HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201500115 Review Comments Miscellaneous Submittal 2015-09-25Brent Nelson
From: Brent Nelson
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 2:41 PM
To: 'melissa_brent@mgpermits.com'
Subject: ARB 2015-115, Shell Signs, 2212 Ivy Road, Staff Comments
Dear Ms. Brent,
I have reviewed the above -noted sign application. The following revisions are requested to make the proposal consistent
with the Entrance Corridor Sign Guidelines.
1. Regarding the freestanding sign proposal:
a. Sign illumination: ARB sign guidelines require that internally illuminated signs have opaque backgrounds.
Notes on the drawing indicate the use of an opaque background; however, the nighttime view on Sheet
2 of 3 shows a panel with a red illuminated background. Revise the drawing to show the red panel
background as black, non -illuminated in the nighttime view on Sheet 2 of 3.
b. Gas pricing LED: The gas pricing letters are not shown in either the daytime or nighttime views on Sheet
2 of 3. Revise Sheet 2 of 3 to show the LED pricing with the color of the LED (green, red etc.) and the height
of the pricing text indicated.
c. Sign color: Red PMS 485 is a shade of red the ARB has determined to be inappropriate for Entrance
Corridor signs due to its intensity.
Red PMS 187 has been determined to be an acceptable substitute. Revise the Color Profile on Sheet 2 of
3 by replacing Red PMS 485 with Red PMS 187.
2. Regarding the canopy sign proposal:
a. Sign Height: Sheet 3 of 3 shows the sign cabinet extending beyond the canopy edge creating an
overcrowded and awkward appearance. Revise the drawing by reducing the sign size so that it does not
extend beyond the canopy edge. Include both the sign cabinet dimensions and height (bottom to top)of
the canopy edge.
b. LED note: Sheet 3 of 3 indicates the sign is to be internally illuminated LED but does not include the
required note limiting the intensity of that illumination. Revise the drawing to include the following note:
The level of illumination provided by the LED lights will not exceed the illumination produced by a single
stroke of 30 milliamp (ma) neon.
c. Sign color: Red PMS 485 is a shade of red the ARB has determined to be inappropriate for Entrance
Corridor signs due to its intensity.
Red PMS 187 has been determined to be an acceptable substitute. Revise the Color Profile on Sheet 3 of
3 by replacing Red PMS 485 with Red PMS 187.
Please respond by email within 15 days of the date of this letter indicating whether you will or will not proceed with these
revisions. Your decision to make the revisions will suspend the 60 -day review period associated with your original
submittal. If you choose to complete the revisions, please email the revised drawings to me. If you choose not to proceed
with these revisions, staff will be unable to approve your application. Failure to respond to this letter shall be presumed
to be a request to proceed to action on the application without further revisions.
If you have any questions about this action, please contact me as soon as possible. I look forward to receiving your revisions
and completing this review with an approval letter.
Sincerely,
Brent
Brent W. Nelson
Planner
Planning Services, Community Development
Albemarle County Office Building
401 McIntire Road, 22902
434-296-5832, ext. 3438
bnelson(@albemarle.ore