Kimball Corporate Campus causes some concern with neighbors

Work on Kimball’s new corporate campus along Royal Street prompted two adjacent homeowners to voice some concerns at Wednesday night’s Jasper Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.

The public hearing was held to consider two variances for a sign at National Office’s new corporate headquarters on the Kimball International Corporate Campus at 1600 Royal Street. The newly formed campus is home to the National Office, Kimball International and Kimball Office corporate teams.

The new monument sign being placed at National’s building on the campus required two variances: one for the size of the monument sign and a second for the addition of a second sign on a single business’s property.

Arnie Temple explained the new sign at about 152 square feet would exceed the allowed 50 square feet by about 102 square feet. The monument would be a three dimensional monument standing 6.5 feet tall featuring the word “National” in brushed aluminum positioned on a stone base. The monument would be set back under a canopy next to the east side of the new National Office location.

Larry Horsting and Bernie Fromme, who live on Margaret Drive adjacent to the Kimball property, both voiced concerns about the work being completed to the Kimball Corporate Campus.

Larry Horsting spoke out about his concerns for the potential increase in traffic to the corporate campus and how it would impact the residents along Margaret Drive. “They use our road as an easy way to leave the parking lot,” he told the board.

Horsting also told the board that Kimball’s development has impacted the natural setting of the area greatly over the years. The company recently built a retaining wall that stands about ten feet tall at its highest. Horsting stated it was an eyesore and he had spoken to another property owner who was complaining about having to look at this concrete wall in an area that had originally been a wooded area.

Horsting also stated that construction in the area was occurring as early as 7 a.m. on Sundays and had been for some time.

He also voiced some concerns of how disruptive the new sign at National Office could be depending on how it would be lighted.

Next, Bernie Fromme, another Margaret Drive resident, spoke briefly about drainage issues caused by the retaining wall and the potential dangers involved in the height of the wall.

Temple told the board that the company had met with the property owner concerned about the wall’s impact on her view. He explained the company was creating a landscaping plan to help alleviate that. In regards to the potential of someone falling off the retaining wall, Temple stated the company was planting a hedge to prevent access to the edge at the top.

He pointed out that prior to Kimball created the retaining wall, water washed down a bank into the residents’ yards. He stated the retaining wall will actually help redirect that water to the city storm water sewers. Fromme corroborated this statement about runoff during his comments when he explained the residents had installed a drainage system to remedy the runoff years before Kimball installed the new retaining wall.

Temple also told the board that although there was a tremendous amount of work being completed, the National Office building was not expanding its size. He explained to Horsting and the board that the new renovation actually decreased the number of occupants from about 180 down to around 165.

As for the original cause for the public hearing, Temple explained the sign would have a directed light shining up onto it and that the sign’s location under the awning would alleviate the light from shining too brightly.

City Attorney Renee Kabrick explained to the two residents that Kimball was in compliance with all city ordinances in regards to the work being completed on the property. She also pointed out that the city could contact the company about the early morning construction going on Sundays but she felt the company would likely remedy that after hearing the public comments during Wednesday’s meeting.

The board, hearing no further comments from the public, approved the variances for allowing a second sign for the property and the size of the sign.