HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB200800112 Correspondence 2008-08-19Page 1 of 2
Brent Nelson
From: Brent Nelson
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:08 PM
To: 'ESolomon @htsva.com'
Subject: FW: Super 8 Motel sign refacing application
Importance: High
Attachments: DSCO2176.JPG
Hi Enkie - I work with Margaret and will be handling the review of your sign proposal. Margaret
Maliszewski provided you some input (below) while I was out on vacation. As Margaret mentioned, we
cannot approve these signs administratively for the reasons she outlined below. I would like to add that
the photographs provided with this submission are not of the building at 390 Greenbrier Drive and
therefore do not accurately depict the sign in its existing environment. In the photos provided, the roof
sign is shown at the edge of the roofline whereas in reality (see attached) the sign is midway up the roof
slope. I will need to know by the end of the day Thursday, August 21 st if your client is authorizing you
to amend the proposal as requested. Your only other options are to withdraw the request or have it taken
to the Architectural Review Board for a full review at the September 15, 2008 meeting. It has been my
experience that the ARB is unlikely to approve your current proposal for the reasons we have already
outlined.
Thanks,
Brent
Brent W. Nelson
Landscape Planner
Albemarle County
Department of Community Development
434 - 296 -5832, ext 3272
434 - 972 -4012 (fax)
ARB Web Page:
http: / /albemarle.org/ department .asp ?department= planning&relpa eg =2464
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 8:49 AM
To: Brent Nelson
Subject: FW: Super 8 Motel sign refacing application
From: Margaret Maliszewski
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 9:54 AM
To: 'Enkie Solomon'
Subject: Super 8 Motel sign refacing application
Enkie,
8/26/2008
Page 2 of 2
I haven't completed my review of the Super 8 Motel sign, but I noticed a few big issues that I thought you'd like to
know about as soon as possible.
1. The Entrance Corridor guidelines indicate that the backgrounds of internally illuminated cabinet signs must
be opaque. I can't approve a translucent background and, therefore, can't approve these sign re- facings.
2. It appears that the "Super" letters won't be visible once the background is made opaque, so a re- design will
be necessary.
3. The size of the "8" on the wall sign may be an issue. The guidelines indicate that logos must be
incorporated as an integral part of the overall sign design and the ARB requires that logos not be over -
scaled within the sign. I recommend not increasing the height of the "8" beyond that which is on the
existing sign.
4. You've provided color numbers but you have not indicated the color numbering system you are using.
These color numbers do not correspond to the Pantone colors that I have, so samples are required for
review and the name of the numbering system must be indicated.
5. The checklist information should be included on the sign drawings. Please add the sign color
names /numbers, an identification of which portions of the signs are illuminated and which are opaque, and
other checklist items to the sign drawings.
It would be best to provide revised sign drawings illustrating a re- facing design that meets all the guidelines.
Please let me know how you would like to proceed.
Thanks.
Margaret
Margaret Maliszewski, Principal Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road, 2nd Floor
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434 - 296 -5832 x3276; fax: 434-972-4012
8/26/2008