The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutARB201200012 Review Comments Miscellaneous Submittal 2012-02-24Brent Nelson From: Brent Nelson Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 5:28 PM To: 'ADaughtry @rlrpc.com' Subject: ARB 2012 -12, Kroger Fuel Center, Staff Comments M I am the planner handling the review of your County -wide Structure Located Behind Another Structure application for the Kroger Fuel Center at Rio Hill Shopping Center. I have completed my checklist review for compliance with Architectural Review Board (ARB) Guidelines and have identified the following issues. Canopy Height: Issue: ARB Fuel Canopy Guidelines recommend a maximum height of 14'- 6" to the bottom of the fascia and a maximum fascia height of 3'. Drawings included in this proposal show a 3.5' tall canopy fascia, and your email of January 5, 2012 requested a maximum height of 16' (to bottom of fascia) due to issues with clearance, the 1 foot grade change and the canopy's lack of slope. Staff has determined the additional height for both would not be detectable from the Entrance Corridor due to the distance and structures /vegetation in between. However, contrary to your request, sheet Albemarle CO, VA Kroger Fuel Center R -334 shows a proposed 19' maximum height to the bottom of the canopy fascia and Sheet A2.0 Exterior Elevations and Signage shows a 14' — 6" minimum distance. Recommendation: Revise both drawings to show a maximum height of 16' to the bottom of the fascia Canopy Illumination: Issue: ARB Guidelines recommend that canopy fascias not be illuminated. The drawings included in this application do not address this guideline Recommendation: Revise sheet Albemarle CO, VA Kroger Fuel Center R -334 to include a note indicating that the canopy fascia shall not be illuminated. Tree Protection: Issue: The location of tree protection fencing is shown on Sheet LA -1 Landscape Plan but not on the grading plan or erosion control plan. Recommendation: Revise the grading plan and erosion control plans to show the proposed location of tree protection fencing. The following issues relate to signage and would need to be addressed before a sign permit /application could be approved. Sign Zoning Ordinance: Stewart Wright, Permit Planner (434- 296 -5832 x 3024, swright2galbemarle.org ) can advise you as to whether or not your sign proposal meets the sign ordinance requirements (max. square feet and height permitted, setbacks from property line etc). Please contact him. Note: he will require more information than you have provided in this application. Canopy Wall /logo Sign • Pantone color numbers were not included on the sign drawing • Dimensions not provided for logo and the text/numbers in the gas pricing • Bulb type for gas pricing not indicated on drawing. If LED, the following note regarding intensity is required: Daytime intensity limited to 70% of maximum intensity; Nighttime intensity limited to 16% of maximum intensity with automatic dimming at dusk. • ARB Sign Guidelines require that the background of the sign pricing cabinet be opaque; notation indicating that is required on the drawing. Freestanding Sign • Pantone color numbers and proposed sign/cabinet materials were not included on the sign drawing. A drawing showing the location of the proposed sign, property lines and existing landscaping was not provided. This drawing needs to be in a large enough scale to be readable and show the sign setback. Dimensions (length & height) for logo and text not provided on drawing. Method of illumination, including bulb type, not indicated on drawing. ARB Sign Guidelines require that the background of the sign be opaque; notation indicating that is required on the drawing. Depending on the degree of visibility from the Entrance Corridor, it may be required that the logo be non - illuminated. If LED lighting is proposed the sign drawing must state The level of illumination provided by the LED lights will not exceed the illumination produced by a single stroke of 30 milliamp (ma) neon. Please call me at your convenience so we can discuss. Thanks, Brent Brent W. Nelson, Planner Department of Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Va 22902 434 - 296 -5832 x 3438 From: Margaret Maliszewski Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 1:16 PM To: Brent Nelson Subject: FW: Kroger Fuel Center R334 - Rio Hill Margaret M. Maliszewski, Principal Planner Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902 434 - 296 -5832 x3276 From: Ali Daughtry [mailto:ADaughtry rlrpc.com] Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 1:48 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: RE: Kroger Fuel Center R334 - Rio Hill Good to know. Yes, I'll provide as much documentation as I can to go along with the submittal. Thanks. Ali R. Daughtry — LEED AP Robertson Loia Roof, Architects & Engineers Office (770) 674 -2600 1 Cell (770) 722 -5213 From: Margaret Maliszewski [ma i Ito: MMaIiszewski(daIbemarle.org] Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 1:44 PM To: Ali Daughtry Subject: RE: Kroger Fuel Center R334 - Rio Hill 0 Thanks for the update. I understand your canopy height issue. I think the ARB will understand it, too. You've got distance and intervening development working for you. Documenting how that limits visibility (with simple sections and photos of the site as viewed from Rt. 29) will go a long way toward making it easier to approve the taller heights. Margaret Margaret M. Maliszewski, Principal Planner Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902 434 - 296 -5832 x3276 From: Ali Daughtry [mailto:ADaughtry rlrpc.com] Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 12:39 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski Subject: RE: Kroger Fuel Center R334 - Rio Hill Margaret, We are further into our civil design for this project. We're dealing with quite a steep slope across the existing parking area where the fuel center is proposed. I think we'll be able to flatten it out a bit for the fuel center pad and make up grade in the surrounding landscaped areas; however, there will still be some slope across the canopy slab. The pavement grade at the front part of the canopy will be at a lower elevation than the rear. We typically try to make the top portion of the canopy as flat as possible so it doesn't slope to one side and accumulate snow during the colder months. This means that the clearance under the canopy will vary by about a foot from the low side to the high side of the canopy. Kroger's standard on the clearance under the canopy used to be 14' -6" minimum but after the canopy was damaged at few sites by the fuel tanker and RV -type vehicles, they increased their standard to 15' -6" minimum. Due to the nature of the slope on this site, Kroger is very concerned about the county's 14' -6" height restriction on the canopy clearance because that would mean that the clearance on the high side would only be 13' -6 ". I know you mentioned that we may be able to exceed the 14' -6" minimum but this all depended on the visibility from US 29 and how the ARB feels about it. I drove up and down US 29 and the visibility to the fuel center area will be very limited due its interior location in the site and the buildings that are in front of it along US 29. The existing evergreen vegetation around the existing wetland BMP /detention pond also make the visibility very limited when traveling NE along US 29. It may not be visible at all in either direction during the spring and summer months due to all of the large trees and vegetation along the road. We'd like to propose at least 14' -6" to 15' of clearance on the low /front side and 15' -6" to 16' of clearance on the high /rear side. I know that anything that we propose that isn't standard may push us into a Planning Commission -type review and may take more time. As you know, time is critical to Kroger their landlord on this project so I'm just giving you a heads up and little bit of back -up information to support the request. We can even complete some line of sight studies to submit along with our application if you think that will help. Thank you. Ali R. Daughtry — LEED AP Robertson Loia Roof, Architects & Engineers Office (770) 674 -2600 1 Cell (770) 722 -5213 From: Margaret Maliszewski [ mailto :MMaliszewski(aalbemarle.org] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 11:46 AM To: Ali Daughtry Subject: RE: Kroger Fuel Center R334 - Rio Hill Please see answers below. Margaret M. Maliszewski, Principal Planner Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA 22902 434 - 296 -5832 x3276 From: Ali Daughtry [mailto:ADaughtry rlrpc.com] Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 12:07 PM To: Margaret Maliszewski Cc: Megan Yaniglos Subject: Kroger Fuel Center R334 - Rio Hill Margaret, I am working towards submitting this Kroger Fuel Center for the ARB review by the January 23rd deadline. Can you please confirm that the attached application is the one I need to use for this submittal? If so, I have few questions about the application: The attached application is the correct one to use for Entrance Corridor review. - In Part B — Review Type & Fee, I recall that you said that we'd be checking the "structures located behind a structure that fronts the EC ". Is this correct? Are there any other review types that we need to check and /or any fees required? Yes, that is the correct box. We'll start there. If I find anything out of the ordinary during the review that would require ARB review, we'll deal with alternate submittals and fees at that time. At the bottom of this section, it says that for signs we must use a combined application. We'll want the ARB to review the signage we are proposing on the canopy (logos & fuel pricing that I showed you a few weeks ago). For now, do include the sign information with the ARB application and include the proposed signs on the drawings. Will you please send me this combined application and also let me know if we need to use it in addition to or instead of the one I've attached? http: / /www.albemarle.org /upload /images /forms center /departments /Community Development /forms /sign forms an d info /Application and Checklist for Signs 01 05 2011.pdf This is a link to the combined sign application form. You will need to submit it when you want to obtain your sign permit. I recommend starting with the ARB application then following up later with the sign application and building permit application. A couple questions /statements in general: - I'm not sure yet if we'll propose a separate monument sign along Woodbrook as Stewart suggested. I'm still awaiting Kroger's decision. Co7C1 - In the meeting a couple weeks ago we talked about the signs on the canopy and whether or not they could be illuminated. I recall that we specifically spoke about the fuel logo and that it couldn't be illuminated if it could be seen from Hwy. 29. Was this because of the multiple colors in the logo or does the "no illumination" requirement apply to all of the signs on the canopy ( "Kroger" lettering and fuel pricing) that can be seen from Hwy. 29? I've attached a sample rendering for your reference. I would not approve the logo due to the number of colors and the appearance of an illuminated white background. I could approve illuminated Kroger letters, depending on the shade of red. Thank you for your help! Ali R. Daughtry — LEED AP Robertson Loia Roof, Architects & Engineers 3460 Preston Ridge Road I Suite 275 1 Alpharetta, GA 30005 Office (770) 674 -2600 1 Fax (678) 319 -0745 1 Cell (770) 722 -5213