Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-31 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on July 31, 1997, at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville; Arkansas. ITEMS REVIEWED: 1. LS97-22.00: Lot split (Grace Hunt) 2. LSD97-16.00: NWA Medical Imaging Center 3. PP97-16.00: Stoney Kirk Subdivision 4. FP97-1.00: Salem Village 5. LSD 97-12.00: Blockbuster Video ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Forwarded to Planning Commission Forwarded to Planning Commission Forwarded to Planning Commission MEMBERS PRESENT: Phyllis Johnson, Bob Reynolds, and Conrad Odom. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Dawn Warrick, Tim Conklin, Chuck Rutherford, Beth Sandeen, and Heather Woodruff. LS97-22: LOT SPLIT (GRACE HUNT) GRACE HUNT- 4039 HUNTSVILLE ROAD The lot split was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Grace Hunt for property located at 4039 Huntsville Road (south of Huntsville, west of Robert's Road). The portion of the property which is within the City limits is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request is to split 0 49 acres from a 5.81 acre tract. Findings: This property is located just west of the entry drive (River Meadows Drive) to Stonebridge Meadows, a new subdivision which is currently under construction. Approximately 16% of the site (0.95 acres) is within the City limits. Discussion at the Technical Plat Review meeting included the location of the existing septic field for the house on Tract A. It was noted that the septic field location may make it necessary to relocate the new property line - this line was moved slightly changing the size of Tract A from 0.52 acres to 0.49 acres. The applicant plans to connect to sewer for the current home (which is within the City limits). See attached letter from project engineer. Water will be available after the construction of the new water main for Stonebridge Meadows. Sewer must be extended from Stonebridge Meadows. The extension could be planned to coincide with the construction for Stonebridge Meadows - if this is desired, the applicant's engineer must verify that the lift station can accept additional flow. • Subdivision Meeting July 31, 1997 Page 2 Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. • 4. Payment of parks fees in the amount of $300.00 for the newly created residential lot. 5. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk with a minimum 10' greenspace along Huntsville to be installed at the time the sidewalks are built along River Meadows Drive as a part of the Stonebridge Meadows subdivision. 6. Right of way dedication as shown on plat (55' from centerline is required for Huntsville which is classified a principle arterial on the Master Street Plan). 7. Approval of plans to connect to City sewer for Tract A (where the current home is located). 8. Verification from the applicant's engineer that the lift station can accept additional flow for this lot to be tied into City sewer. Mr. Jorgensen stated the septic field system for the existing house would be located on Tract B, the lot being sold. He requested approval of the lot split contingent upon sewer service being provided to Ms. Hunt's home. In response to questions from Ms. Johnson, Mr. Jorgensen stated Ms. Hunt could be provided sewer service by the new subdivision adjacent to her home. He noted all the surrounding properties needed sewer service. He questioned who would pay for it. Subdivision Meeting July 31, 1997 Page 3 Ms. Johnson asked if any of the surrounding properties would be serviced by septic systems after city sewer was installed. Ms. Little stated the staff would be working with the applicant administratively, to solve the sewer problems. She added the staff had no problems approving the lot split now, subject to the sewer being worked out. She reminded Mr. Jorgensen there was a $300.00 parks fee. Mr. Rutherford, stated the sidewalk would not be constructed along Huntsville, until River Meadows was constructed. In response to a question from Mr. Beavers, Mr. Jorgensen explained the flow line of the manhole adjacent to Ms. Hunt's property was to high to service her home. However, a manhole could be installed on the property line to service all o f the surrounding lots. Mr. Odom moved to approve the lot split subject to all staff comments. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 3-0-0. • Subdivision Meeting July 31, 1997 Page 4 • • LSD 97-16.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT NWA MEDICAL IMAGING CENTER NWA MEDICAL IMAGING INC: S. OF MILLSAP & E. OF WIMBERLY The large scale development was submitted by Milholland Engineering on behalf of Northwest Arkansas Medical Imaging, Inc. for property located south of Millsap Drive and east of Wimberly Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.44 acres. Findings: For Commercial Design Standards Review, photographs have been submitted to show adjoining context (see file). Also, all proposed signage is wall mounted as shown on the elevation provided for review. Cross access to the west has been provided. The area labeled "future expansion" on this plat is not included in this large scale development application. If the applicant wished to add to this structure at a later date, the addition will be reviewed on its merits then. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval 4. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a 6' sidewalk with a minimum 10' greenspace along Millsap Drive. The sidewalk shall be continuous through the driveway. 5. Dedication of right of way as shown on the plat - 30' from centerline along Millsap Drive. • Subdivision Meeting July 31, 1997 Page 5 • 6. Stub out to the west property line for future cross access as shown on plat. 7. Signage in accordance with that shown on materials submitted for Commercial Design Standards approval. 8. Large Scale Development approval to be valid for one calendar year. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required: a. Grading and drainage permits b. Separate easement plat for this project c. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by § 159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be completed. not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The item was represented by Ron Petrie and Larry Simpson. Ms. Little presented renderings of the proposed building and photos of the surrounding properties. She stated the applicant had provided cross access and an additional 5' right-of-way on Millsap. Mr. Beavers stated handrails needed to be installed on the box -culvert when the sidewalk was constructed. In response to a question from Ms. Johnson, Ms. Warrick stated the cross access was located on the northwest comer of the site. Ms. Little stated the staff had not asked for a cross access to the vacant lot because of the 40' drainage easement. Mr. Odom stated the building met most of the Commercial Design Standards criteria. Ms. Johnson felt the steep roof and the angled entrance kept the building from looking box -like. Ms. Sandeen stated she had asked the developer to replace two Bradford Pear trees in the parking lot with two shade trees. Mr. Conklin noted the future building expansion was not included in this large scale • development. • Subdivision Meeting July 31, 1997 Page 6 Mr. Odom moved to approved the item subject to all staff comments. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 3-0-0. tt0 • Subdivision Meeting July 31, 1997 Page 7 • • PP97-6.00 PRELIMINARY PLAT (STONEYKIRK SUBDIVISION JEFF ALLEN- N. OF WHEELER RD. & E. OF COUNTY RD 708. The preliminary plat was submitted by Brian Ray of Development Consultants, Inc., on behalf of Jeff Allen for property located north of Wheeler Road (aka Mt. Comfort Road) and east of WC 708. The property is located within the Fayetteville Planning Area and contains approximately 85.07 acres with 21 lots proposed. Findings: This project was approved by the Washington County Planning Board 7/3/97. There were specific requirements for road right of way dedications for existing county roads adjacent to the development as conditions of the county approval. (Copy of County approval attached) As a result of discussion at the Technical Plat Review meeting, a special meeting was arranged in order to review street issues with officials from Washington County. The meeting was held 7/28/97 and the following were in attendance: Sarah Riley, Jim Brink; Bill Devault, Alett Little, Dawn Warrick, Brian Ray, Greg Bone. County requirements were reviewed and general planning issues concerning transportation were discussed. It was noted that there could be a connection from the proposed cul de sac street to Weir Road and that the right of way dedication for a future road connecting Weir and Mt. Comfort could be modified in order to have that new road intersect Mt. Comfort and continue south on the existing, paved WC 881. Possible measures to decrease the extreme curves on the south side and northwest corner of the property were also discussed. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staffrecommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval I. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 2. All improvements shall comply with City's / or County's current requirements as appropriate. 3.. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) \b\ • Subdivision Meeting July 31, 1997 Page 8 • for grading, drainage. water. sewer, fire protection. streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 4. Road improvements as required by Washington County Planning Board including the following: a. Dedication of right of way 40' from centerline along all affected existing county roads b. Improve Mt. Comfort where adjacent to the project to 'A standard county road, dedicating right of way as required for the improvements c. Improve Weir Road (WC 94) where the road is adjacent to and within the project to a double chip and seal surface for the entire width of the road (in lieu of improving % of the road to county standard which is a HMAC surface) d. Dedicate 60' total right of way between lots 18 & 19, and 30' right of way on the east side of lot 16 - to provide for a future road connecting Weir Rd. and Mt. Comfort Rd. Ms. Little stated the staff had concerns about connectivity and off site improvements. She noted the County had not requested off site improvements, however, the City was concerned about the one lane bridge and sharp curve on Weir Road. She had met with Jim Devalt and Jim Brink from County Planning to discuss the straightening of Weir Road and improving the one lane bridge. Mr. Brian Ray had assumed from earlier meetings with the County the required right-of-way would be 60', however, Ms. Riley, County Planner, had requested an 80' right-of-way in the County Conditions of Approval. Ms. Little stated the City wanted the curve on Weir Road straightened. However, the County had agreed to work with the developer to smooth out the curve over time. The County had asked for 60' of right-of-way along lots 18 and 19 (running north -south) and 60' for the connection between Weir and Mt. Comfort (30' off lots 18, 19, and 16). The City staff requested the cul-de- sac to extend to Weir Road or for the developer to dedicate the right-of-way. Mr. Ray stated if the City requested right-of-way at the end of the cul-de-sac, then the developer would be required to dedicate two rights-of-way. Ms. Little explained the County felt their right-of-way would allow the large lots to be split later when sewer was available to the area. • Mr. Ray explained it was not economically feasible to develop smaller lots at this time. He added the County had required a 30' right-of-way along east property line. • Subdivision Meeting July 31, 1997 Page 9 Ms. Little stated it was important to provide a right-of-way to connect the cul-de-sac with the existing road. Mr. Reynolds asked if the Planning Commission needed to require improvements to the one lane bridge. Mr. Ray stated the bridge was in Wheeler and would not be annexed into the City for many years. PUBLIC Ms. Brenda Helms, adjacent property owner, stated there was a dispute over the east property line. The Helms had owned the property since 1963. She claimed the developer had removed her fence and damaged her trees. She did not believe it was right to allow a developer to develop someone else property. She had written a letter to the developer, but had not received a reply. Mr. Ray stated he had not received the letter in his office. • In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Helms stated the developer was approximately • 30-40 feet onto her property. Mr. Reynolds asked if she had hired a surveyor. Ms. Helms stated she had not, but her fence had been there since 1963. Mr. Ray presented a survey of the property from Allen Reid. The tree line was 16' onto his clients property. Ms. Helms stated the fence and tree line had been on her property. Ms. Johnson suggested the two property owners work it out or file a lawsuit. She contended neither the City's Planning Commission nor the County's Planning Commission could settle the property line dispute. Mr. Ray stated the property line dispute would not change the nature of the project. He added there were no plans to construct anything along the property line in question. However, they were required to dedicate right-of-way to the County. Mr. Odom expressed concern of losing the 30' right-of-way if it was not their property. Ms. Johnson stated the 30' right-of-way would be taken off the developers east property line, \C3 • Subdivision Meeting July 31, 1997 Page 10 • where ever it was. Ms. Little reassured Ms. Helms the developer could not dedicate her land as right-of-way. Mr. Beavers stated the fire chief would not allow the fire hydrants. Mr. Ray stated the fire chief would allow the fire hydrants, but the City would not maintain the hydrants. The developer had not decided if he was willing to be responsible for the hydrants. Mr. Beavers added, if the hydrants were installed the water line would be 8" rather than 6". Mr. Reynolds asked if the Wheeler Fire Department would service the Subdivision. He did not believe the City of Fayetteville would be willing to service the area. Ms. Little stated the Fire Chief was concerned that the hydrants would give the residents a false since of security. The hydrants would be on a substandard line. Ms. Johnson asked if the staff was in favor of running the cul-de-sac thorough to the property line. Ms. Little stated the cul-de-sac was approximately double of what the City normally allowed. Mr. Ray stated if they were to connect the cul-de-sac with the existing street, it would take an additional 600-800' of pavement and a large culvert or bridge to cross the creek. He expressed concern about poultry trucks using their street. Mr. Reynolds expressed concern about fire trucks being able to service the subdivision without the connection. Mr. Ray thought the Wheeler fire department would service them. Ms. Little stated Mr. Devalt had implied the County would work with the developer to provide a cul -vert to improve the bridge. Ms. Johnson did not believe Mr. Ray's concern over poultry trucks using their road was a legitimate argument for not connecting the roads. Ms. Little asked if all the one acre lots had perked and could be placed on septic systems. • Mr. Ray stated they had. • Subdivision Meeting July 31, 1997 Page 11 • • Ms. Johnson recommended that the street, Stoneykirk, be extended to north. Mr. Odom and Reynolds agreed. Mr. Ray stated if his client were to connect the street, then they would add a few more Lots. Ms. Johnson asked them to orient the vicinity map the same direction as the development. In response to a question from Mr. Conklin, Mr. Ray stated the developer would have to perk the additional lots before the County would approve the septic systems. They would probably add two to four lots. Mr. Ray asked if he could bring the current plat and an alternate plat to the Planning Commission. Ms. Warrick stated they would need 37 copies of the alternate by 10:00 Monday morning. \tic • Subdivision Meeting July 31, 1997 Page 12 • FP 97-1.00: FINAL PLAT (SALEM VILLAGE, PUD) TRADITIONAL INVESTMENTS- N. OF MT. COMFORT & W. OF SALEM RD The final plat was submitted by Bill Rudasill of WBR Engineering Associates on behalf of Traditional Investments, Ltd for property located north of Mt. Comfort Road, west of Salem Road. The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and contains approximately 39.2 acres with 111 lots proposed. Findings: The preliminary plat for this Planned Unit Development was approved by the Planning Commission March 27, 1995. The final plat was presented to the Subdivision Committee the first time 4/3/97 and was tabled because the final inspection had not been completed. At the 7/3/97 Subdivision Committee meeting, this item was again tabled since the final inspection for streets had been scheduled however not completed. Recommendation: Consideration of this project based on staff findings. If the Subdivision Committee chooses to approve this project, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments mailed to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, TCA Cable) 2. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements. 3. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional review and approval. 4. A copy of the file marked deed and any deed restrictions for park land dedication must be provided to the Director of Parks and Rec. Division. 5. Copy of the signed street light agreement must be provided to the Traffic Superintendent. • 6. All final inspection punch list items must be complete. Those items which may be guaranteed according to § 159.34 "Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" can be aha • Subdivision Meeting July 31, 1997 Page 13 covered by an acceptable assurance as provided in said ordinance. Mr. Beavers stated the developer had received his final inspection on water, sewer, and streets and drainage. However, there were some off sites issues. He asked if the sewer, under construction, would be finished or bonded. He added that off site improvements could be bonded. Mr. Rudasill thought most of the items would be completed prior to Engineering signing off on the final plat. The stabilization of the alleys would begin on Monday, which would take one to two weeks. During that time the water and sewer would be tested. Mr. Beavers stated there were several items in the covenants that needed to be changed, such as the maintenance of sanitary sewers and drainage. Engineering was also opposed to Mr. Whitfields request to lower the $200.00 per lot sanitary sewer fee. The fee had been a condition of approval for the preliminary plat. Mr. Rudasill stated Mr. Whitfield had requested the fee be brought in line with the other projects such as Crystal Springs. Mr. Beavers replied Phase I of Crystal Springs had paid a lesser fee ($56), but they had built the pump station between their development and Hamstring pump station. Mr. Beavers questioned if the retail lots had to come back through the large scale development process. Ms. Little stated they could require all the retail lots to come through large scale. Mr. Conklin noted the area was zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and the retail lots would have to be rezoned or issued a conditional use. Mr. Beavers stated the plat needed to indicate public and private drainage. He added, Jim McCord had met with Jerry Rose (City Attorney) and they had agreed a performance bond would be acceptable for the developers $90,000 contribution toward a future atrial street. The bond would expire in three years. Mr. Beaver did not believe the road would be built in three years. Mr. Reynolds asked if other developments in the area would be required to dedicate land. Ms. Little stated the City would be requesting right-of-way and money. In response to a question from Ms Johnson, Mr. Rudasill stated the alleys would be paved when the homes were built. Presently, the developer was installing temporary surfaces because he did not want the alleys tom up with the installation of utilities. The developers intention was to • Subdivision Meeting July 31, 1997 Page 14 construct the alley when each block had been built out. Mr. Reynolds asked if there would be an assurance bond posted for the alleys. He felt the alleys could become a problem later. Mr. Conklin stated the flood plain needed to be shown on the plat as well as, the base flood elevation of each lot and the minimum floor elevation. Ms. Little explained each lot located in the flood plain would need its own individual grading plan. In response to concems voiced by Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Rudasill explained that Southwestern Bell would not put a phone line in until there were houses constructed. Ms. Little asked if Mr. Whitfield could develop in tiers. Mr. Conklin suggested allowing Mr. Whitfield to build block by block and not issue more building permits until the alley was installed on the completed block. In response to a question from Mr. Beavers, Mr. Rudasill stated all the sidewalks along the public roads had been constructed. Mr. Rutherford stated guard rails need to be installed on both sides of the bridge and at the north end of the property. Mr. Conklin questioned the dimensions and setback between each individual home. Ms. Little answered 10' between structures, under the pud ordinance. Mr. Beavers stated the City normally allowed sidewalks and final pavement to be bonded. Mr. Rudasill replied the items that needed to be bond were almost complete. At the time of construction the ordinance required the sidewalks to be constructed when 50% of the homes were completed. Ms Little listed additional conditions discussed: $200 per lot sanitary sewer fee paid, $90, 000 for street to the west (she asked if the Planning Commission wanted the money in cash or bonded), and there would be hand rails added to all bridges at the north property line relating to sidewalks. Mr. Beavers stated a five year performance bond had been agreed upon, beginning March 27, 1�� • Subdivision Meeting July 31, 1997 Page 15 • • 1995. Mr. Odom questioned how the developer could post a predated performance bond. Mr. Rudasill stated part of the road to the west was located in the county. Ms. Little stated the $90.000 was for the road on Mr. Whitfield property. She asked if the Commissioners were comfortable with a $90,000 bond which started two years ago. Ms. Johnson stated they wanted a $90,000 bond which would start upon the approval of the final plat. Mr. Rudasill stated the development of the lots would be covered in the covenants. The item was forwarded to the Planning Commission. \ac\ Subdivision Meeting July 31, 1997 Page 16 LSD97-12.00: BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO SUPERIOR PROPERTIE N. OF HWY 62 & S. OF OLD FARMINGTON RD. Mr. Harry Grey stated they had revised the site plan. Mr. Jim Barnes explained he had tried to breakup the parking by rapping the parking around the building and moving the dumpster pad to the rear of the building. Ms. Little asked if there was room for the garbage truck to turn around. Mr. Grey stated they had stripped the island on the east side of the building to allow room for the truck to maneuver. The island on the east side of the building would help break up the parking and add articulation to the building. In response to a question from Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Barnes stated there were fifty parking spaces. He added he wanted to buffer the rear of the building from the empty pasture behind his lot. He was wanting to install a 4' wooden fence with pine trees to screen the rear of the building. Mr. Reynolds felt screening the rear was a good idea because of the student from the high school across the street. Mr. Barnes stated he would like to create an enclosed look, to help with appearance and maintenance. Ms. Johnson questioned how rapping the parking around the building would reduce the impact of the parking. Mr. Barnes stated the site would have a park like setting because of the large amount of green space. They had designed the parking lot to reduce the speed of traffic. Ms. Johnson was not sure the reconfiguration had addressed the Commission's concerns about the number of parking spaces and the amount of paving. She suggested giving the Commission an option between the two parking layouts. Ms. Little commented the new configuration would require more concrete. She suggested they remove a parking space to allow room for the garbage truck. Mr. Bames stated he had gone out to the site to see if shared parking could be a possibility. The adjacent parking lot was close enough for shared parking, however, the storage of farm equipment for the Tractor Supply Company prevented them from using the parking lot. 2p° • Subdivision Meeting July 31, 1997 Page 17 • Ms. Warrick suggested making the parking spacing toward the back of the building another surface, such as grasscrete. She added it was good for overflow parking because it did not look like a parking lot. Mr. Odom stated shared parking had to be agreed upon. It was not fair to require the applicant to obtain shared parking from another property owner who was not willing to share. Mr. Barnes stated it would be difficult for him to obtain an agreement. because the property was owned by Wal -mart and they were difficult to work with. Mr. Odom commented he like the revision better than the first layout because it added islands on the parking to relieve the building. Ms. Johnson suggested removing a few parking spaces and reducing the amount of concrete. She also suggested a drive-by return. She believed it would help with his parking. Mr. Barnes thought they might install a drop box later. He added there was a drop -box across the street at McDonalds. He presented a rendering of the front elevation. He explained they had added a large portico to the front with piano leg columns. The front elevation would be broken up with 15' X 20' portico painted white with a blue ticket sign. The stucco would be painted dark grey with a white band around the building. Mr. Odom commented the revised front portico with the pitched roof had changed the front from a large out of scale sign to a portico entrance. Ms. Johnson suggested shrinking the ticket sign on the portico. She felt there was too much signage on the front. Ms. Little suggested removing "video" from the awnings. Mr. Barnes suggested reducing the signage on the building and adding a pole sign. Ms. Little stated she would prefer large signs on the building and no pole signs. Mr. Reynolds and Ms. Johnson did not believe a pole sign was necessary and felt it would be overkill. Mr. Barnes suggested a monument sign in the park area. • Ms. Johnson felt a monument sign would be more visible than a pole sign. • Subdivision Meeting July 31, 1997 Page 18 Mr. Barnes felt a monument sign could be made very attractive with landscaping. Ms. Johnson stated the portico and the piano leg columns added articulation. She though it would be important for him to shrink "Blockbuster Video" on the awnings. She believed it was overkill. She also suggested removing "video" from the awnings. The item was forwarded to the Planning Commission. Ms. Little stated he would need to submit revised drawings by 10:00 Monday morning. She stated she would like a drawing on a board to present to the camera. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.