of cubic yardage of earth to move, a lot of it is going into the panhandle. That is part of the reason why we would like to include the grading in the first phase so we can grade the entire project area first. We probably would hydro-seed that area so the grass would come up rather quickly. The rest of the material we are proposing to take off the project is coming down the roadway. I think youíve seen a grading plan that shows how wide bottom of the embankment is as you leave the Target property; it gets narrower as you go north and makes the connection with the old Kemper Commons roadway. This has been modified so that Century becomes the more major roadway. At the direction of city staff we have done that, so Century is the intended route for most of the traffic in the area.

Mr. Galster said you mentioned the panhandle would be Phase II, and that you want to do grading right now. To me that panhandle and the invasion of the residents on McClellans lane is extremely critical. I need to address the timing of that first. Even though you say you are not infringing on McClellans Lane, it takes it up there and definitely infringes on that whole street.

Mr. Bonneville responded so what we have to do is some good screening. Mr. Harden added there are existing trees along this area, and we talked to staff about providing a 20 foot no-build area to protect all the trees that are there.

Mr. Galster commented if we grade it right now, how far down the road can we make Phase II; how far away can we push that before it affects your overall project? Mr. Bonneville responded I would say a year. Please understand that we are paying a large amount for this property; that is a fairly large portion of the overall, and we would not be getting any return on that part of the investment. I think a year gives an adequate time for the marketing effort on the part of everyone that is involved. If this is to take place, it will require an effort on everyoneís part to decide what is best and move ahead with it rather than to have a lot of discussion that could go on for more than a year. I understand the residents themselves have formed an organization to discuss how their neighborhood could possibly be marketed,


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Four


Mr. Galster responded I appreciate that. You mention a year. What if we look at a two year but it could be done earlier if 50% of the rest of the residents are involved in additional development? What I feel is it ends up too much piecemeal.

Mr. Bonneville commented you donít even need to negotiate with me because you hold all the cards. You have the right to tell me no. What we need to do is have a plan understanding that those two lots are concepts; they are 8,000 square foot square boxes that we at Target looked at. In terms of parking, we will require approximately 20 cars per thousand square feet; the building is that large. As the restaurants get smaller, we have a smaller ratio, down to about 10. So we showed conceptually two boxes, and we have had some interest all ready. We donít have to sell immediately; we think it wouldnít make sense if you are moving ahead with a larger plan.

Mr. Galster stated I think there are preliminary discussions that are happening. would you be interested in leaving that whole panhandle alone for now and just talking about the Target Store? Mr. Bonneville answered no, because it is too costly to not do the grading of it. Mr. Galster responded so if we allow you to grade it and say donít build on it or improve it other than moving dirt for two years. Mr. Bonneville said I would not want to make that a covenant; I would rather come in approximately a year from now and ask for something. If no decision is made a year from now, I want to try for an approval. If there is something made before that time, and personally I think there will be.

Mr. Galster commented I have no problem with saying if the rest of it develops you can build accordingly. Based on that, do you have any problem with removing the two buildings from the site as far as on this submittal, and leaving it as dirt - not even show the buildings? Mr. Bonneville answered that is what we could do but I donít want to remove them creating an understanding that there is not ever going to be a building. How about showing them as dashed, or something like that. Mr. Syfert suggested proposed or future development.

Mr. Galster continued I have no problem with proposed future development that would have to come back in as a totally separate issue and not be a part of what we are looking at this evening. It would have to be something that there is not even preliminary approval for. It would have to be laid out as a separate project at some future date. Mr. Bonneville responded then we agree. If the others agree, we would agree also. I also donít want to extend out a problem for North American Properties; I would like Lori Wendling to make comments on this.

Ms. Wendling said I know we are not part of this submission but I can tell you what is going on. We have an option on the first four homes. Because of timing we were able to get options on those properties; we did not come in as part of the Target submission to show an overall plan. We do have the four and I understand that there is contemplation of possibly rezoning the rest of the street. I know you are not sure how that will be zoned yet. We are probably ready to go now versus later.

Mr. Galster responded you are proposing these four here, and I donít like this. To me this is an infringement on the rest of the residential area here, and I will protect them until something is decided with that. I personally would not approve this development here in the middle of the residential area that is left there. I am trying to separate in my mind what infringes too far into the residential area, and right now this does.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Five


Ms. Wendling said you mentioned a certain percentage of the property being put under contract for development. That idea has some merit depending on how the land use is broken down. We really only do retail and multi-development, and if the land use plan had a variety of components, I think it would be difficult to reach that 50% trigger by one party. So it would depend on what master plan is decided on.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster said so as far as Target is concerned, you have no problem with eliminating those two retail spaces from your submittal tonight and make them a part of some future submittal that may or may not come forward. Mr. Bonneville responded we are hopeful that something with North American Properties can be put together so a development plan by them in concert with us can be worked out so they can develop. Obviously they have to look at their own financial rewards and what their own capabilities are. As she said, they are not necessarily into some of the other types of land uses. I would be more in favor of what I saw in one of the plans that showed a larger box to our east with the outlots in front of that.

Mr. Galster responded I understand. My problem is I canít vote on what may happen in the future, and I want to make sure that is a future submittal and we take it off the plan for now. Mr. Bonneville responded we are in agreement. One thing that could be considered is an overlay of the master plan that would draw a line around the whole area including everything in the neighborhood and the church and perhaps that line could be approved by you even as early as tonight. All I am saying is that kind of an action would require an approval by the citizens as a group, their signature and the church and we could proceed with that kind of development. In a way that would be good because everybody would know where everything was headed rather than their being a lot of stress. Mr. Galster responded I agree 100 % but we canít get that done tonight. So if I can eliminate those and vote on from the roadway over to the west, I have no problem moving forward. As it is shown, I am in my mind making the assumption that if those two go, the next four go and thatís all that will be on Phase II, and that I cannot do.

Ms. Wendling said for clarification, the grading can take place but no buildings. Mr. Galster responded I personally have no problem with the grading taking place but I donít want to see any construction based on this approval tonight. Any construction on that pad would have to be in a future submittal. Mr. Bonneville added we would not place lights on that either. Mr. Harden said in terms of utilities, for clarification there is a sanitary sewer proposed. Mr. Galster responded to me that is moving dirt, no problem.

Mr. McErlane said in the discussion of the portion of the property on the east side, rather than show buildings or even dashed lines, it would be better to label it as future commercial and leave it at that, so there is not some misconception that there are buildings approved.

Ms. McBride added if the Commisison will consider that the property be graded, as the applicant indicated, there should be at least a 20 foot do not disturb zone in there so the existing trees can remain and that there should be additional landscaping south of that to the staffís satisfaction. I want to make sure that the property owner to the north is adequately buffered and protected.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Six


Mr. Bonneville asked if they could do that as a temporary easement, so that when future development were to occur north or east of that, that could be withdrawn when there was an approval done for the development. Ms. McBride responded what I am suggesting is an interim measure while this property is being used solely as a holding place for dirt.

Mr. McErlane said if you will look in the Tri-County Commons Covenants, there is a covenant relative to the buffer that currently exists against this property. It says as long as this property remains residential in use, not necessarily residential zoning, that buffer must remain in effect. If it is similar to that, that relieves that requirement once that changes from a residential use.

Mr. Bonneville commented we would be working with North American Properties on that. Our understanding is that there is a letter that North American Properties would be willing to dedicate that piece that is on the east side of Kemper Commons up to the drive crossing, and we at Target would take over the requirements of maintenance that they currently have. During initial construction, we might have to get into that area, so obviously we would have to recover that area with landscaping, and we would do that. Then we have the crossover as well and North American Properties would keep a small portion to the south of that, which is straight across from an outlot that they have here.

Mr. Okum wondered about the 10 year storm water retention; is that right? Mr. Harden answered we actually are designing it for controlling 100 year storm. The actual storm pipe through the center is designed for 10 year storm. Mr. Bonneville added if we get a heavier storm it will end up going to the detention pond, overland to a large drain on the west side of the roadway and cross underneath through about a 60 inch pipe. Right now it was designed for 48 and we are going to have to upgrade that to approximately 60 inch. Mr. Okum commented we are talking about a lot of impervious area considering it is grass and trees now. Mr. Bonneville commented normally for a site this large in other cities, most of the time it is 36 inch. Mr. Okum said I understand by storm year size and our standard is 100 year I believe. Mr. Shvegzda reported it is to protect up to the 100 year storm. Mr. Harden reported the actual structure is designed to accommodate a 100 year storm.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that one of the issues is in regards to the length required for the southbound double left out of the proposed Century Boulevard to eastbound Kemper Road. the initial traffic study had indicated 200 feet would be required. There was a conflict because the furthest south drive to the Target property was within that 200 foot length. There have been discussions as to moving the driveway further to the north tog et it out of that area, or to make the driveway right in right out. Subsequently there have been adjustments to the traffic study to reflect the potential commercial development at the panhandle area and some other issues, and that length has increased to 250 feet. Based on that, it eliminates the potential for moving the driveway to the north because it will put it very close to the northern driveway shown adjacent to the building. This means that our recommendation would be that the driveway be restricted to right in right out so it wouldnít conflict with the 250 foot of stacking for the double left. The 250 foot length is required due to the Saturday p.m. peak. The traffic study indicated the weekday peak would require 175 feet but knowing the critical nature of traffic on the weekend, it is our recommendation that it be restricted to right in right out to accommodate that situation.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Seven


Mr. Shvegzda continued in the original submittal, there was indicated one driveway to that panhandle retail area on the east. There was discussion to move the driveway so it would align opposite the roadway that goes adjacent to the Target Store. That has been done, but a secondary driveway has remained opposite the southern driveway to the Target Store. The recommendation is to eliminate that; however, there was some discussion as to making that a right in right out also.

Mr. Shvegzda said concerning East Kemper Road, there is an additional lane being proposed westbound that will be a through and right. In order to prevent that from being blocked by the two through lanes that currently exist, that length would have to be 775 feet, which extends that improvement considerably into the church property that is at the corner of McClellans Lane. There isnít enough right of way there to provide those improvements, so it is our recommendation that upon any resolution of the development of that area, that requirement be included with that particular development.

Mr. Shvegzda added the improvements now show the through and right lane continuing on to the west and matching up to with the existing third lane that is westbound. There has been information submitted that indicates that there is enough width at the Commons intersection as far as width in the Kemper roadway to provide the left turn eastbound to Century and also enough width for the three foot concrete median to limit right in and right out at both lights of the intersection if that is decided.

Mr.. Shvegzda added there have not been pavement modifications noted on the plan in regards to what will be required to re vise the land designations. When Century is put in, one of the lanes south of Kemper Road will be through and right and not as it is right now a left and right only.

Mr. Shvegzda said it was already mentioned that North American has the responsibility for modifying the Commons leg of that intersection. Regarding the construction of the raised concrete median to prohibit through and left movements north and south through there, that is in the covenants of the Anchor Associates development. We have reviewed the traffic study and they have addressed all the comments that we had earlier.

On the storm sewer, it is true that the on site storm sewer system is designed for the 10 year frequency flow. That is acceptable, providing there is a means to carry the difference between the 10 and 100-year so it can be conveyed overland. However, it has to be picked up at a point and carried via conduit underneath the public roadway into the detention basin. There needs to be some provisions for emergency overflow from each detention basin so it can be contained and conveyed down in this case from the upper detention basin to the lower detention basin, to insure that it is contained in some way.

Mr. Bonneville responded we would respectfully request the right to do a little bit of studying on this and come back to Don. If you look at the place on the larger overlay of where this drive is, and look at how the cars go to the west in the other developments and all the way across into the future development to the right, the east. As you can see, when you have traffic that cannot be placed on the main roadway on Kemper, when people decide not to go out to Kemper to make it to the next development, it removes some of the traffic problems for this roadway that is perhaps overloaded at times.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Eight


Mr. Bonneville said that is part of the justification for a cross drive that you had in your master plan and overlaid on the Paffee property which we picked up when we got the option on the property. What we want to do is see if there is something that we can do to have a left in. If you donít have that left turn in, all of the cars will have to go into one single entrance to our site. Thirty five hundred cars would have to take that one single route all the time, which I think is real inconvenient. I understand safety is the paramount issue, but we want to take a look at the possibility that there might be a way to make that work so we could also have a left-hand turn in. Another aspect of that is as the car comes in, we want the customer to be able to look at where the parking comes out from the building and decide which row of parking she will go into from the outside and work her way in, rather than drive up to the storefront and conflict with people who are coming out the main entrance of the store. We are only talking about a couple of peak hours, and maybe a few more at Christmas, and maybe something different could be done at Christmas. The important thing here is that we would like to be able to have the customer be able to do that because so much of our business is dependent on convenience. I plead with you to let us do the study and come back to Don; it is real important to us. What I am trying to do is ask for us to have Woolpert do a study of that, because there are some rules that the state has come up with having to do with 50 feet versus 30 feet used up by cars and a lot of other factors. There are two lanes there that cars can still go past if there were a left hand turn lane. Plus there is a problem of two left hand turn lanes out that we need to look at as well to find out if we can work it out. It is rather complicated so we need to look at all the aspects of it. and decide the best way to present this and if it works in our mind. It is obvious that Target needs to make sure it works for our business and we need to make sure it works for the safety of our customers.

Ms. McBride said we have to tried to look at this both ways. We as a City need to protect the residents of Mc Clellans Lane. So, if this is to go forward, we have to look at how we can properly buffer and protect that neighborhood for as long as they want to stay that way. But we also as a City have an obligation to look at what will happen with regards to this property if it is to redevelop. This report tries to reflect both of those points of view, which is kind of tough to do.

Ms. McBride continued the one item looks toward the future potential redevelopment of that property. We need to have easements in a number of locations on the proposed development, two properties on McClellans Lane to assure they will have access to the signal in the signal. We have asked for that previously. In the meeting we had this evening prior to this meeting they indicated that they are willing to do that but we have not seen it on any plans or documents and that the Commission needs to make that a requirement prior to any approval of the project.

Ms. McBride said on the open space, we have on a number of occasions requested that they provide us with their open space calculations. We got that at the meeting this afternoon and Iíll have to check that.

Ms. McBride added they continue to show improvements, landscaping and parking on property adjacent to their property to the west, that I believe is currently owned by North American Properties. We will need to see some form of easement if they are going to be using someone elseís property and the question becomes will that development plan have to be modified as well by this Commission to include a portion of the parking lot on that site.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Nine


Ms. McBride reported in terms of landscaping, Comments 1 through 8 have repeatedly been given to the applicant. They deal largely with protecting the existing single family residences on McClellans Lane as well as beefing up all the landscaping within the parking areas and on the street frontages. Some of them are mistakes that we have asked three times to be corrected and they have not been. I are not going to take the Commissionís time to go through those; we have gone through those on several other occasions.

Ms. McBride stated with regards to lighting, they are proposing that the site be lighted via a series of 38 foot high poles. We feel those are way too high given their proximity to single family residential area. They have indicated the color of the fixtures to be copper. They previously had provided photometrics which stopped at the edge of their parking lot. We asked them to take those beyond that and they took them to the property line which pointed out our concern. On the north property line of the two proposed outlots they have 1.5 foot candles and that is completely unacceptable adjacent to a single family residence. There is to be no spillage of light onto those properties as long as they are to remain residential.

Ms. McBride reported they are proposing a total of 3 free standing signs for the development; that has not changed. They are showing two ground mounted signs on the outlots that would be 10 foot high. We typically permit 7 feet so that would be a modification that the Commission would have to consider. The staff report indicated that they are not located the minimum 10 feet and they are; that is our error. The other sign was to be a 144 square foot Target pylon sign on the west side of the main access drive.

Ms. McBride continued in terms of on building signage, they are proposing 788 square feet of sign area. Staff would suggest the signage on the north elevation of the building, which is 325 square feet of sign area, is not necessary. None of the other major retailers in that area have signage on the north side. We also would suggest that the sign on the west side of the building which is 204 square feet is not necessary. Again, other national retailers in that area attracting a similar type market do not have signage on the sides of their buildings.

Ms. McBride stated with regards to the building materials and elevations, on their most recent submittal they do have the building materials identified on the elevations, so you can strike that comment.

Mr. Okum said that is a big list; we are looking at a preliminary plan that we are supposed to consider to move forward to Council for their consideration.

Mr. Bonneville said Iíll start with signs on the Target building. We would like to have the north sign because there is a corridor of view to the freeway all the way to I-275. You could not even see that bullseye going by on the freeway unless we went to a larger size than the one on the front of the building. It is about a foot higher, and when you walk up close it sounds huge but when you back off 300 feet it isnít. The sign is not obtrusive. The north side is also important to us because everybody tells us that Dave & Busterís and the other businesses north of us are very important and will generate a lot of customer traffic. Instead of looking like an industrial building, we want to look like a commercial building.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Ten


Mr. Bonneville added the majors in Tri-County Mall all have signs on all faces of their building because they are seen by customers on all sides. It is tradition that regional malls have majors with signs on four sides and one inside the mall as well. I donít want to make too big a thing on that, but we would like to have it., If you deny us on that, weíll go without it but we think it is nice, it looks good and is tasteful, and weíre not shining on anybodyís house.

Mr. Bonnevlile added on the other signs, we agreed earlier that we would not do any outright development on the panhandle to the east for now. However please understand when the time comes that the development will go out there, there is hardly a restaurant in this country that will build a building without having a sign. We showed them at 10 feet high which is an error in that 7 feet high is what your ordinance calls for, but our position is that 7 feet is not a very big sign. From 300 feet away you could hardly see it. They probably would come in and ask for a variance of more than 10 feet. Hopefully you will give them something that is reasonable.

Mr. Okum commented you referred to Tri-County Mall, and they have less signage than that. Mr. Bonneville responded Tri-County Mall would not need to use pylons because their mall is so big that they are a sign unto themselves.

Mr. Harden said in terms of easements, we had not shown any because we knew the city staff was working on a master plan and we would like to see what was going to be developed to know where the easements could go. Target is willing to grant easements necessary for cross access to the other properties. It is not shown the drawings, but we have agreed that we will add that to them.

Mr. Bonneville added because this is only a submission of what we have and not what North American Properties or others may propose, we need to look at this as though those residences would stay. Please put it on your record that we hereby promise to show access that will be satisfactory to the city staff, yourselves and to those houses at one point back to Century Boulevard.

Mr. Harden continued on the second item of Ms. McBrideís report, no outdoor storage displays, we discussed that this afternoon in term of incorporating that into the Covenants. Target has agreed to that.

Mr. Harden stated provisions for the landscape plan, part of what we are concerned with is putting in landscaping which may be moved in the near future, within a year or so as the plan is modified and per our earlier discussion, we will add additional landscaping for that.

Mr. Harden reported we added in the additional information to the photometric plan, but the outlot area where this a concern with light, there would be no development there so we will revise the lighting calculations to eliminate lighting in that area. Also we would include the lighting levels on the light fixtures for the proposed Century Boulevard; we will add that information and submit it to staff.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Eleven


Mr. Bonneville added for the lighting, it is obvious that it is possible that we would exceed zero at the edge of our lot. Maybe it is a one-half foot candle and maybe it is not what a person wants in their back yard. We will commit right now that we will add side skirts on the light box to prevent that point source from penetrating through and going into someoneís back yard on the residential side.

Mr. Bonneville stated there is a little long triangle that would fit about 8 stalls; the widest point by the corner is about 6 feet because the property line isnít straight and the parking is. We thought we could work with Lori Wendling of North American Properties to get an easement. Ms. Wendling said that would be fine subject to any research we might have.

Mr. Okum said there was comment about the light pole height. Mr. Harden answered the 38 foot pole height was mentioned in the earlier meeting regarding the outlot areas. Ms. McBride said the 38 foot pole heights in general. Mr. Bonneville said we have been installing 38 feet because it is an efficient height for distributing the light on the lot. We used to have 55 foot, but there is a maintenance problem with that. At 45 feet, it is actually perfect for maintenance but it is not todayís optimum lighting standards. Our company that installs the lights has a standard pole height 38 feet, and we tend to go with that. As far as being a problem for residential as I said before, we can promise side skirt protection. We put our lights inside a box and turn the bulb vertically so we donít get a hot spot on the ground underneath with more even distribution along the ground so the entire site is more evenly lit.

Mr. Okum said you indicate that 38 feet is what you would like to have because it is standard for your development. Mr. Bonneville responded it is standard because while we have other heights higher and lower, the 38 foot is the optimum for best energy consumption, best lighting on the ground, best distribution of lights, etc. Mr. Okum commented that gives you fewer poles and higher lights, which costs you less money. Mr. Bonneville added you go from 38 feet to 30 feet and have 50% increase in the number of light poles. You drop to 25 feet you have a more than 100% increase in the number of light poles. It costs $3,500 to $4,000 per pole installed whereas the boxes on the pole make up about $600 of that cost. If you double the number of poles, you can see how the costs skyrocket for the development. I donít feel the impact on the citizenry is negative at 38 feet nor do I feel the impact at 10 feet is negative. It just is a very big impact on us in terms of costs to start lowering the poles from 38 feet.

Mr. Okum said there were many comments on the landscaping and I havenít heard a response. Mr. Bonneville said the amount of landscaping we have compared to other developments that are relatively new and going all the way back to Tri-County, I think exceeds almost any of them compared to when they first developed. Secondly, I think ours is very tastefully done. Our biggest problem is that we are existing on a very wooded site. We chose this location, but because you have special rules about replacement of trees, we are not able to crowd that many trees on the site or we would lose every single stall we have. There are literally 1800 inches of tree replacement, and we will not be able to address that totally on our site. We are going to have to work with you to figure out what we should do beyond the enhanced landscaping plan that we have here.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Twelve


Mr. Harden added some of the items Anne mentioned was additional screening in this area near the residents, additional screening in this area and since we are talking about not developing this, we will be looking to make sure it stays screened. The trees would initially be 60 foot on center and we felt it appropriate spacing but Anne has asked us to do 40 foot on center and we will do that and add additional screening in this area. We have talked about maintaining a 20 foot no disturb buffer along the north property line and we will retain any trees in that area.

Mr. Bonneville said as you can see we can do some things there, and where you donít see landscaping on the west side, there is some landscaping in the right of way areas. We can do some additional landscaping in there but some of it is already in place. We still will not be able to get in all the landscaping that the tree replacement program calls for. We need to address that, and I am not sure how , but I know some people have done some things that would work with another aspect of the tree replacement program. We are willing to listen and do as we need.

Mr. Okum wondered if the applicant were familiar with their facility in Orlando with the landscaping up against the building. Will you have them against the face of the building here? Mr. Bonneville responded we are not showing any here. It has to do with types of soils, and if you get trees too close to the foundation you have a problem. It is possible to do some trees in front of the building closer to the curb, but then we get into the problem of getting salt on the plantings. We probably could add five or six trees, but we still would be short of the requirement. It is important to think about the quality of landscaping in a vertical versus horizontal standpoint. Vertical is what most of us are looking for. It is nice to have a variety of types so I would like to propose uses of paper birch and a lot of different types of things that can be done. Quality comes across a lot better when you have variety.

Mr. Okum commented you also have the rear and west side of the building. On the rear with the slope easement, that building will be 30 feet off the roadway. Mr. Bonneville responded we can densify that to a degree, but we do not want to have security problems back there and we want to have the Fire Department to have access back there. There are some green areas, but even if we were to double the amount of landscaping, which would be about four times as much as most properties do, we would still not be able to fulfill the replacement formula. It is really tough to do this.

Ms. McBride reported on the comment concerning the height of the light poles, I understand the need to safely light their parking field, one of the applicants later on the agenda this evening, have light standards that are 15 and 25 feet in height for a proposed amusement facility. I think the Commission might take that into consideration.

Secondly, regarding signage, the applicant indicated that the anchors in the regional malls have signage on three and four sides. This is not a regional mall; this is a big box retailer, and the other big box retailers in the area do not have signage on the sides and backs of their buildings.

With regards to the height of the ground mounted signs, and I realize we are talking in theory, remember the Macaroni Grill and Chiliís across the street have ground mounted signs under seven feet in height.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Thirteen


Ms. McBride stated my comments on landscaping do not reflect the tree replacement ordinance. This is addressed by Mr. McErlane, but I would challenge the applicant to create a landscape plan that is creative, that uses a variety of landscape materials. You might think about increasing the size of those planting materials, increase the number of islands in the parking field; you have an excess of parking spaces by our requirements. Also, increase the number of trees throughout the development. I agree that you canít meet the tree replacement requirements but I disagree with the applicantís comment that it exceeds the landscaping of any other development in the area. I think the one across the street exceeds that and I also think there are excellent examples of landscaping that are forthcoming on our agenda this evening that you might wish to stay and look at because they do meet and exceed requirements of the tree ordinance and provide a variety and a larger size of planting.

Mr. Wilson said you indicated that our mall anchors or main stores have signage on all four sides for viewage from the interstate. That is what you want, but then you also want wall mounted signs which the malls donít have. I get the impression that you are trying to get the best of both worlds. If you want to be seen from the interstate, a location closer to the interstate might have been better than where you are now. I am concerned about the signage on that north wall; I am not so sure it is necessary. The building is designed to look like a retail establishment. If your design is such that it looks like a retail establishment, signage on that side might not be so important. I have a concern about your rationale for signage and the fact that you feel you need a 10 foot sign so people can see it 300 feet away. If your signage is on Kemper Road and is in line with all the other signs, it should not be a problem. Maybe you can clarify what you are saying.

Mr. Bonneville responded when I was talking about the 10 foot sign, there are two little signs in front of these outlots. This becomes almost a moot point because we wonít be developing that for now. Whoever buys these lots from us will have to make that as a separate presentation. All I was talking about there was that your Code on ground mounted signs says that they can only be 7 feet tall, which is extraordinarily small for restaurants.

Mr. Bonneville continued on the building we propose 3 building mounted signs, four with a small word pharmacy on the south elevation . We have the entrance sign, the bullseye and word Target, and a sign here because the elevation is higher than the roof of Samís Club and Wal-Mart. We are in competition, and cars going east on Kemper would be able to see at a great distance the bullseye. Mr. Wilson suggested putting it in the corner and angle it so it could be seen from Kemper Road. Mr. Bonneville responded we wanted it there because we want the Wal-Mart and Samís customers to see it as an alternative to shopping there. Since we paid so much for this high visible land, we want to be able to take advantage of that.

Mr. Wilson said most of your buildings look the same in terms of construction. Mr. Bonneville said yes in terms of shape and we try to maintain a kind of prototype color. Mr. Wilson continued so someone 300 or 400 yards away could see the construction and assume that is a Target without even looking at signage. Mr. Bonneville responded I donít think that all would know that. If it is a blank wall they might think it was a warehouse, and we donít think a blank wall is appropriate here. Iím not sure what would be negative about having our sign on that side. There is room in the allowable square footage to do it I think, or within one and one-half percent.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Fourteen


Mr. Wilson said I am talking about the sign on the north that would show on the interstate, the one we are talking about eliminating. Mr. Bonneville said there is a corridor of view to the interstate to the north that we see every time we drive by. You get it about three times actually, going east and westbound.

Mr. Wilson commented I donít have a problem with the west side; I can appreciate your competition, but I do have a concern about the signage on the north side. Mr. Bonneville said may I ask respectfully why that is bad. Mr. Wilson answered what you see on the interstate coming from I-75 and heading west are a lot of signs. You even see Levitz which is probably a mile away. All that signage could present a problem. We are trying to eliminate a lot of signage that we feel might not be necessary. People on the interstate donít necessarily drive and look for any particular sign.

Mr. Bonneville responded as I said in my early presentation, of all the signs, that to us is the least high priority. Mr. Wilson said so you donít mind eliminating it if you have to. Mr. Bonneville answered of course we do. We wouldnít be out there to spend $8,000 to $10,000 on one sign unless it meant something important to us. You have to understand that we are not a neighborhood store; we are a regional draw. We are trying to get business to come in from a region much larger than the area of Springdale. We are trying to get 200,000 people to come to our building, and one way to do that is to have an equal footing with others who have signs that can do these things. For clarification, I compared that to the regional mall. In any other regional mall in America, generally all the majors will have the name of their company on each face of their main building, tastefully done and usually on the upper half with a bar of color around the store and maybe some inset. But it is on all four faces of their building. Mr. Wilson responded again, you are talking about criteria for a mall, but you are not in a mall. Mr. Bonneville answered we are in a situation where we are competing with a mall and we have a visibility corridor.

Mr. Galster said I am sure a lot of people in the audience and the members of this board are familiar with the fact that we already have 200,000 people coming into Springdale to shop. I question the effectiveness of trying to pull somebody off the interstate to shop at your store. They already are coming to the Tri-County Mall area as it is. I think we have 50,000 people that come here to work and 10,000 people who live here, and I am sure we have 300,000 people who shop here on a daily basis.

Mr. Galster continued if this is such a great sight line for everybody coming down Kemper Road this way, do we need the pylon sign out here at 30 feet tall? Mr. Bonneville responded yes, for the people coming from the east. Mr. Galster commented I donít know that the people coming from the east will see your store until they are right on top of it. You are at one of the high points of Springdale and a 30 foot sign on top of that will be like a beacon, especially if it is a big circle target. I think there is excessive signage on the building; it is workable and negotiable but I do not see the need to attract the I-275 traffic.

Mr. Okum commented I have some real big problems, because I think we are putting a big box on top of a hill. Those are evident not only from Kemper Road but primarily from Commons Drive which is currently running along the west side of the property in the rear.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Fifteen


Mr. Okum continued from the bottom at the Y intersection the property goes from a 640 topo to 690 at the base of the building plus 28 feet, so roughly the building will be 78 feet above grade on the rear. We will be looking at a giant wall of masonry on the back side of the building. Thatís going to be a primary egress coming up Century Boulevard, and thatís what they are going to look at. Basically they are asking us to approve a box on a hill that will be a solid wall for everybody to look at on the back side of the building. I donít blame you for wanting to have a sign on the back of it; if I could have a 78 foot high billboard on an exposure, it would be a wonderful feature for me. On the other hand, I have to look at what people will be seeing, not from one side but from all sides.

Mr. Okum said on the northwest corner of that site, you are 50 to 60 feet above Commons Drive. You have squeezed everything on this site that you possibly can; you have a building that is massive that will be setting on top of a mountain and we will have a box there. If you canít blend that into the environment somehow, thatís what we will be looking at. I have a feeling that all you would see is masonry and concrete and foundation on the rear north and west side of this building.

Mr. Bonneville responded take that landscape plan and visualize all those trees. The drawing on the left is without trees; if I had my druthers and had weeks to do the drawing and show all the trees initially and perhaps another canopy at 10 years old and shrubs and varieties of trees, I would do that. What I am saying is you really wonít see a box on a hill. What you will see is a very attractive building that when seen close up will have lots of trees and screening and features around it that will make it a lot more beautiful building. I donít think that creating us is a bad thing because we are on top of the hill is fair to us. Respectfully I would please ask you all to think of this as being on level ground, on a hill and in a hole. Is it unfair that we bought a hill and we are asking for what is actually code. I think our building is more attractive with the word Target on it. It is worthwhile to picture the long slope covered with trees and landscaping, to help architecturally soften the building. Also within 200 feet you will see the texture on the building and at night with the light on the lot it will be a very attractive development. We have done 760 some stores and I think we have done a good job on the majority of them.

Mr. Bonneville added we can do some things with enhancements on the landscaping but I think this box on the hill is not a box on the hill. It is a fine building that you will be very proud of and proud of having Target as a corporate citizen in your community. Our track record as a company is very good and changing this a great deal is not good. What we have here is very very thought out. We could dream up a lot of things we could do with this development, but most of them would not be as good as what we have. This will be a much better store than the Orlando store.

Mr. Okum wondered if he felt that the truck dock visible to Century Boulevard is an asset to the view from Century Boulevard? Mr. Bonneville answered no, that is why we have increased the landscaping around the dock area to try to do our best to screen that. On another aspect you are right; we had to fight real hard to squeeze this building onto this site because of the slopes on the sides. Because we are on the hill we are at a distinct disadvantage in that our trucks would be visible if we didnít screen them with conifers and things like that, so that is what we are hoping to do.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Sixteen


Mr. Bonneville added we also have to take a computer program and find out if the trucks would be able to negotiate getting in and out once they are repositioned. We have increased the landscaping there, and there might be some ways particularly on the southeast corner of the drive where we show a spot for landscaping, but we donít show a tree. We might be able to do a little bit more right there. You are right, it is not an asset, but on the other hand, on all the other sides, we have prevented having our trucks be visible. And everybody else on the other side of Commons has trucks in back that are visible from Commons because it is mostly an industrial area on that side and most of what is north of us will remain industrial in nature so I donít feel it is too much of a problem for the trucks to be back there.

Mr. Okum asked how the rooftop mechanicals would be screened and Mr. Bonneville answered we are up so high that is no problem. Mr. Okum asked about light packs on the building and how they would be controlled. Mr. Bonneville answered we have light packs on all our doorways around the entire perimeter of the buildings. Those light packs can be adjusted so the light will go down at an angle. Mr. Okum said when a person is driving and looks straight ahead at a light it is very distracting. If you put light packs on the back of that building, those light packs will impact the driving public. Mr. Bonneville answered we will be pleased to provide ways that the light will only go out so far and not bother the drivers.

Mr. McErlane stated if youíll look at the comments I distributed, I did find a construction schedule that was submitted May 30th. In essence it shows a start date of September of 1997 and completion by August of 1998. The one thing it needs to point out is some kind of reference to Phase II, perhaps a projected date of start. I know weíre not going to know that, or if Planning Commission would want to suggest a projected start date for Phase II or just leave it up to market conditions.

Mr. McErlane added not all the easements are shown on the drawings. We talked a little about the offsite parking that occurs on the North American property site and Planning Commissionís approval needs to be contingent on that because we donít want to be in a position of approving a plan that shows construction on someone elseís property without their approval. Mr. Syfert confirmed that this was the southwest corner.

Mr. McErlane continued there will need to be some offsite storm water easements, specifically where the storm water discharges along Century Boulevard on the SKA property. Some of that will need to be worked out at the same time that construction of the roadway occurs on the SKA property.

Mr. McErlane stated our Thoroughfare Plan currently shows a public roadway connecting with Commons Drive and going across to Century Boulevard across this site. One of the concessions that the City has made is that it can be accommodated through an access easement instead of a public roadway, and that access easement needs to be shown on the plans.

On this site there are approximately 4470 caliper inches of trees being removed. Unfortunately the specimen trees that occur on the site occur in the vicinity of the residences and probably are not naturally occurring trees; they probably were planted by the residents years ago. There are some nice pines and spruces there.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Seventeen


Mr. McErlane continued the unfortunate thing in terms of trying to save those trees is they are in eight to 10 feet of fill according to the grading plan. There are as many as 65 trees that are 24 caliper inches or greater. In some of the past sites that we have had there have been groves of trees that have grown up naturally and they typically werenít good looking trees in the neighborhood of hackberries and locusts. There is a 48" maple, a 48" elm and a 24" spruce on this site and they all occur in areas where there is eight to 10 feet of fill.

Mr. McErlane reported the required replacement for this site totals up to about 1829 caliper inches. The planting shown on the landscaping plan for Phase I is 474 inches and for total Phase I and Phase II is 556 inches. The proposal for the landscaping plan is only 12.6% of the replacement requirement for hardwood trees and in total, if we give credit for the ornamentals, they are proposing to plant about 30% of the required replacement. I believe they can do a little better job of planting trees. The street tree plantings are currently at 60 feet and they can be reduced to include some additional trees there as Ms. McBride pointed out. Also, the landscape plan shows eight ornamentals and two hardwoods on the east property line along McClellans Lane, and we definitely think that could be improved considerably. I think the applicant needs to go back and take a look at some additional locations. I know it is difficult to do on a site where you have a lot of pavement, but if the applicant wants to stick around for the Showcase development, theyíll probably get some creative ideas on where they can plant trees.

Mr. McErlane continued relative to the 30% they are proposing versus the Anchor Development that occurred across the street which had a similar tree replacement requirement, Anchor replaced about 36% of the required tree replacement, and donated $50,000 to the Cityís Urban Forestry Fund, which equated to $44 per caliper inch that they were deficient. Planning needs to look at some means by which the developer can compensate for what they donít plant.

Mr. McErlane added there are a couple of trees not shown on the plan on North Americanís site that are basically in the northwest corner of what was a buffer strip for the North American site. One is a 12 to 16 inch evergreen tree and a 10 inch maple close to a paved gutter which is to remain. We think they can save those trees if they do a little modification of the grading or a partial tree well along the uphill side of it. Also along that entire side of Commons Drive there is a lot of new tree plantings. and we feel those need to be relocated somewhere on the site rather than destroyed.

As Mr. Bonneville mentioned, there is a covenant that talks about North American Properties proposing to dedicate this buffer strip as right of way, and Target would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping on that. I know something has been submitted to the City Administrator, and I think he is probably withholding any comments on it based on what happens with this application. Also, we feel the Covenants need to spell out maintenance requirements for all landscaping, especially with respect to the buffers along the McClellans Lane property. The covenants spell out statements that bind SKA, and SKA has not signatured the covenants, so it probably is applicable to talk about SKAís responsibilities under other covenants, but not to make it a binding requirement under their covenants unless SKA will be a signing party to the covenants.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Eighteen


Mr. McErlane stated a paragraph in the covenants makes a statement that Target can build regardless of when construction of Century Boulevard occurs on SKAís property. We understand that some of that is out of their control, and the City and SKA understands that Century Boulevard needs to be constructed across their property. One thing we feel needs to be in the covenants is that if the timing doesnít occur concurrently, if SKA builds after Target is complete or close to complete, Target canít physically build the roadway all the way to the property line. It currently is 12 to 14 feet above existing grade, and would have to be cut back to a reasonable point where the slopes can go out to nothing at the property line. We need a covenant that says when Century Boulevard is complete on SKAís property, they will come back and complete whatever section needs to be completed at the property line.

We also are recommending that if Planning Commission feels there needs to be some restrictions on the future retail uses with respect to things like fast food restaurants, drive through, automotive repair and sales (we have similar type restrictions on Tri-County Commons) that be included in the covenants. I think Ms. McBride already commented on restrictions on outside sales and storage and we feel those need to be in the covenants.

Mr. McErlane said we already have discussed with the developer the maintenance of the detention basins because it looks like they may end upon their own separate parcels. We have had some resistance to that in the past from the standpoint that they might be transferred separately and someone would end up owning a detention basin, possibly a charitable organization. We want to make sure it canít be transferred separately, or there is some perpetual maintenance requirements for it. The Covenants also state that Target is responsible for building Century Boulevard across their property. We want to make sure that it includes the improvements to Kemper Road to make this project complete.

Mr. Okum said we have a report from the law director as well. Does that need to be part of this? Mr. McErlane answered I spoke with Mr. Schneider this afternoon and basically he suggested that the attorney for Target take a look at Tri-County Commons covenants and pick up some of the things that may be applicable to them with respect to enforcement by the City of those covenants concerning amendments to the plan and any other maintenance aspects that might be in those Covenants as well as picking up any comments staff might have relative to the covenants.

Mr. Okum said I think it should be referenced in any motion that the comments from the law director be incorporated so they are not overlooked.

Mr. Galster commented in anticipation of a motion being made, I think it is important that the applicant understand that if this moves forward and you come back in with final plans for approval, not counting the law directorís report, we are dealing with probably 12 or 13 pages of problems. I would hope by the time final is submitted we would be dealing with something that is a little more manageable in terms of the areas that we need to get worked out. Hopefully that can be addressed ahead of time

Mr. Okum said with landscaping being a key issue with the site and some legal issues with the SKA development and cross easements and access to the roadway and the continuation of Century Boulevard, there are some items that need to be brought back to this Commission.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Nineteen


Mr. Okum continued if a motion were made tonight and approved it would go to Council. It still would come back to us for final plan approval and the issue of landscaping and screening could be addressed at that time. I do think it is very important that the applicant understand that those recommendations from staff and this Commission are going to be expected to be brought up to those standards before it is brought back to us again, or you may end up with an approval at Council and not an approval from this Commission.

Mr. Bonneville responded I think you re saying you have the final approval, and Mr. Okum said that is pretty much it. If Council approves the concept and the use and the PUD, it comes back to us for final. There are a lot of open issues here. From what I understand is your submission goes to Council the way it is without any modifications, is that correct? Mr. McErlane said I was going to recommend that the plan that goes to Council should modify that the southeast portion of the site should say "Future Commercial Development". I think the plan they adopt should not show those two buildings there.

Mr. Bonneville added as you know we are going to adjust the landscape plan to try to make it a better one, but I know we still will fall short or the formula for tree replacement. For the record I want to add that whatever that formula is, I think you used $44 per caliper inch in the earlier project, we could be as short as 1,000 inches. I will commit that we will give $44 per caliper inch that we fall short or some other creative solution that you cold come up with or even a contribution to some worthy cause, United Way or something like that. We are open to that and would like to discuss it. Mr. Syfert commented if you adjust your landscape plan it will adjust your figures, hopefully considerably. Weíll get into that aspect later.

Ms. Wendling said this connector road was originally envisioned so that all the properties could interconnect and people would not have to go back out on Kemper. My biggest concern is we lose that concept if we put in a barricade in here and force everyone to turn right. Especially if there is an overall development plan created, you donít have a way for people to travel through the whole property. When you review those numbers, I would ask that you see if there is any way to push it up some and still have a full interchange there.

Addressing Ms. Wendling, Mr. Okum asked if their driveway access could be moved closer to Samís. Ms. Wendling answered I think this is pretty much the top of that hill. Mr. Okum added I think there is 15 feet and then a wall, but Iím not sure. There is some grassy area between that drive and the top of the wall. Mr. Syfert added I think there was an indication we will study that a little closer. Ms. Wendling added I really feel there needs to be better cross traffic.

Mr. Okum moved to grant preliminary plan approval with the following conditions:

(1) All issues brought forth in the reports of Mr. McErlane, Mr. Shvegzda, traffic engineering water and storm water, Ms. McBrideís recommendations and the law directorís

recommendations be included in this motion with the following

additional items:

(a) Tree replacement standards be met, shortfall to be

within a reasonable and equitable adjustment of

$44 per caliper inch;


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Twenty


(b) The plan be brought up to 100 year storm;

(c) The landscaping be brought up to

meet acceptance of this Commission;

(d) There be no cart corrals or bulk cart storage in

front of the facility;

(e) Light packs on the buildings shall be directed downward

and will not be of light and sight distraction;

(f) Cross easements be worked out between the adjacent

property owners;

(g) Full dust control should be impacted on this site to

protect the residents during the construction;

(h) The screening and landscaping on the parcels that are

to be future development be adequate to screen those

residences from the development;

(I) Phase II the future development of the parcels east of

the development of Century Boulevard be excluded from

consideration in terms of buildings; they will be for future

commercial development only, and that should be noted on the plan;

(j) There be no north or west signs on the building;

(k) Ground signs be brought down to our standard 7 feet in

height, and the light pole standards be brought down to

28 feet.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

Mr. Huddleston asked that Mr. Okum reconsider that 28 foot limitation on the basis of his concern for the visual height of those lightpoles, trading that off for the visual proliferation of additional light poles. In a location with the easterly portion being reserved for future development without lighting at this time, I do not see it as a problem.

Mr. Seaman said the motion included a condition that there would be no sign on the north or west elevations. I agree with the north, but for the west, I think I would rather see a Target bullseye on the side there than a blank wall.

Ms. McBride added Mr. Okumís motion specified the $44 per caliper inch. In fairness to the applicant, we might want to say whatever the current fair market value is per caliper inch because that figure is about two and one-half years old. Mr. Okum said I said equitable. Ms. McBride said if there were to be additional light fixtures, they could be added in additional landscaped islands in the parking lot.

Mr. Okum said I would like to ask Ms. McBride to comment on light fixtures and signage. Your comment was that none of the other box developers in the community have north south east or west signs. Do you see a need for this developer to be treated different from the others? My concern is setting a precedent.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Twenty-One


Ms. McBride stated I think the staff voiced a similar concern. If Iím Mrs. Wendling in the audience, I might be in next month asking for additional signage for Wal-Mart and Samís. On the lighting, I would prefer to see the standards be reduced in height to something like 28 feet, and if it requires additional fixtures which obviously it will, they could be incorporated in additional landscaped islands within the parking field. They exceed our parking code, and we woiuld like to see additional green space and additional trees.

Mr. Syfert commented in fairness to the applicant, and in deference to some of the Commission opinions, you are talking about their asking for more signs on more sides than anyone else. They paid the price for the land, and they have the location. If it is not offensive, if it is within the Code, I have no problem with it. The way it is tied up in the motion however, it wonít happen.

Mr. Okum said you could have a motion to amend and separate that out and vote on it. Commons Drive is a service drive due to be eliminated. That is not a street per se and would not be a frontage. If it were a frontage I think we would consider the side of that building a whole lot more than we have.

Mr. McErlane said only part of Commons Drive would be eliminated, the section directly adjacent to Boston Markets. The rest of it still remains a public street. Mr. Okum responded so you are saying that side of the building could still be considered a frontage.

Mr. Galster said I move to amend the motion to allow the applicant to bring forth a signage package, a landscape package and any possible shortcomings on the tree replaclement policy, and a determination on the number size and location of the lighting fixtures until we have a little more time to review those. Those items would remain open based on the motion presented by Mr. Okum. Mr. Huddleston seconded the amendment to the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Young and Mr. Syfert. Mr. Okum voted no, and the amendment was approved six to one.

On the amended motion to grant preliminary plan approval and refer to Council, voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Young and Mr. Syfert. Mr. Okum voted no and the preliminary plan approval was granted with six affirmative and one negative votes.

Planning recessed at 9:34 p.m. and reconvened at 9:45 p.m.

B. Final Plan Approval of Calvary Pentecostal Church and School at

11970 Kenn Road (tabled 6/10/97)

Reverend Norman Paslay stated we are pleased to be before you and would hope to address and satisfy any questions you might have in order to secure our final plan approval. I would like to acknowledge our senior pastor and founder Reverend Paslay Sr. His sacrifice and service brought our church into existence and his vision has taken us to this level. Our porject coordinator is Dr. Frank Mink.

Dr. Mink said I would like to thank the Building Department the Engineer and Planining Consultant; they have been very helpful. Starting with the Building Department comments, the photometrics are not legible and we will submit a legible one by the end of lthe week.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Twenty-Two


Dr. Mink added the sign details have not been submitted, and we asked if that could be withheld and considered at a later date. That is a fairly complex issue especially when we in our own minds are not sure given the location of the building on the expressway what kind of signs we want and what the City would want. We would like to spend some time on that outside this process.

The south building setback will require a variance, and we understand that the Board of Zoning Appeals meets next week. The reason we are requesting this is because of the way the sewers are on the property we had to compress where the building sets, and that is why we are so close to the Department of Transportationís property. The Department or Transportation has no easement on our property. We found out there is not a problem there, but they have told us that if we want to encroach on their property in any way, there will be no compromise and it will not be allowed. They made that very clear, and we are staying on our side of the fence.

Dr. Mink continued the total number of caliper inches required is 143 or half of 285, but we have 210% above that at 308 caliper inches. We want to enhance the natural beauty of this site. We believe it is a wonderful site and perfect for the use it was intended for. We also want to add some diversity; we have 144 inches in evergreens and ornamentals.

The outstanding issues from the planner are access being provided at Kenn Road with the existing drive, via an emergency only access point to Cantrell Drive. We would ask that our primary entrance be Kenn Road but that it not be exclusively, so when we have special functions where we have a small group that needs to get out ahead of traffic that we could use Cantrell Drive be used as a secondary access. We would like to have it for limited use.

We already have agreed that the storage building will be a recreational building, a gym within six months of completion and it will be bricked to match the sanctuary, and we have submitted those plans.

The most comments are from the engineer, and the reason is because we did not have a storm sewer design in our preliminary phase. We now have that and there are about nine items of which I talked to Don briefly. Our engineer has said that he will be speaking to CDS and will submit the required calculations for the culvert pipe under the egress onto Kenn. He agrees with all the comments. The type of final vegetative cover on the detention basin needs to be determined, and whatever the engineering department recommends that will prevent erosion we are amenable to. The biggest issue is the timber wall that gives us the excess capacity for the 100 year storm flow on our detention pond. After talking to Woolpert they agree with the engineerís comments and we may need to rethink using a concrete wall system or vertical post. Whatever is agreed upon by the engineering department I think we are amenable to. I would ask if the department has any other comments that we have not addressed.

Mr. Shvegzda reported the 60 inch storm sewer located in that area needs to be depicted on the site plans. It runs parallel to Kenn Road and discharges in the same water course that the discharge from the detention basin is going to outflow into.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Twenty-Three


Mr. Shvegzda continued there needs to be some additional analysis regarding the culvert under the proposed drive to Kenn Road; there are some discrepancies in some of the analysis. In looking at Cantrell Drive, apparently the pavement ends about four feet before the curve and gutter and sidewalk areas so it appears that there is a gap between the pavement area and the end of the right of way. Some work within the public right of way will have to be done to extend that, and it probably will have to done in accordance with Subdivision Regulations concerning pavement composition.

Mr. Shvegzda said the detention basin as proposed slopes at 2 to 1 and the issue was the type of ground cover that would be provided for low maintenance because 2 to 1 is difficult to mow on especially in the interior of a detention basin.

In regards to the type of retaining wall that will be used on the area between the destination basin and the ODOT right of way, the issue is periodically a railroad tie or timber would go perpendicular into the slope and perpendicular to the wall and the question was would there be enough room so it would not protrude out into the detention basin itself. There are issues that need to be looked at in that particular type of system but as mentioned they might go to another type of retaining wall.

The last item is there is one area where there a proposed contour that looks like it is going beyond the ODOT right of way. The question is if that grading will take place there or is it an error in the proposed grading? Dr. Mink answered it is 812 vs. 810 and we would shave it, slope it down so it would be even with grade before the fence instead of having a two foot drop. As we said, ODOT has made it clear that we will not grade or come across that fence for any reason. Mr. Shvegzda responded that is fine so long as the overall drainage on the lot still works. Dr. Mink added we would hope, and I think it is the staffís agreement that these are details and we donít have difference in issues. We donít have any disagreement with any comment made; we have tried to keep abreast with what has been asked of us and we are hoping for final approval with the recommendations from the staff.

Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Syfert asked if he felt comfortable that all his concerns can be handled. Mr. Shvegzda responded in discussions these all seem to be items that can be worked out within the confines of what they have submitted so far.

Ms. McBride said the only issue I wanted to raise was whether or not Cantrell Drive would be used exclusively for emergency vehicles or whether it would be used as a part-time access. I think it should remain for the exclusive use of emergency vehicles only rather than take additional traffic through a single family subdivision. We would have the problem of how to regulate it for Sunday mornings. I know it would be your intention to do that but it would be very difficult for the City to regulate that, and I think it is important that it remain only for exclusive use for emergency vehicles.

Mr. McErlane stated the applicant already pointed out that the lighting photometric plan is not legible. An easy way to accomplish it would be to highlight the half foot candle level. That is the level we are looking for and that would clarify and simplify it.

Mr. McErlane added if Planning approves the project, I would recommend they do that contingent on a variance being acquired from the Board of Zoning Appeals and that they recommend they put on the agenda for next weekís meeting.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Twenty-Four


Mr. McErlane stated in reality there are 285 caliper inches of trees being removed, and only 173 inches of those 285 are required to have replacement for them. The other 112 caliper inches are exempt from replacement. The actual replacement quantity per our Code is 86 1/2 caliper inches and they are providing 308 caliper inches. The tree planting plan doesnít distinguish which trees are being planted where on the landscaping plan, but they do indicate a total number of trees and type of trees from the standpoint of hardwood versus pines and evergreen types.

Dr. Mink stated we learned Thursday that because we have an educational facility within our church building, the Commission will be granting final site approval and the Building Department will be looking at our recreational building only. The main building which houses the educational facility will be submitted to the state, and they will have oversight over the actual building plans of that facility.

Mr. McErlane added the Springdale Building Department is certified for all use groups with the exception of educational use groups, and that has been that way since I have been here. I couldnít explain why we had ourselves certified that way originally, but that is the way we are certified. Any educational use that comes through, from the standpoint of building plans and building construction, has to be reviewed approved and inspected by the State Department of Commerce Division of Construction Compliance. We will still inspect all the site work, the zoning issues and the recreational building because it is a separate building, but the state will be issuing permits and inspecting the construction of the church and educational facility.

Mr. Galster said I agree that Cantrell Drive should be emergency vehicles only. It is tough to police. Mr. Wilson commented for clarification on the Cantrell Drive exit, you requested limited use for small groups to get ahead of traffic. How often would this be and how many vehicles? Dr. Mink answered you probably would have six; about every two months we have a special event, usually on a Saturday. All that we ask is that the staff or those working that event would have the ability to get out. It would be very limited and the only difference between exclusive use and primary use. If it canít be policed and has to be exclusive use, I understand that, but we wanted to ask.

Mr. Wilson responded I have to agree with Mr. Galster and the staff comments. I canít see that as any use other than emergency. I have to take into consideration the three houses closest to that; thatís added traffic. I would like to leave it as emergency use only, so the City can control it more.

Mr. Okum said on your HVAC system being exposed on the interstate side, have you done some screening to keep it out of sight? Dr. Mink responded they will be shielded with fencing and shrubbery. Mr. Okum asked about light pack on the building. Dr. Mink answered we will be doing directional lighting onto the building at the suggestion of the Commission.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Okum said on the tree line next to the homes on Cantrell, is it dense enough so those homes will not be distracted by lights and lighting? Ms. McBride answered it was difficult to read their illumination plan, but in previous submittals the information indicated that lit will not be a problem. We will want to double check that once we get a legible lighting plan. Dr. Mink added it is 85 feet from the furthest light edge to the nearest residence. Mr. Okum asked the height of the poles and Dr. Mink answered 20 feet.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Twenty-Five


Mr. Galster moved to grant the final plan approval based on the comments of staff and the submittal of a legible lighting plan and obtaining a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the south building setback, access to Cantrell Drive should be exclusive use for emergency vehicles and sign package to be submitted at a later date and approval of the state regulatory commission to approve and inspect the sanctuary/educational building. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Young, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Syfert. Final plan approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.


A. Final Plan Approval of Proposed new Showcase Cinema at 12064 Springfield Pike

John Meyer of John Meyer Consulting said we have with us Robert Horton, District Manager of National Amusements, Peter Cronis of Reece Campbell and Won Lee the architect. We have done a lot of work since June, and got our plans in a little ahead of time so staff and the consultants could have more than the usual amount of time to review the plans. I would like to thank the Commission, Don, Anne Bill and those who have been reviewing our plans for their cooperation.

Mr. Meyer said we submitted revised landscape plans, we finalized our tree survey and altered the design of the detention basin in the northeast corner. The excavation of the basin has been limited to the easterly sign; the westerly side of the detached basin will be left in its natural condition because of the tremendous number of existing trees. In fact we have reduced the size of the parking area some so that we can save trees. We have tried to respect the wishes of the Commission the City and the overlay district. We have provided lighting and our light standards are 15 to 25 feet in height plus a concrete pedestal. They are much more expensive to operate and we think we have complied except perhaps for one or two areas where we may need an additional light.

Mr. Meyer reported we proposed to build the northern 10 screens and the lobby and then close down the existing nine screens at some point after the 10 are open which would allow for the second 10 screens to be constructed on the south side of the new building.

Mr. Meyer added the question was raised by Anne and Don about the amount of parking that would be available. We anticipate when the nine screens are open we would have a minimum of 1200 spaces available. There are more than that now and if and when more than nine screens are open we would have at least 1700 spaces available. We do not anticipate that more than 10 screens would be open for any substantial amount of time until the second 10 are built. There would necessarily be a period of transition where some of the nine or all of the nine would be open and the 10 would be open and then the nine would be closed down, so there might be a short period when more than 10 would be open initially during this first transition phase.

As far as the access to the existing theater, during construction we show construction entrances at these three points. There are two driveways at the southwest end of the site, and an additional driveway on West Crescentville Road which will adequately serve the nine theaters and also the 10 theaters. Eventually when the 20 screens are completed, all of the entrances proposed on the plan will be converted to permanent entrances.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Twenty-Six


Mr. Meyer said we would respectfully request that signage would not be a part of tonightís approval. There are three existing signs on the site; we have not completed an analysis of what final signs we would propose.

Mr. Meyer added we will need a variance for the building materials. Mr. Lee will describe the elevation views which he has presented; you have samples of the materials. We have no problem with Ms. McBrideís recommendations at all.

We received from Mr. Cummings a letter which he wrote to Wayne Shuler concerning the sediment and erosion control. There are eight items and we have no problem with that letter nor with the detail of the silt fence and we would accept those.

With respect to Donís review, there are items which he indicates further information is needed on. With respect to I-B we will provide a path of major storm routings for the pipes which lead into the proposed detention basin on the site. We will provide the inlet capacity calculations of the catch basin which Don has requested, and submit additional analysis of the storm sewer between the existing detention basin and the proposed detention basin. There is an existing detention basin on the Northwest Business Center site that handles this warehouse, and we will provide analysis for those structures.

With regards to site access, we will provide a nine inch concrete drive apron across the driveway, and we will provide the detailed grading of the West Crescentville Road and signal modification plan for revamping of the traffic signal that exists at this location. Because we are widening the exit road here there will have to be some revamping of the signal and some the loop detectors.

We anticipate that during the construction process there will be a shifting of traffic patterns which is normal occurrences with a construction like this. We have three driveway locations which will remain in operation for the existing theater and parking lot.

Mr. Meyer said part of the existing parking lot will be fenced off and there are three construction entrance locations which will be providing access for construction traffic. Luckily when most of the business occurs at the theater, Friday through Sunday nights, there is little construction activity going on. During the day when the theater traffic is light is when the construction will occur.

We anticipate that about 60% of the parking facility capacity will be available during the construction period so for the approximately 4,000 cars we have approximately 1200 parking spaces as a minimum. If additional screens are open during the period when the nine screens are closed and the 10 are open, we would have a minimum of 1800 spa spaces available because by that time additional site work will have occurred to allow for additional parking areas to be created.

Won Lee stated the split face block brick, 8 x 8, four inches from here to the top is EIFS, a synthetic drivitt of the same color, but 67% lighter than what is shown there. Mr. Meyer added the first five feet from the ground up will be a Belden split faces brick similar to what has been used in your building here. Above that is synthetic material similar to drivitt, a masonry finish which will be from a point five feet above the ground up to the roof. That is on all four elevations.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Twenty-Seven


Mr. Meyer continued we would like an additional sign on two facades of the building, the two entrance lobbies where the words Showcase Cinemas would be proposed. Again, we are not asking for approval of that tonight, but they would be on the east and west elevations. Those would be raised letters off the face of the building, and we will submit the details of the signs later.

Mr. Meyer reported the heating and ventilating units on the roof will be screened. Mr. Okum commented they will need to be screened from all exposures, wherever a line of sight is. If they are in line of sight, they should be screened. Mr. Syfert commented I think that is for your benefit too. I think we are pretty unanimous on that.

Mr. Okum said on the change of color in the drawing, do you change the color on the EIFS? Mr. Meyer answered the color of the vertical portion with Showcase Cinemas and the two vertical sides are the same as the lower brick; it is a darker color than the upper part. One other point that Mr. Lee made was that the color differentiation on the renderings which you were given are too drastic; they will not be that much different as they seem on the drawings. Mr. Okum said we have the brick; the EIFS is a little lighter, but very close. Mr. Meyer stated what we gave you there is about 90% lighter.

Mr. Galster said why not make the construction entrances the new entrances and let the people who are used to going there continue to go into the entrances they are used to? You are taking the construction entrance that exits out onto Crescentville Road as the main exit;. that is where everybody is used to going. Mr. Meyer stated we are going to make the exit road an entrance and exit, and the entrance road will be entrance and exit for the construction vehicles. Mr. Galster continued then the part off Route 4, everybody is used to coming in there. Can we move the construction entrance down so we donít disturb their standard flow? Mr. Meyer answered we would prefer to have the trucks come directly in and while it is a little bit more inconvenient, have the patrons go in the other two existing entrances. After construction hours, there will be barricades across all the construction entrances so it will be clear.

Mr. Meyer continued there was a question from the police chief about security, asking if there would be an improvement in the lighting, and the answer is yes there will be a drastic improvement. There will be all new lights of the most modern design. Secondly, there was a question about surveillance cameras outside the building. We will be installing security cameras both outside and inside the building as part of National Amusementís security program. That is being done at many new facilities. Mr. Syfert wondered if any of your cameras be out in the parking lot. Mr. Meyer answered I believe they would be on the building or on the light poles closest to the building, but chances are they will be on the building because the light poles are not that high. If they were higher, they would be on the light poles. Mr. Syfert commented I am used to the surveillance cameras downtown Cincinnati that are not up all that high but they are directional and probably wouldnít apply here.

Ms. McBride said I was very impressed with the submittal. They paid close attention to not only the comments of the Commission but all of the staff and addressed literally all my comments. Their landscaping plan exceeds what we typically see, not only in term of the fact that they met the tree replacement but the size of the material and the variety. You take a site that large with that much landscaping on it, with the variety they put on there will offer a nice mix. They have redesigned the intersection off Springfield Pike and we think that will work really well.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Twenty-Eight


Ms. McBride added they have dressed up the intersection on Crescentville Road and screened that detention area. I was very pleased and am very impressed with their submittal, and I wish other applicants would take note from that.

Mr. McErlane stated I think they addressed the one question I raised about only the west building elevation being submitted and our only concern there was equal finishes on all four sides. Planning Commissionís approval needs to be conditional on the necessary variances that are required, one for the 40% brick and stone on two facades and the other for the pitched residential roof that is required under the Route 4 Corridor District, and they should be referred to next weekís Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.

Mr. McErlane added a minor issue is the access aisle for the van accessible handicapped spaces on the west side of the building needs to be adjusted somewhat. I am impressed with their landscaping plan and they did a very good job in meeting the tree replacement ordinance and actually exceeding it with respect to ornamentals.

Mr. McErlane stated I did take a look at the grading plan and the existing trees that are being taken out and there really is only one place that I could look at the potential of saving some within the parking fields, and that is in the easternmost section where the proposed grades are close to matching existing. I walked through the area and there are a lot of trees that because they are so tight in those locations are not really good trees. There are a few worth looking at but I donít know at this point I can say that they are worth saving until you get in there and clear some things around them and see what they look like. I was surprised that there was one 16 inch pine that actually has enough room around it to be shaped decently and it does end up in an area where you could put an island around it but we need to look at it from the standpoint of how much water will get to it. Mr. Meyer said there is a possibility of a blow down if you take other trees around a tree like that and leave it out in the open. Mr. Cronis is here; perhaps there could be a preconstruction meeting to discuss this. Mr. McErlane added my recommendation is that I get with the consultants and contractor and take a look at those things to see if they are worth trying to save.

Mr. McErlane said we talked about the police chiefís concerns about surveillance cameras and lighting. With respect to the cameras his concern is thefts and break ins of automobiles and if the cameras are there to serve the security of the building, they are not really accomplishing what his concerns were about.

Mr. Meyer responded I know from time to time there has been a need to coordinate and collaborate with the police chief, and National Amusements has been very cooperative over the years. I know that cooperation will continue and we will be meeting with the police chief to talk about those things.

Mr. McErlane added to legitimize the police chiefís concerns, he brought this forward before I ever mentioned the fact that someone on Planning Commission had suggested surveillance cameras because of the number of runs they make. If you look through the list, there are some runs there that arenít necessarily security concerns; there are quite a few like locking keys in the cars.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 July 1997

Page Twenty-Nine


Mr. Shvegzda thanked Mr. Meyer and his employees for the early submittal; it was complete and gave us a good chance to look at it. The only concern I had was the construction entrance off Route 4. If in fact the main flow of the traffic will be diverted to the other driveways, we need to make sure we have enough signage and review possible modifications to the internal traffic flow during those times to make sure there is no stacking of traffic back out onto Route 4.

Mr. Meyer responded we have a mutuality of interests in the traffic flow and security. If adjustments need to made to the traffic flow during construction, National Amusements will be the first to do that because they believe it is important to have a good traffic flow for their customers. I know we will be working with your staff throughout this process.

Mr. Huddleston asked about the timing between Phase I and Phase II. Mr. Meyer answered originally it was intended that Phase I building would be completed before Christmas, but with scheduling it has been decided that it would be open on or about February of 1998. The second 10 screens would be later in the year, approximately October. Mr. Huddleston asked why the delay between Phase 1 and Phase 2, and Mr. Meyer responded we are not delaying. We will start with the 10 screens and the lobby, and that will be completed by approximately February 1998. At that point the nine existing screens will be closed, give or take two or three weeks, because the equipment has to be taken from the existing theaters and placed. After the nine screens are closed down, the construction of the final 10 screens will commence immediately, in March or April and they will open in October or November of 1998. Mr. Syfert wondered how long it would take to demolish the others before you can get to it, and Mr. Cronis stated we are crushing it and using it as base and that would take 45 to 60 days, and that is part of the process of ending one and starting the other.

Mr. Okum moved to grant the final plan approval with the following conditions presented this evening including: (1) working with the Police Department on safety, security and surveillance; (2) working with the Building Department on the trees; (3) signage to be handled separately; (4) variance be granted from Board of Zoning Appeals for 40% brick & stone and pitched roof; (5) future building on the one corner is not part of this submission; and (6) all HVAC units shall be concealed on all four sides. Mr. Young seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Young, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Galster, Mr. Seaman and Mr. Syfert. Final plan approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

Mr. Syfert stated this will be forwarded to the Board of Zoning Appeals which meets next Tuesday night at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Meyer said itís been a pleasure working with the board and the staff. Mr. Syfert added what you did with that detention basin is an outstanding job of coordination and cooperation.

B. Approval of Proposed Addition for The Northland Group, 161 Northland Boulevard (formerly Ground Round)

Dick Gorman of Roger Short Associates, Architects said I am here on behalf of The Northland Group, Wayne Shuler and Ali Saleh Partners. Ali is here with me this evening. Our project has been to convert the former Ground Round Restaurant into an office building. Renovations are already underway. Aliís company, TEC Engineering is occupying about half of the building.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Page Thirty


Mr. Gorman continued the intent is to put two small additions, one on the west side and one on the east side of the existing building, and to reshape the exterior of the structure, give it a new look. We are looking at having professional tenants, such as engineering groups occupy the building.

In addition to the two additions, we have proposed an archway and a small storage building. We have gotten comments back from the City that a storage building is not allowable in this zone. The storage building came about as a result of two things. There is an existing retaining wall that is nine foot high at the rear part of the site that needs some repair. We were using that building to help buttress that structure and get some use out of the structure. While we called it a storage building, the intent was for it not only to be for small storage for the office tenants, to store company vehicles overnight, plus a place for lawn mowing equipment. That is the reason for the storage building which is more of a garage. I donít know if your code allows a garage rather than a storage building; maybe that is a possibility to look at. It is an item that is desirable that we have, but is not something that would hold up developing the office portion of the project.

Mr. Gorman continued we plan to put additional landscaping around the property to freshen up the asphalt paving and some of the sidewalks that are in disrepair and basically bring the building up to looking like a new property.

There is an existing storm detention basin that has been calculated that is adequate sized for the property. We propose to reshape that slightly, for maintenance reasons. It has steep banks in it which are hard to mow and keep weeds out of. There would be some attention given to that to make it easier to maintain.

Mr. Gorman stated we received some comments back from the staff, and I think maybe the two principal issues are the storage building and parking requirements. According to the staffís calculations, we are short on some parking spaces. The parking is within the existing parking lot. The only change to grade and parking configuration is one small area on the east side of the building. Around this corner of the building there is a steep grassy hill. We propose to put a retaining wall there; we will not change any grade, just carve into the hillside slightly. The height of that would be approximately four feet at its tallest point. The way we look at parking is to provide adequate parking for the type of tenant that will occupy the building, and secondly to try to retain as much green and landscaped area as we can. The number of parking spaces shown on this plan is 58 spaces, and we have had comments that we need as many as 80 based on the gross square footage. My understanding is in looking at a project like this, usually the gross square footage is reduced somewhat because there are common areas such as restrooms and hallways and lobbies that are not used as occupiable tenant space. In the part that Ali has occupied, he has a copy room, a lunch room and a conference room which are common space and donít have individual employees occupying them at all times of the day. In calculating the parking area based on Aliís use, which we think is somewhat indicative of what we will have there, he has 10 employees and 10 vehicles there every day and he has occupied about 20% of the total floor area of the building. If you multiply that times five it gives you 50 spaces. If you throw in a few for visitors, we think 58 is adequate for the use we plan for this building. We certainly could show more parking spaces now if need be. We have green areas that we could turn into parking spaces, and would propose that we be allowed to do some reduced parking, based on if the need arises, we could increase the parking area at that time.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Page Thirty-One


Mr. Gorman stated the other comments we have had we can address easily with the staff and solve them. We just received these comments today so we have not had a chance to meet with the staff and solve what I call minor problems with our submittal. In all cases they are fairly simple things to accomplish and we can come to some accommodation with the staff.

Mr. Syfert asked what green space that you have now could you convert to parking? Mr. Gorman responded there is a space here that we could get about six cars in. We have a dumpster location shown right now that wasnít screened. We could put a screen around that. If we move that to this end, we have some space up there that we could stripe and put parking in; there is room for about five spaces right there. There is room for about five spaces here and we could take this little island out and get another space there. There is room for a space in this corner, so we could add some parking spaces relatively easily without taking up a lot of additional green space. Most of the green space we would lose is back here which we sort of wanted not because anybody from outside the site could see in so much because there are retaining walls and hills that prevent a view back there, but we have office windows and we would like for people to look out on some green space.

Mr. McErlane stated as you may have noted there is no grading shown on the plan and we specifically need to have some detail with respect to the new drive behind the proposed addition, the storm sewers in that area as well as grading for the proposed modular retaining wall in the back.

The plan shows a 12 inch storm sewer pipe proposed that would run underneath the rear addition and unless there is some specific need for it to go under the building, we typically donít allow a 12 inch storm pipe to go under a building. There only have been a few instances where that was the case, and that was only because you couldnít route the storm water any other direction. We also typically donít allow a 12 inch storm pipe to be connected with a y fitting; Iím not sure they even make a 12 inch y fitting for storm pipe. That would be made in a catch basin or manhole. It would make more sense to route it in a different direction instead of trying to run it underneath the existing building. Mr. Gorman commented when we get into the grading plan we may not even need that catch basin. It may just flow right out.

Mr. McErlane added there were some storm water detention basin calculations submitted. At the time this was built our requirements were fairly new and it looks as though the detention basin was overdesigned. The reason I am saying that is our standard requirements have changed. At the time, detention was required to be detained up to a 50 year storm. Currently it is a 100 year storm. The calculations show that they have enough capacity to accommodate our current 100 year storm. The only deviations that right now we require stage discharge on the outlet structure which only gives you some protection for lower intensity storms. It gives you a slowdown in discharge for the lower intensity storms. It probably doesnít merit modification to the discharge structure to accommodate that.

We only have elevations that show the north and west elevations and nothing to show the rear elevations, nor do we have any elevations to show the proposed storage building in the rear. To this point we had nothing relative to material colors. As far as building materials, did you indicate that is an EIFS system? Mr. Gorman confirmed this, adding that it includes the band across the top. The entry areas are glass with a forest green metal roof. Mr. McErlane asked if the building elevation were white and the band on top is gray? Mr. Gorman added it is two tones of gray, the darker gray on top and lighter gray along the bottom.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Page Thirty-Two


Mr. McErlane stated water and sewer availability is required. I realize you currently have water and sewer service, but both of those agencies still require availability letters.

Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mr. Huddleston asked if he agreed on the analysis for parking requirements. Mr. McErlane responded if Planning Commission thinks that parking spaces are adequate for this use, they still would need to get a variance for it, because even if they could provide additional parking spaces, I doubt they will get up to 82 spaces. You can put a few here and there, but they are short 24 spaces. Mr. Saleh asked what percentage of parking spaces are needed? I looked at your requirements and the use that we have, and we came up with 70 spaces required. Mr. McErlane responded the 82 is based on what you showed for a net area on your plan. Mr. Saleh stated what we have is 9,300 square feet. Mr. McErlane said your plan shows 11,330 square feet. Mr. Saleh responded you take out the common areas that would leave us with 9,300 square feet. Mr. McErlane stated we donít have that information, so itís a little tough for us to say we agree with that.

Ms. McBride reported that the proposed development even with the addition is below the 25% site coverage that they are permitted. We talked about the three bay storage building, and this came up on the church we heard again this evening. Storage is specifically not permitted in the OB District so that will have to be removed.

Regarding the parking, we calculated it using our formula which is 74 for the first 10,000 square feet and six for every thousand thereafter. They provided us with a total building area of 12,390 square feet. They took out 1,060 square feet for lobby and restroom area which left us with a balance of 11,330 square feet of as they call it office area, so our calculations were based on the 11,330 square feet that they provided us and it comes up to 82 parking spaces. They had used a formula of five per thousand.

Ms. McBride continued understanding the applicantís business, their parking demands would easily be met. The one concern I would have is if they would put medical tenants in that building and we start talking about patients and waiting rooms, there could potentially be a problem but obviously that would have to go to the BZA for approval.

We would need to see the details for the screening for the waste receptacle. Al the setback requirements are met.

With regards to landscaping, the property now is landscaped pretty consistently with surrounding properties. We have one concern about the health of a tree on Boggs Lane. It is the second or third tree down from Northland. Also we would like to see an additional tree added to the west access point; it looks kind of unbalanced without that. The additional landscaping requirement that we would like to make is screening between the detention basin and Northland Boulevard. That is the front of the property and what most people will see on Northland Boulevard. We also would like to see some material extending around the corner of Boggs Lane. There are some opportunities for the applicant to do something nice with that area.

Ms. McBride stated we did not receive building elevations with the materials and colors. We received what the Commission did in their packets. Only the frame remains of the previous sign; there is no sign panel on that and there was no designation that they are going to have any signage, so I am assuming that the Commission is not approving any signage.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Page Thirty-Three


Ms. McBride stated in terms of engineering comments, we were concerned about the lack of information on the plan, no contours or spot elevations which made it difficult to judge grading and contours in term of drainage. Our comments echo some of Billís particularly in regards to the 12 inch storm sewer going under the building and how it is tying in with the y. The existing detention basin is to be regarded and we would like to know the resulting side slopes.

Mr. Young said based on the comments from staff, I am going to suggest that the applicant think about tabling this issue. There are a lot of items that need to be straightened out and personally from what I see I cannot vote for it this evening.

Mr. Gorman stated we are renovating now and the sign has been applied for as an existing building using the existing sign location. I would ask Mr. Young to reconsider approving this tonight. I do not think we have great differences here. The storage building can be eliminated in this process if you wish, and if we would need to bring that up at another time, we are willing to do that. On the parking issue, if we eliminate the storage building, we would have a whole strip of parking area available, and we might be able to meet the requirements. We would want to confer with the staff, because we have different calculations.

Mr. Young commented I donít know what procedure you went through on the sign, but personally what I saw on the sign I do not like. I think that existing sign looks like temporary sign you put up on a construction site. If you are looking for final approval, all your ducks should be in a row. I can vote on this tonight, but it will just be no.

Mr. Galster said I believe we do need to figure out the square footage to make sure we have the parking we need, remove the storage building and see how the parking will lay out. I think a monument sign on Northland Boulevard nicely done would be a tremendous addition and a great improvement to the site. I think there are some issues that are major changes; we are not even sure how many square feet you have in there; we have a 2,000 square footage difference. I think you should step back and take the time to get it right; come back in and resubmit it. Especially with people who do business with us on a regular basis, I would like to see them come in with a more professional presentation. We are asking that pole signs come down on Northland Boulevard.

Mr. Okum added I can ditto these comments. If this were a preliminary discussion that would be one thing, but we are being asked to make decisions on dumpster enclosure, parking numbers that do not comply, slope easement issues and retaining walls. We need to resolve those issues before we consider the final approval. The best option would be for the applicant to ask that it be tabled.

Mr. Gorman commented l am hearing that there is a consensus, so on behalf of my owners they are not asking that this Commission do anything special for them that you would not do for anyone else, so we will ask that this be tabled. Mr. Galster moved to table and the item was tabled to August 12, 1997.


Mr. Young commented it is pretty tough to make comments when you get information at the last minute, and I am not sure why we are getting it at the last minute. Anne and I had a brief discussion about this. It is very hard to come in and try and read 10 to 15 pages of information and you have people like Target who want answers. I would like to see us get these packets a week ahead of time with all the information in them.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page Thirty-Four


Mr. Syfert commented the applicants must have their materials in by the end of the month and we then have the staff review. Mr. Young responded we could change when they have to get it in. Mr. McErlane reported those are Planning Commission rules. This month we had two days to review the plans to get them into your packets. Mr. Okum said on PUDís it was 30 days prior to the meeting that all materials need to be submitted for final approval.

Ms. McBride said I would suggest as part of the Zoning Code Review Committee, there is a need for us to create a series of check lists and schedule deadlines. We could look at submitting the beginning of the prior month, and in some places you submit three months ahead of time. If we push our submittal dates back to say the first week of the prior month, we could review and give you a week to look at the submittals. That is something that would not be out of order at all. Mr. Galster said perhaps they could submit their materials by the 15th day of the previous month.

Ms. McBride stated we can look at different arrangements. If an item is tabled, maybe they would have until the 15th of the month to resubmit. We can play with that, but the primary thing is if we had requested it at the beginning of June, either it would not have been before you this evening or it would have been before you in a little different form, because they would have had our comments before this evening. Mr.Young commented that is the point. Either they come in prepared or they donít and if they are not prepared, they do not come in. Ms. McBride said if we had a checklist, they would not be on the agenda.

Mr.Saleh commented I approve, because the last thing I wanted to do this evening was sit here four and one-half hours to be tabled. I had someone do the work for me, and I assumed he worked with the staff. I understand your comments, but at the same time we just got the comments back today.

Mr. Syfert said this issue should be addressed very definitely; letís get it straightened out.

Ms. McBride added it will not be a part of the Zoning Code update, but I think that committee would be the best place to suggest to this Planning Commission, and then you act on it.


A. Q Lube 605 Kemper Commons Drive 5 canopy signs & 1 wall sign


Mr. Galster moved for adjournment and Mr. Young seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye and the Planning Commission adjourned at 11:40 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,


____________________,1997 _________________________ William G. Syfert Chairman

____________________,1997 _________________________ Robert Seaman, Secretary