HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201100122 Review Comments Miscellaneous Submittal 2011-11-29Brent Nelson
From:
Brent Nelson
Sent:
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:37 AM
To:
'Noel Mukubwa'
Subject:
ARB 11 -122, Hardees Sign (Rt 29N) & ARB 11 -123, Hardees Sign (Pantops, Rt 250E), Staff
Comments
Noel,
I am sending this email as a follow up to our phone conversation on November 23, 2011 regarding the above -
noted sign applications for Hardees. As I mentioned, I have identified the following issues, at this time, for the
signs proposed at both locations.
Wall sign:
• Issue: Sign Location & Type:
• Entrance Corridor (EC) Sign Guidelines indicate that channel letters on the building wall are the
preferred sign type because they allow the building to show through; internally illuminated cabinet
signs will be considered when channel letters cannot be adequately accommodated. The current
proposal is for a wall sign to be located on the fake mansard roof structure. Staff cannot
administratively approve a sign proposed in that location because it does not integrate with the
building architecture. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed a sign proposed in this same
location on the building in 2004. That proposal was denied by the ARB due to the sign type and
location. The existing channel letter sign on the wall was approved as an alternate. The applicant
does have the right to request a full review by the ARB. This application was submitted for the
November 21, 2011 submittal deadline, and the January 3, 2012 ARB meeting date corresponds with
that deadline.
o Other issues identified with this sign:
• The sign has an oversized appearance in the proposed location. This impact is magnified
by the sign's close proximity to the Route 29 EC.
• Color samples or Pantone equivalent numbers were not provided in the current
application. Red acrylic #2283 (or Pantone match 485C) has been determined to be an
inappropriate color for signs. Red acrylic #2793 (or Pantone match 187C) has been
determined to be an appropriate substitute and was previously approved for the existing
wall sign.
• The width of the black outline (text) is not provided in the current application. EC Sign
Guidelines indicate the use of a 1/8" outline is typically appropriate.
• The proposed internal illumination of the red arch above the sign adds to visual clutter
and is not encouraged by the EC guidelines.
Freestanding Sign:
Color samples or Pantone equivalent numbers were not provided in the current
application. Red acrylic #2283 (or Pantone match 485C) has been determined to be an
inappropriate color for signs. Red acrylic #2793 (or Pantone match 187C) has been
determined to be an appropriate substitute and was previously approved for the existing
wall sign.
The width of the black outline (text) is not provided in the current application. EC Sign
Guidelines indicate the use of a 1/8" outline is typically appropriate.
The sign drawing does not indicate the proposed illumination type (internal, external) and
bulb type; it appears to be internal illumination.
EC Sign Guidelines indicate that cabinet signs shall have an opaque background. The
existing sign was approved with only the white "Hardees" text in the top panel and
"Breakfast Drive Thru" in the bottom panel to illuminate. The current proposal would
have to be revised accordingly for an administrative approval. Note: the bottom panel is
not proposed at the Pantops, Rt. 250E location.
Hardees at Pantops (250E)
• The photo- rendering submitted with this application shows the material on the fake mansard structure
changing from shingle to red standing seam metal. This material change would require a building permit
and Architectural Review Board review and approval.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns.
Brent
Brent W. Nelson, Planner
Department of Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Va 22902
434 - 296 -5832 x 3438