The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutARB201700071 Correspondence 2017-10-04 • Margaret Maliszewski From: Norm Brinkman <normb@ntbrinkmanco.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 9:00 AM To: Margaret Maliszewski Cc: Tate Cindy Subject: Re: awning question Thank you, Margaret! I agree with the recommendation re the awning on the west side. We will only put the shading devices on the south elevation and NOT turn the corner. We will start the awning at the control joint and run 26' south toward, but not to, the southwest corner. Again, thank you! Norm Norman T. Brinkman BRINKMANC company 2123 Ivy Road Suite B21 Charlottesville, VA 22903 434.284.8184 (T) 434.284.8183 (F) 434.242.1401 (M) normb@ntbrinkmanco.com www.ntbrinkmanco.com On Oct 2, 2017, at 5:22 PM, Margaret Maliszewski <MMaliszewski albemarle.org>wrote: Norm, Here is the action from today's meeting: a. ARB-2015-49: Riverside Center: Awnings The ARB considered the revised awning proposal and, in consensus, determined that the awning on the west elevation was acceptable, but encouraged the applicant to consider holding the canvas awning back from the corner(in line with the control joint)to avoid visual conflict with the canopy on the front elevation. From: Norm Brinkman [mailto:normb@ntbrinkmanco.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 12:10 PM 1 To: Margaret Maliszewski c rnv aliszewski@albemarle.org> Subject: Re:awning question Thank you, Margaret. If a question comes up that yu cannot answer, and you want to call me (434.242.1401)please feel free to. Norm Norman T. Brinkman <image001 .jpg> 2123 Ivy Road Suite B21 Charlottesville, VA 22903 434.284.8184 (T) 434.284.8183 (F) 434.242.1401 (M) normb@ntbrinkmanco.com www.ntbrinkmanco.com On Oct 2, 2017, at 12:00 PM, Margaret Maliszewski <MMaliszewski@albemarle.org>wrote: I did not include the initial submittal when I sent your recent request last week. I do have the awning sample and I will have the file at the meeting.So, hopefully, I'll be able to answer all questions. From: Norm Brinkman [mailto:normb@ntbrinkmanco.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 11:56 AM To: Margaret Maliszewski<MMaliszewski@albemarle.org> Subject: Re: awning question Thank you, Margaret. I though that we had provided everything that Stan has requested with our initial submittal. Am I missing something? Do I need to resend? I believe that you have the fabric sample. Norm Norman T. Brinkman <image001 .jpg> 2123 Ivy Road 2 Suite B21 Charlottesville, VA 22903 434.284.8184 (T) 434.284.8183 (F) 434.242.1401 (M) normb@ntbrinkmanco.com www.ntbrinkmanco.com On Oct 2, 2017, at 11:51 AM, Margaret Maliszewski <MMaliszewski@albemarle.org>wrote: Norm, I only receive one emailed response from the ARB to my question about your revised awning proposal. It was from Stan Binsted and I've copied his message below.Since I still need to hear from the other members, • I'll bring it up as an "other business" item at today's meeting. Margaret 1. The extension of the sunshade system on the south elevation, matching what is installed on the remainder of the building, is appropriate. 2. I would be open to reconsidering the request for a retractable awning on the west side. However,details need to be provided, including dimensions (height, width), materials, colors, elevations showing awning is open and retracted positions. Margaret Maliszewski, Chief of Planning/Resource Management Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 x3276 mmaliszewski@albemarle.org 3 20. Provide an additional site section from Polo Grounds Road looking north/northeast to clarify the visibility of the apartment buildings. Mr. Stoner seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4:0.(Wardell absent) The ARB clarified that architectural elevations should be provided for the north and south elevations of both the north and south buildings, and the west elevations facing the EC should also be provided. b. ARB-2017-95: Avinity Phase 2 Townhomes Amendment Lots 19-26-Amendment to an approved Certificate of Appropriateness(TM/Parcel 091A0000001900) Proposal: To revise the architectural design of the townhouses on lots 19 through 26. Location: East of Avon Street, north side of Avinity Drive, south of Avinity Place Motion: Mr. Hancock moved for approval of ARB-2017-95: Avinity Phase 2 Townhomes Amendment Lots 19-26 — Amendment to an approval Certificate of Appropriateness pending staff administrative approval of the conditions listed in the staff report,amended as follows. 1. Maintain the hoods over the entrances facing Avinity Drive as required features. 2. The Pearl Gray, Gray Slate and Rich Espresso Hardieplank colors submitted at the meeting are acceptable. 3. Add the Fypon detail trim and casings on the windows on the end unit side elevation to match the trim provided on the front elevations. Mr. Stoner seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. (Wardell absent) OTHER BUSINESS a. ARB-2015-49: Riverside Center: Awnings The ARB considered the revised awning proposal and, in consensus, determined that the awning on the west elevation was acceptable, but encouraged the applicant to consider holding the canvas awning back from the corner(in line with the control joint)to avoid visual conflict with the canopy on the front elevation. b. ARB-2017-86: Piedmont Power Sign: Colors Staff reported that the sign refacing was completed without an approved permit and asked the Board for direction regarding the colors and fonts. It was the consensus of the ARB that the design should be revised to meet the guidelines regarding number of colors and fonts. c. ARB-2017-69: North Pointe Middle Entrance Landscape Plan: Tree size The ARB viewed the revised landscape plan and considered the applicant's request to use a smaller planting size for EC street trees. It was the consensus of the ARB that the 3`/"planting size requirement should be followed for this application, but staff should present additional information on the planting size issue for continued ARB discussion on a more general basis. Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Final Action Memo October 2,2017 3 Margaret Maliszewski From: Binsted, Stan <sbinsted@relee.build> Sent Monday, October 02, 2017 7:01 AM To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: RE: Riverside Center awnings ' Attachments: Binsted, Stan.vcf Margaret; Sorry I am so late in responding. 1. The extension of the sunshade system on the south elevation, matching what is installed on the remainder of the building, is appropriate. 2. I would be open to reconsidering the request for a retractable awning on the west side. However, details need to be provided, including dimensions (height,width), materials, colors, elevations showing awning is open and retracted positions. Thanks, Stan Stan Binsted _ Senior Project Manager R. E. Lee &Son 2811 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 p 434.973.1321 c 1434.981.0033 relee.build From: Margaret Maliszewski [mailto:MMaliszewski@albemarle.org] Sent:,Tuesday,September 26, 2017 2:25 PM To: Binsted,Stan<sbinsted@relee.build>; Dade Van Der Werf<vanderwerf@vmdo.com>; Frank Hancock <frank.hancock@timmons.com>; Frank Stoner(fstoner@milestonepartners.co) <fstoner@milestonepartners.co> Subject: Riverside Center awnings Dear ARB Members, At your August 7 meeting I asked you for direction on a request to add retractable awnings(and make other changes) at the corner of the Riverside Center building where Rhea's grill is located.Your direction was that the retractable awnings were not acceptable.You clarified that the awning/canopy treatment could be different than the canopy installed on the rest of the building,but a retractable awning would not be appropriate.The applicant has withdrawn the request for the awning on the south side of the building(facing the parking lot)and proposes to continue the style of sun shade system already installed on the south side. On the west side of the building, over the deck,the applicant would like to ask again to install the retractable awning. Reasons for this request and additional details are outlined in the document that is attached to this message. If you are able to review this information prior to Monday's meeting,would you email me your thoughts/comments?Please reply just to me, so that we do not inadvertently hold a"meeting"by email. I told the applicant I would forward him comments prior to the meeting, if possible. If this isn't possible,we can discuss as an "other business" item on Monday. Thank you. 1 Margaret - Margaret Maliszewski, Chief of Planning/Resource Management Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 x3276 mmaliszewski@albemarle.org 2 Margaret Maliszewski From: Margaret Maliszewski Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 2:26 PM To: 'Norm Brinkman' Subject: RE: Riverside - Proposed Modification to ARB Application Thanks, Norm. I've emailed the ARB. I'll let you know what I hear, if anything, before Monday's meeting. Margaret From: Norm Brinkman [maiito:normb@ntbrinkmanco.com] Sent: Monday,September 25, 2017 10:14 AM To: Margaret Maliszewski<MMaliszewski@albemarle.org> Subject: Riverside -Proposed Modification to ARB Application Margaret, Thank you for meeting with me last week to discuss a potential modification to our June 28 ARB application re Riverside. Specifically, we are proposing to withdraw our request for a retractable awning on the south elevation, and continue the structural shading system that has already been installed on the majority of that elevation. We are asking that the Architectural Review Board reconsider allowing us to install a retractable awning, but just on the west elevation, and with the expectation that it is retracted when the dining patio is not in use. I have attached document outlining the nature and rationale for this modification which I hope that the Board will find more agreeable. Thank you for your time and consideration. Kind regards, Norm Norman T. Brinkman 'BRINKMAN Cornppanry 2123 Ivy Road Suite B21 Charlottesville, VA 22903 434.284.8184 (T) 434.284.8183 (F) 1 434.242.1401 (M) normb@ntbrinkmanco.com www.ntbrinkmanco.com 2 The Riverside Center-T.M. 4581-06-1 B; SPD -2015-34 Application for Minor Site Plan Modification &ARB Approval of Lighting/Fencing/Equipment PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO AWNING REQUEST Submitted by: Jefferson Realty Partners, LLC(Owner of Record &Applicant) 2315 Seminole Lane, Suite 101,Charlottesville,VA 22901 434.242.1401 (M); normb@ntbrinkmanco.com General Description of the Work Jefferson Realty Partners, LLC had, on June 28`h, 2017, applied to the County for approval of certain additions/modifications to it's Riverside Center-specifically to add parking lot lighting, complete, on the southwest corner,the cementitious paneling system already installed on the south elevation of the building known as 2335 Seminole Lane, and add retractable awnings on the south and west elevations of that southwest corner. All aspects of our application were approved, with the exception of the retractable awnings. It was our understanding that the County ARB had reservations about the use of retractable awnings, particularly on the south elevation. This document is intended to serve as a summary outline of a request to modify our application regarding awnings, and to provide a rationale for doing so, that we hope will find more support with the ARB. Summary of modification request. We propose to withdraw our request for a 26'wide, 6' deep retractable awning on the South elevation of the building - providing shade and cover for patrons of the restaurant-and instead, continue the sunshade system that has already been installed on the entire remainder of the South elevation. This shading device will look exactly like the existing system but only be 5' deep.The following photo shows the location of the proposed sunshade (yellow dashed box). ` � " '4 . • • • RHETTS RIVER GRILL y,P `r �W:... • _ : ..�. -. • 4 k �, i �"r ar .�ky ?r f7i "' �y ;��lr f `' ve r- �l y, Mrs,. C r„lr;j i; 'thf`thR • .5. ..,dt' Modification Request to ARB kequest-Riverside Center T.M.45B1-06-1 B;SPD-2015-34 6.28.17-9.25.17 Page 2 of 3 We would respectfully request that the ARB reconsider our request to place a retractable awing over the outside dining patio on the west side of the building, rather than a fixed awing system or reconstruction of the pergola structure that had been in place prior to the fire. Our reasons are as follows. Without some sort of shading device, I --- restaurant patrons are exposed to 4:1. extreme afternoon heat on the west side of the building. A fixed awing installation '^., t _' — fY is in view 100%of the time and would be '_"—__�� at a scale, because of"roof" pitch, that -- ri ,�'`a` would be dwarfed by the elevation of that �l ° __ ":_ elevation of the building -which averages `:=' y 'f • between 26'-28'. Additionally fixed awing installations require construction of • 44141 a framework which is unsightly- particularly when the awning must be removed for repair or weather. Several example photos are included. The existing wooden pergola was not an attractive structure either and we do not `r' see that as a viable option - in that it 1 p provides very little protection for patrons, and was not a particularly visually ,-. y desirable appendage when in place prior to the fire. ! We have proposed a retractable style awning in that it is NOT a permanently deployed structure that is left exposed to the weather even during the months that the dining patio is not in use. It shows the - --- most slim profile both when deployed and when retracted (less than 12")and can . �,��,L j' blend into the west elevation far more easily than constructing a permanent --: r � structure -that is even less attractive when the awning is removed for repair or ; F ‘ ` _� weather. • s��!l111H, We have submitted a sample of Sunbrella awing canvas that is a visual compliment for the stone columns of primary entrance canopy on the south elevation of the building. Modification Request to ARB kequest-Riverside Center T.M.45B1-06-1 B;SPD-2015-34 6.28.17-9.25.17 Page 3 of 3 An example photo below shows a retractable awning in the deployed position. We will require that the awning be retracted after hours and when the patio is not open for dining. The deployment mechanism is completely hidden when retracted and the housing into which it retracts can be painted to match the brick. The awing would deploy a maximum of 10'. It is our hope that the Architectural Review Board would look favorably on this modification. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully Submitted 25 September, 2017 Jefferson Realty Partners, LLC id k d. . ; �:�►= 1 d ' ' ', if !I,i 111 u. ri�Rie is 11 3 411 • !Mink Margaret Maliszewski From: Norm Brinkman <normb@ntbrinkmanco.com> Sent Tuesday, September 19, 2017 3:59 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: Re: Riverside Center amendment Margaret, I've finally completed my "survey"of awning installation options for Riverside- looking around town and at installations in other locations. My goal and intent was to make it possible (in fact a requirement) for the awnings to go away after hours and in storm conditions -and to do so without building more structure that is unattractive and naked when the awnings have to be demounted for cleaning,repair or weather. I can keep the awning off the south side of the building and just continue the shading devices on the west(29N) side where the dining deck is - but, honestly Margaret, those fixed awnings are just plain ugly. There may be one other option worth considering. May I get about 20 minutes of your time this week to look at what I see when I see fixed awing installations, and this alternate I'm considering - and perhaps understand better how resolute the Board's opposition to a retractable awning was - and why. I have scattered appointments over the next several days until 3 on Friday, and then I'm headed out of town. d you have a few options for 20 minutes within that timeframe? Thanks, Norm Norman T. Brinkman BRINKMAN company 2123 Ivy Road Suite B21 Charlottesville, VA 22903 434.284.8184 (T) 434.284.8183 (F) 434.242.1401 (M) normb@ntbrinkmanco.com www.ntbrinkmanco.com On Aug 7, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Margaret Maliszewski<MMaliszewski@u•albemarle.org>wrote: Norm, I asked the ARB about the amendment today.They were fine with the changes to the storefront and cementitious panels, but they had a concern about the retractable awnings.They thought the"canopy" treatment could be different than what has been installed on the rest of the building, but they didn't feel that a retractable awning was appropriate in this location.Are there other options you could consider? Margaret Margaret Maliszewski, Chief of Planning/Resource Management Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 x3276 mmaliszewski@albemarle.org 2 Margaret Maliszewski From: Norm Brinkman <normb@ntbrinkmanco.com> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 5:47 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject Re: Riverside Center amendment Well, fixed awnings are something that have been used at other restaurant locations-or just tables with umbrellas. There was a 4' solid covered walkway(like still existing in the Ferguson's building).The 3'shading device really doesn't meet the sun/rain protection needs of the dining patrons. Let me regroup on that and get back to you. Thanks, Norm Norman T. Brinkman NT Brinkman &Company 2123 Ivy Road Suite B21 Charlottesville,VA 22903 434.284.8184(T) 434.284.8183 (F) 434.242.1401 (M) normb@ntbrinkmanco.com www.ntbrinkmanco.com Sent from my iPhone On Aug 7, 2017, at 5:15 PM, Margaret Maliszewski<MMaliszewski@albemarle.org>wrote: Norm, I asked the ARB about the amendment today.They were fine with the changes to the storefront and cementitious panels, but they had a concern about the retractable awnings.They thought the"canopy" treatment could be different than what has been installed on the rest of the building', but they didn't feel that a retractable awning was appropriate in this location.Are there other options you could consider? Margaret Margaret Maliszewski, Chief of Planning/Resource Management. Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 x3276 mmaliszewski@albemarle.org 1 The ARB offers the following comments on the conceptual design: 1. Clarify on the plan the full length of the proposed landscaping. Clearly show the property lines. 2. Revise the plan to clearly show the property lines, utilities, and easements in the project area. Show that there are no plant/utility conflicts. 3. Clearly delineate on the plan the required 40' landscape buffer. Revise the ornamental grass, ground cover, and meadow planting to provide a 40' landscape buffer that visually buffers the development from the EC. 4. Provide large shade trees, 3''A"caliper at planting,with a quantity equivalent to 35' on center. 5. Provide large trees, 2'/2"caliper at planting,along both sides of the entrance road,40' on center. 6. Provide consistent rows of evergreen shrubs at the edge of parking areas, or show parking areas as outside the current project area, leaving sufficient space for a row of evergreen shrubs along parking area perimeters. 7. Add the standard plant health note to the plan.All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant. 8. Provide details on the mounting/installation of the letters on the stone pier. Show how these elements will contribute to an appropriate appearance along the corridor. 9. Provide a side elevation of the sign. Provide a detail drawing of the sign with dimensions. 10. Indicate how weathering of the metal letters will be addressed. 11. Coordinate the plan with the elevations regarding sidewalk and tree locations. 12. Illustrate the actual intended sign height on the drawings. 13. Provide complete details on sign and wall illumination for review. 14. Extend the large street trees to buffer the southern third of the southern retail building. Mr. Stoner seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4:0. The meeting recessed at 3:14 p.m.and reconvened at 3:17 p.m. Chair Wardell recused himself from the two other business items that are projects that his firm has been involved with and turned the meeting over to Vice-Chair Binsted. Mr. Wardell left the meeting at 3:18 p.m. 8. OTHER BUSINESS a. ARB-2017-71: Riverside Center Amendment: Changes to design at southwest corner Staff summarized the changes proposed in the Riverside Center Amendment. After discussing the information, it was the consensus of the ARB that the proposal was acceptable with the exception of the retractable awning.The ARB clarified that the awning/canopy treatment could be different than the canopy installed on the rest of the building,but a retractable awning is not appropriate. b. ARB-2017-33: Malloy Ford: Renovation vs. Demolition Staff reported that the Malloy Ford proposal had changed from a renovation of the showroom building to a demolition of the showroom building followed by construction of a new building matching the previously approved ARB design.It was the consensus of the ARB that the change was acceptable. Staff also reported that the applicant was considering changing the treatment of the buildings located behind the showroom from painting to re-cladding in a color that nearly matches the approved color,to be approved as a minor Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Final Action Memo August 7,2017 5 Margaret Maliszewski From: Norm Brinkman <normb@ntbrinkmanco.com> Sent: Wednesday,July 26, 2017 1:15 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject Re: Riverside Center- proposed awning addition Good point, Margaret-we sort of unintentionally blew by that. Interesting how one small event or decision compounds on another- and then you forget that those changes have implications affecting other's expectations. We had to hold off completing the Rhett's corner of the building until Ferguson's vacates (and we no longer need to provide a way for their tractor-trailers to get around the west end of Building 2335). Ferguson's lease expired in April, but their new home will not be complete until late October. In the meantime, the University of Virginia took all of the space in Building 2335 from the new lobby all the way down to Rhett's existing demising wall - so Rhett's cannot expand, and we cannot install glass around that corner of the building until they are out. This means that until we have replaced Rhett's with a different tenant (two years) we must find a different treatment for that southeast corner of the building (or leave it largely as it is)that would be acceptable to the ARB. Again, I apologize that I did not connect the dots that a series of discrete events, driven by the University and Ferguson's, and affecting our submitted intention of making that a glass corner would require a new plan submittal to the ARB -which it clearly does. Should I come in to talk with you to confirm what these unplanned changes -now affecting our ability to carry out our architectural intent for that corner of the building -will require us to submit to the ARB. - or would a phone call be the best start? Thank you for understanding that this was not an attempt to circumvent the process, but an oversight that the implications of tenancy changes would be architectural and require modifications to the plan that we had previously had approved by the ARB. I'd also think you for allowing us to process the parking lighting and reconstruction of Rhett's fire-damages deck separately. Kind regards, Norm Norman T. Brinkman BRINKMAN& company 2123 Ivy Road Suite B21 Charlottesville, VA 22903 434.284.8184 (T) 434.284.8183 (F) 434.242.1401 (M) normb@ntbrinkmanco.com 1 On Jul 25, 2017, at 5:44 Margaret Maliszewski <MMaliszewc--__Daibemarle.org> wrote: Norm, I want to give you an update on the Riverside Center ARB amendment. In comparing the proposal to the ARB-approved drawings, I was reminded that the approved design continued the storefront around the Rhett's corner.After our discussions, I understood your current proposal to be an addition of the awnings at the south and west elevations, and addition of the cementitious panels at the west elevation —addition of these elements where nothing was previously proposed. I realize now that the original design in this area wasn't carried out with the original building permit and the proposed change would eliminate the storefront windows on the west elevation. I'm sorry that.I did not understand this from our discussions. I would like to run this by the ARB at their August 7 meeting as an informal "other business" item to make sure they are OK with it. Can you confirm that the south elevation accurately conveys the proposed design for that side. In other words, please confirm that new storefront will be installed,the brick knee wall removed, and cementitious panels installed to the sides of the Rhett's doors. In the meantime, I have reviewed the lighting proposal and have forwarded my approval of that portion of the proposal to the planner who is handling the LOR. Thanks for your assistance. Margaret Margaret Maliszewski, Chief of Planning/Resource Management Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 x3276 mmaliszewski@albemarle.org 2 Margaret Maliszewski From: Norm Brinkman <normb@ntbrinkmanco.com> Sent: Friday,July 21, 2017 1:47 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: Re: Riverside Center Sure. For one thing to make the building more interesting. Bruce Wardell intentionally offset the main entrance so that a different treatment of that end of the building would serve as a counterweight.The other reason was that the medical folks(including UVA) insisted that we keep a restaurant, as this is something that larger ambulatory outpatient centers, particularly those in high visibility"retail"settings have figured out from experience.That Rhett's corner is the SW-the hottest.We're trying-to provide some sun and rain protection-the narrow sunshade does neither.The retractable feature protects it in high winds. I purposely picked a color for the awnings that visually ties that corner to the stone on the front entrance. Hope that answers your question. Kind regards, Norm Norman T. Brinkman NT Brinkman &Company 2123 Ivy Road Suite 821 Charlottesville,VA 22903 434.284.8184 (T) 434.284.8183 (F) 434.242.1401 (M) normb@ntbrinkmanco.com www.ntbrinkmanco.com Sent from my iPhone On Jul 21, 2017, at 1:22 PM, Margaret Maliszewski<MMaliszewski@albemarle.org>wrote: Norm, Can you tell me why you opted to propose the retractable awnings instead of continuing the sun shade that is used elsewhere on the building? (I'm sorry if we already discussed this.) Thanks for your help. Margaret Margaret Maliszewski, Chief of Planning/Resource Management Albemarle County Department of Community Development 1 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 x3276 mmaliszewski@albemarle.org 2 Margaret Maliszewski From: Binsted, Stan <sbinsted@relee.build> Sent Wednesday, July 19, 2017 6:14 AM To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: RE: Riverside Center Amendment Attachments: Binsted, Stan.vcf Margaret; I agree that this proposal can be handled by Staff. I see no issues with the proposal. Thanks, Stan Stan Binsted Senior Project Manager R. E. Lee & Son 2811 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 p 1434.973.1321 c j 434.981.0033 relee.build From: Margaret Maliszewski [mailto:MMaliszewski@albemarle.org] Sent:Tuesday,July 18, 2017 4:25 PM To: Binsted,Stan <sbinsted@relee.build> Subject: Riverside Center Amendment Stan, We've received an application for an amendment at the Riverside Center development. I'd like to ask for confirmation that you think this is OK to approve by staff. (This proposal does qualify as a Countywide Certificate of Appropriateness, butt like to get confirmation when possible to avoid any potential future surprises or problems.)Typically, I would ask Bruce because he is the Chairperson, but the original renovation was designed by his office,so I need your input as Vice- Chair. You may have heard that a portion of the deck and pergola at Rhetts' Grill was damaged by fire.The proposal is to repair the deck, build an alternate railing, eliminate the pergola, replace the storefront, add cementitious panels to match those on the front elevation, and install two retractable awnings at the Southwest corner of the building. Here's what I'm thinking: 1. I already approved the deck and railing replacement.They were in a hurry to get this repaired. (The new railing has less visual impact,so I thought it was an acceptable improvement.) 2. The pergola isn't really coordinated with the appearance of the building, so eliminating it isn't a problem. 3. The new storefront Will look consistent with the other storefronts. 4. The cementitious panels are coordinated with the previous approval. 5. The retractable awnings aren't typical for a commercial building.The awnings differ from the treatment elsewhere on the building, but this helps identify the corner space as different from the rest. In the retracted position, the awnings should have minimal impact. In the extended position,the awnings should have a neutral 1 1 appearance—the material is canvas in tan with black and white stripes (sec-telow).The awnings would be attached to the cementitious panels. Do you agree that this proposal can be handled administratively by staff? Do you see any issues with the proposal? Thanks for your help. Margaret Proposed canvas awning fabric: :: t F iA 4}iy i c}r " !^y d 4°'}a W��6 Ka.a w r* '4"' 1•" a d.�`+ n, xxX d. N� V ,t "7.7 : xS} Rrv" 'S•;F�"t . ^,I4'• nx,,. w. x y 9 b b r t ' ° } u<r�A li .. k, a�,-ssr< of ijN ,digitte. s , is d' ,/" an it r " p, 4 a 1:1 s ``t I . �x l�� k, .i do . tbl1�• �-�� 1i�1�� n 'c "2:�ff } ix{ � �4' � fr�d�r� d 4� 1'tt� 9 1 brow } 4 F"i ,,„,,, ' * ,., " q yea a Fk ,x j4xw y yyYY {p, J� **.::Nit9,+'Y l "�' , pA( Y q � 4$b .'�,. `°# " I/ °� ,t'9 a i q zs"w "' ---e }"xr y,Y F 4 "� 1 d k II � ` ' "' s ( Fri j' v ^a 99 „}r} x �W� b 1 � 1a I sir t 4M y� }�rI( e • v a> y. ' r • ,4 i k A i u� " Sul' '.dr r 4 -{dd ;L 4 ;4 ,4j, "/ ; , Y s 5 s1 1, +i"xawYo- s 4 s,s r.P. 't �, ,101.� i #Ji+ ,, v aG k %1 4 1 it'd," e a rw s IL C. "4*.,�" ai:: e . `4.k• 1 w 'ism • • ' ry +. *v.. } ? ,t .-1 . +. y: 4't-4: it:: x" Y }�, ,x h ax wx t" sv`.W.. x' d ,ea .r .ar. . fin' ;, @:{ asu} wn.. i ....�.. _."*'s" :.:,,.' Margaret Maliszewski, Chief of Planning/Resource Management Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 x3276 mmaliszewski@albemarle.org 2 Margaret Maliszewski From: Norm Brinkman <normb@ntbrinkmanco.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 3:22 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: Re: Riverside Center ARB submittal Certainly. I think that the two attached are the correct ones, if not, I'll send some others in the AM. Getting on a conference call momentarily. Norm Norman T. Brinkman BRINKMAN 2123 Ivy Road Suite B21 Charlottesville, VA 22903 434.284.8184 (T) 434.284.8183 (F) 434.242.1401 (M) normb@ntbrinkmanco.com On Jul 18, 2017, at 1:22 PM, Margaret Maliszewski <MMaliszewski@albemarle.org> wrote: Would it be possible to also email the two photos that show the front of the building? From: Norm Brinkman [mailto:normb@ntbrinkmanco.com] Sent:Tuesday,July 18, 2017 12:11 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski<MMaliszewski@albemarle.org> Subject: Re: Riverside Center ARB submittal Will send them momentarily, Margaret.Anything else you need? Norm Norman T. Brinkman NT Brinkman &Company 2123 Ivy Road Suite B21 Charlottesville,VA 22903 434.284.8184 (T) 1 434.284.8183 (F) 434.242.1401 (M) normb@ntbrinkmanco.com www.ntbrinkmanco.com Sent from my iPhone On Jul 18, 2017, at 12:03 PM, Margaret Maliszewski <MMaliszewski@albemarle.org>wrote: Norm, I've received your ARB application for the Riverside Center. Do you have digital versions of the Capitol Awning photosimulations and the site/building photos that you could email me?The hard copies printed out very dark. Thanks. Margaret Margaret Maliszewski, Chief of Planning/Resource Management Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434-296-5832 x3276 mmaliszewski@albemarle.org . • .171 � _A-- _.. 1 a 9 "+w,. 6 11 ..f s 2