HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201700029 Correspondence 2018-02-02 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
REVISED APPLICATION SUBNIITTAL
This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. County staff has indicated
below what they think will be required as a resubmission of revisions. If you need to submit additional information please
explain on this form for the benefit of the intake staff. All plans must be collated and folded to fit into legal size files,in
order to be accepted for submittal
TO: MAY at.s DATE: Z j Z I I
PROJECT NAME: CA E LIc Y.i L ply Z.o r 1 -24
Submittal Type Requiring Revisions()indicates Submittal Codc County Project Number #Copies
Erosion& Sediment Control Plan(E&S)
Mitigation Plan(MP)
Waiver Request(WR)
Stormwater Management Plan(SWMP)
Road Plan(RP)
Private Road Request, with private/public comparison (PRR)
Private Road Request—Development Area(PRR-DA)
Preliminary Site Plan(PSP)
Final Site Plan(or amendment)(FSP)
Final Plat(FP)
Preliminary Plat(PP)
Easement Plat(EP)
Boundary Adjustment Plat(BAP)
Rezoning PIan(REZ)
Special Use Permit Concept Plan(SP-CP)
Reduced Concept Plan(R-CP)
Proffers(P)
Bond Estimate Request(BER)
Draft Groundwater Management Plan (D-GWMP)
Final Groundwater Management Plan(F-GWMP)
Aquifer Testing Work Plan(ATWP)
Groundwater Assessment Report(GWAR)
Architectural Review Board(ARB)
Other:Please explain
(For staff use only)
Submittal Code #Copies Distribute To: Submittal Code #Copies Distribute To:
ARB Margaret
Malliszewski
There being no further disclosures,the meeting moved to the next item.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Wardell invited public comment.
Neil Williamson,with the Free Enterprise Forum, reviewed the results from a study about the positive and
negative impacts of signage on businesses and on balancing aesthetics and design guidelines with
commerce. He hoped that Albemarle County will keep signage good for both the community and for
business.
Mr. Missel noted that there was a fine line between reducing visual clutter and having the best signage.
There being no further comments,the meeting proceeded.
WORK SESSION
a. Signs: Size, scale, proportion
The ARB held a work session on sign size, scale and proportion and offered the following comments:
1. Yes,the sign guidelines should be updated.
2. Although subjectivity cannot be completely erased,objective tools are needed to assess size,scale
and proportion. Something like the hypothetical example provided(total sign square footage not to
exceed one-half the linear footage)may be workable.
3. Could staff research what other localities have done in terms of signage regulation?
4. Ask colleagues and other staff what challenges they have faced with sign regulation to date
5. Technology has changed considerably since the last sign guidelines update.Technological changes
should be incorporated into the next update.
a. Given the emergence of LED lights, studying the guidelines on illumination should be
considered
6. Principles of alignment may be one point of consideration for aesthetic balance.
7. Proportion of depth margin(i.e., installation on a raceway)should also be considered.
8. County branding — signs should reflect positively on the County as well as the individual
businesses.
9. The graphics/logo struggle is ongoing — what is appropriate in terms of size/scale and color
palettes?What is not?
10. Branded color: How does it sit in the immediate context? Should the list of appropriate colors be
re-evaluated?
11. Limiting signs to three colors is sometimes helpful, sometimes not.
12. Consider the impact greater distance from the road has on sign design.
13. Would it be beneficial to hold a work session with sign designers and business leaders to discuss
the issues of signage on the entrance corridors?
14. How is compliance enforced after a sign is installed?
OTHER BUSINESS
a. ARB-2017-24 and -29: City Electric Supply Signs: Design,Comprehensive Sign Plan
In consensus,the ARB agreed with staffs comments on the sign design and indicated that the sign should
be revised accordingly.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Final Action Memo April 17,2017 2
917/ 017
keelte eaLci.— eit_17LeriAl.L
4.07,1-4- "(1-4-frniAAV 7»-Le61)/ /ce/a.
1-- 4rc /2-ez-y1
— Iwi,a /c1W4 (1,1 M 7
&o/d /zt.q1 /et> 4,-azok
Gokir ."-}6frk k/o/ /AA) 0( z/ 2e
4/ked /-,4ty( 0-)-7( /044,L4v
71y xe- -iv by CtS/ 710 )1,t_e1/6
c -yuk( /4728
Margaret Maliszewski
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent Thursday, April 06, 2017 5:38 PM
To: 'crobertson@anchorsign.com'
Subject: City Electric Supply signs
Attachments: city electric supply comment letter with comp sign plan example.pdf
Callie,
As we discussed on the phone this afternoon,comments on the City Electric Supply signs are attached, as well as an
example of a Comprehensive Sign Plan.A Comp Sign Plan is required for this building, and all new signs,including the
sign you are proposing, must meet the approved Comp Sign Plan criteria. Comprehensive Sign Plans are reviewed and
approved by the Architectural Review Board. If you have questions, please feel free to contact me.
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
1