Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201000039 Review Comments 2010-06-07pF AL& s7 lin IRGINP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 June 7, 2010 Mr. M. Mills RK &K Engineers 801 East Main Street, Suite 1000 Richmond, Virginia 23219 RE: SDP - 2010 - Holiday Inn Express- Preliminary Site Plan Mr. M. Mills: The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Planning (E911) Albemarle County Division of Zoning Inspections Albemarle County Division of Planning (Architectural Review Board) Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue Albemarle County Service Authority Virginia Department of Transportation Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not he considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could affect approval of the proposed project. Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and one (1) 11" x 17" copy to the Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by June 21 2010. Failure to submit this information by this date will result in suspension of the review schedule. Review will resume when revisions are submitted along with a reinstatement fee of $65. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Megan Yaniglos Senior Planner Zoning & Current Development oF ALA., Matec; County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Mr. M. Mills (mmills @rkkengineers.com) From: Megan Yaniglos- Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date:June 7, 2010 Subject: SDP -200 -039- Holiday Inn Express- Preliminary Site Plan The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] 1. 32.5.6 (a)] The tax map and parcel number is incorrect. Revise to be the correct tax map and parcel number of 78 -9D. 2. 32.5.6 (p); 32.7.9] For the final plan, the landscaping does not meet the screening requirements for the parking and the dumpster. Also, street trees will be required along Town and Country Drive and Olympia Drive. Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3004 for further information. 1 OF ALB TAO 111 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner From: John P. Diez, Engineering Review Division: Current Development Date:May 25, 2010 Subject: SDP201000039 Holiday Inn Express - Preliminary Site Plan The preliminary site plan for Holiday Inn Express, submitted on May 4, 2010, has been reviewed. Current Development Engineering has the following comments: Preliminary Site Plan Comments 1. It is difficult to read the direction of flow for the proposed pipes. Please revise. 2. Please show the existing curb by the east entrance and show how the proposed curb will tie into it. 3. Please provide a Simple Method Spreadsheet calculating the required removal rate of the proposed site. Please refer to the previously approved plans, WPO200600075 & WPO200700078. The biofilter proposed on the previous WPO applications has a 50% removal rate. If the post - development removal rate exceeds the 50 %, additional water quality may be required on site. Final Site Plan Comments (For information purposes only) 1. VDOT approval must be obtained prior to final site plan approval. pF ALp 8 fErep-oh: Tr; RGIN COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176 May 7, 2010 Neil Bhatt NBJ Architecture 11537 -B Nuckols Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23059 RE: ARB: 2009 - 56: Holiday Inn Express TMP 07800- 00- 00 -009D0 Dear Mr. Bhatt; I have reviewed your recent submittal for the above - referenced project consisting of: Site Plan Sheets: Sheet 1 of 6: General Notes & Details, latest revision date 8/18/09 Sheet 2 of 6: Overall Layout Plan, latest revision date 8/18/09 Sheet 3 of 6: Layout Plan, latest revision date 8/18/09 Sheet 4 of 6: Utility Plan, latest revision date 8/18/09 Sheet 5 of 6: Grading & Drainage Plan, latest revision date 8/18/09 Sheet 6 of 6: Conceptual Landscape Plan, latest revision date 8/18/09 Sheet 1: Photometric Plan, date 6/11/09 Sheet 2: Lighting Cutsheets, date 6/11/09 Architectural Sheets: Sheet A -100: Cover Sheet, no date Sheet A-401: First Floor Plan, latest revision date 6/1/09 Sheet A -402: Typical Floor Plan, latest revision date 6/1/09 Sheet A-403: Roof Plan, latest revision date 6/1/09 Sheet A -501: Building Elevations, latest revision date 8/10/09 Sheet A -502: Building Section, date 2/17/09 Sheet A -510: Site Section, latest revision date 6/1/09 Sheet A -515: Details, latest revision date 8/10/09 Outstanding issues that will need to be further addressed are shown in italics after the original comment from the Action Letter of August 18, 2009. Original Comment: Revise the Material /Color Key on Sheet A -501 Building Elevations to include the manufacturer and product ID for the window glazing and provide a sample of the glazing. Revise the drawing to indicate the color of the proposed HVAC wall and window grates; a medium bronze color for the window grates would be appropriate. Revise the Material /Color Key to indicate the same bronze color for the window frames. Revise the drawing to indicate the wall HVAC units are to be painted to match the brick wall in which they are located and remove the note Materials to be as listed or similar. Revise Sheet 2 of 6 ARB Overall Layout Plan to note the name of the brick proposed for the enclosures around the ground- mounted equipment, and to include the height of the enclosure and the maximum height of the units within. Issue: A sample of the proposed window glazing was not included with this submission. Drawings in this submission do not indicate the name of the brick proposed for the enclosures around the ground - mounted equipment, and they do not indicate the height of the enclosure and the maximum height of the units within. Recommendations: Provide a sample of the window glazing. Revise Sheet 2 of 6 ARB Overall Layout Plan to note the name of the brick proposed for the enclosures around the ground - mounted equipment, and to include the height of the enclosure and the maximum height of the units within. Original Comment: Revise Sheet 6 of 6 Landscape Plan by reducing the spacing of the Shamrock Hollies, at the head of parking spaces facing Town and Country Drive, to 4'. Revise the spacing of the Otto Luyken Laurels, shown near the head of spaces facing the vehicular access easement with the Guadalajara restaurant, to 6'. Issue: This comment was not addressed in this latest resubmission. Recommendations: Revise Sheet 6 of 6 Landscape Plan by reducing the spacing of the Shamrock Hollies, at the head ofparking spaces facing Town and Country Drive, to 4'. Revise the spacing of the Otto Luyken Laurels, shown near the head of spaces facing the vehicular access easement with the Guadalajara restaurant, to 6'. Original Comment: Revise Sheet 1 of 1 Photometric Plan to include the color and finish of all light poles; a bronze matte finish would be appropriate. Revise the note Fixture used should be bronze matt finish to read All proposed fixtures shall be a bronze matt finish. Provide a revised photometric plan with print that is readable. Issue: The Photometric Plan in this latest submission was not revised to include the color and finish of all light poles. The lighting cutsheets included in this latest submission are not legible. Recommendations: Revise the Photometric Plan to include the color and finish of all light poles; a bronze matte finish would he appropriate. In the next submission provide lighting cutsheets that are legible. Original Comment: Revise the wall signage proposal by: o Reducing the height, from the ground to the top of the sign/logo box, to 30' maximum. Should the applicant apply for a variance for the sign height, the ARB recommends that the height illustrated in the color elevations submitted for the August 17 ARB meeting would be appropriate for the EC. o Reducing the width of the signage in the south (front) elevation so as not to overcrowd the space. o Reposition the sign /logo box so the top or bottom aligns with the top or bottom of the adjacent window. o Remove the vertical detailing from the large wall on the right and left elevations and keep the medallions and single line on the smaller wall of the same elevations from the drawings submitted August 17, 2009. o Provide a channel letter detail, showing the method of construction and light source (bulb type), clearly showing that no light will spill outward from the top, bottom, sides or back. Indicate the trim cap and return color; bronze would be appropriate. o Provide a logo box detail, including the method of construction and illumination, demonstrating the use of a non - illuminated background, or an opaque (zero light transmission) background, with only the text (H) illuminating. Provide a sample of the green color proposed for the logo box. Issue: In this latest resubmission: The width of the signage in the south (front) elevation was not reduced so as not to overcrowd the space. The sign /logo box was not repositioned so the top or bottom aligns with the top or bottom of the adjacent window. A channel letter detail was not provided, showing the method of construction and light source (bulb type), clearly showing that no light will spill outward from the top, bottom, sides or back, indicating the trine cap and return color; bronze would he appropriate. A logo box detail was not provided, including the method of construction and illumination, demonstrating the use of a non- illurninated background, or an opaque (zero light transmission) background, with only the text (H) illuminating. A sample of the green color proposed for the logo box was not provided. Recommendations: Revise the wall signage proposal by: o Reducing the width of the signage in the south (front) elevation so as not to overcrowd the space. o Reposition the sign /logo box so the top or bottom aligns with the top or bottom of the adjacent window. o Provide a channel letter detail, showing the method of construction and light source (bulb type), clearly showing that rro light will spill outward from the top, bottom, sides or back. Indicate the trim cap and return color; bronze would be appropriate. o Provide a logo box detail, including the method of construction and illumination, demonstrating the use of a non- illuminated background, or an opaque (zero light transmission) background, with only the text (H) illuminating. Provide a sample of the green color proposed for the logo box. Please provide: 1. Two full sets of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB revision dates on each drawing and an ARB approval signature panel. 2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval. 3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. When staffs review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Brent Nelson Landscape Planner cc: ARB File COMMONWEALTH of VlRQINi A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 GREGORY A. WHIRLEY ACTING COMMISSIONER June 8, 2010 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments June 10 2010 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the May 20 2010 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP - 2010 -00039 Holiday Inn Express - Preliminary (Megan Yaniglos) 1. ITE trip generation should be based on the rates instead of equations for this site. This site will generate less than 1000 VPD according to ITE Trip Generation. 2. The sidewalk needs to be moved outside of the proposed right of way entirely and should be placed a foot behind the proposed right of way for Olympia Dr. 3. Sight easements need to be shown on the property at the intersections to Olympia Dr. and Town and Country Lane where the sight lines are outside of the proposed right of way. SDP - 2010 -00043 Riverfront Townhomes — Preliminary (Summer Frederick) 1. The section of road along the frontage of the property has to be constructed to be consistent with the adjacent parcels. An e.p. to e.p. of 48 feet is required for South Pantops Drive. 2. Use CG -6 instead of CG -2 3. Road and Drainage plans will be required with the final site plan. Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me prior to sharing these comments with the applicants. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434 -293 -0011 WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING HA __ LB ilkwire 1 '!liGIh1P County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Mr. M. Mills (mmills @rkkengineers.com) From: Megan Yaniglos- Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date:June 7, 201(1 Subject: SDP - 200 -039- Holiday Inn Express- Preliminary Site Plan The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] 15th 0 [32.5.6 (a)] The tax map and parcel number is incorrect. Revise to be the correct tax map and parcel number of 78 -9D. C ` 1 -11"'' C2 32.5.6 (p); 32.7.9] For the final plan, the landscaping does not meet the screening requirements for the parking and the dumpster. Also, street trees will be required along IA l : i''I'Own and Country Drive and Olympia Drive. Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3004 for further information. A .& r COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 June 7, 2010 Mr. M. Mills RK&K Engineers 801 East Main Street. Suite 1000 Richmond, Virginia 23219 RE: SDP - 2010 - 039 - Holiday Inn Express Preliminary Site Plan Mr. M. Mills: The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Planning (E911) Albemarle County Division of Zoning Inspections Albemarle County Division of Planning (Architectural Review Board) Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue Albemarle County Service Authority Virginia Department of Transportation Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could affect approval of the proposed project. Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and one (1) 11" x 17" copy to the Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by June 21 2010. Failure to submit this information by this date will result in suspension of the review schedule. Review will resume when revisions are submitted along with a reinstatement fee of $65. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Megan Yaniglos Senior Planner Zoning & Current Development Service Auth‘rity TO: Megan Yaniglos FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer DATE: May 28, 2010 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: Holiday Inn Express - Preliminary SDP201000039 TM 78 -9 The below checked items apply to this site. J 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service 2. An 8 inch water line is located on site. 3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is Gpm + at 20 psi residual. J 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located on site. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. J 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future easements. 7.and plans are currently under review. 8.and plans have been received and approved. J 9. No plans are required. 10. Final water plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. 11. Final site plan may /may not be signed. 12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections. 13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer. J Comments: Backflow prevention is required The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows: meter locations water line size waterline locations sewer line size sewer line locations expected wastewater flows easements expected water demands 168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698 www.serviceauthoriy.org Y , YN. f M•.7 COMMONWEALT H of V IRQINI A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 GREGORY A. WHIRLEY ACTING COMMISSIONER June 8, 2010 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments June 10 2010 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the May 20 2010 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP - 2010 -00039 Holiday Inn Express - Preliminary (Megan Yaniglos) ITE trip generation should be based on the rates instead of equations for this site. This site will I generate less than 1000 VPD according to J1'L Trip Generation.2 t) The sidewalk needs to be moved outside of the proposed right of way entirely and should be placed a foot behind the proposed right of way for Olympia Dr. l' t '` 3.) Sight easements need to be shown on the property at the intersections to Olympia Dr. and Town and Country Lane where the sight lines are outside of the proposed right of way. SDP -2010 -00043 Riverfront Townhomes — Preliminary (Summer Frederick) 1. The section of road along the frontage of the property has to be constructed to be consistent with the adjacent parcels. An e.p. to e.p. of 48 feet is required for South Pantops Drive. 2. Use CG -6 instead of CG -2 3. Road and Drainage plans will be required with the final site plan. Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me prior to sharing these comments with the applicants. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434 -293 -0011 WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING r AL IkCI County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Mr. M. Mills (mmills @rkkengineers.com) From: Megan Yaniglos- Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date:Tune 7, 2010 Subject: SDP -200 -039- Holiday Inn Express- Preliminary Site Plan The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approve the plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] I lc J-L> g. 32.5.6 (a)] The tax map and parcel number is incorrect. Revise to be the correct tax map and parcel number of 78 -9D. i , t , , , - 2.) [32.5.6 (p); 32.7.9] For the final plan, the landscaping does not meet the screening requirements for the parking and the dumpster. Also, street trees will be required along r 1 , r „. la l Town and Country Drive and Olympia Drive. Please contact Megan Yaniglos at the Department of Community Development 296 -5832 ext. 3004 for further information. 1 8 Mira ItiGIN COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4176 May 7, 2010 Neil Bhatt NBJ Architecture 1 1537-B Nuckols Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23059 RE: ARB: 2009 -56: Holiday Inn Express TMP 07800- 00- 00 -009D0 Dear Mr. Bhatt; I have reviewed your recent submittal for the above - referenced project consisting of: Site Plan Sheets: Sheet 1 of 6: General Notes & Details, latest revision date 8/18/09 Sheet 2 of 6: Overall Layout Plan, latest revision date 8/18/09 Sheet 3 of 6: Layout Plan, latest revision date 8/18/09 Sheet 4 of 6: Utility Plan, latest revision date 8/18/09 Sheet 5 of 6: Grading & Drainage Plan, latest revision date 8/18/09 Sheet 6 of 6: Conceptual Landscape Plan, latest revision date 8/18/09 Sheet 1: Photometric Plan, date 6/11/09 Sheet 2: Lighting Cutsheets, date 6/11/09 Architectural Sheets: Sheet A -100: Cover Sheet, no date Sheet A -401: First Floor Plan, latest revision date 6/1/09 Sheet A-402: Typical Floor Plan, latest revision date 6/1/09 Sheet A-403: Roof Plan, latest revision date 6/1/09 Sheet A -501: Building Elevations, latest revision date 8 /10/09 Sheet A -502: Building Section, date 2/17/09 Sheet A -510: Site Section, latest revision date 6/1/09 Sheet A -515: Details, latest revision date 8/10/09 Outstanding issues that will need to be further addressed are shown in italics after the original comment from the Action Letter of August 18, 2009. Original Comment: Revise the Material /Color Key on Sheet A -501 Building Elevations to include the manufacturer and product ID for the window glazing and provide a sample of the glazing. Revise the drawing to indicate the color of the proposed HVAC wall and window grates; a medium bronze color for the window grates would be appropriate. Revise the Material /Color Key to indicate the same bronze color for the window frames. Revise the drawing to indicate the wall HVAC units are to be painted to match the brick wall in which they are located and remove the note Materials to be as listed or similar. Revise Sheet 2 of 6 ARB Overall Layout Plan to note the name of the brick proposed for the enclosures around the ground- mounted equipment, and to include the height of the enclosure and the maximum height of the units within. r1 tl —I- 'ssuc: I ` A sample of the proposed window glazing was not included with this submission. Drawings in this submission do not indicate the name of the brick proposed for the enclosures around the ground- mounted equipment, and At, , , t' r% / they do not indicate the height of the enclosure and the maximum height of the units within. Recommendations: Provide a sample of the window glazing. Revise Sheet 2 o f 6 ARB Overall Layout Plan to note the name° of the ji F` ri Y brick proposed for the enclosures around the ground - mounted equipment, and to include the height of the enclosure and the maximum height of the units within. Original Comment: Revise Sheet 6 of 6 Landscape Plan by reducing the spacing of the Shamrock Hollies, at the head of parking 1) ;spaces facing Town and Country Drive, to 4'. Revise the spacing of the Otto Luyken Laurels, shown near thet head of spaces facing the vehicular access easement with the Guadalajara restaurant, to 6'. Issue: p4c11 t4:_ This comment was not addressed in this latest resubmission. r '''' Recommendations: i Revise Sheet 6 of 6 Landscape Plan by reducing the spacing of the Shamrock Hollies, at the head of parking u t- Y c spaces facing Town and Country Drive, to 4'. Revise the spacing of the Otto Luyken Laurels, shown near the 1 head of spaces, facing the vehicular access easement with the Guadalajara restaurant, to 6'. Original Comment: Revise Sheet 1 of 1 Photometric Plan to include the color and finish of all light poles; a bronze matte finish vt / would be appropriate. Revise the note Fixture used should be bronze matt finish to read All proposed fixtures 4 `` shall be a bronze matt finish. Provide a revised photometric plan with print that is readable. s Issuc: t The Photometric Plan in this latest submission was not revised to include the color and, finish of all light poles. The lighting cutsheets included in this latest submission are not legible. 1 .Recommendations: t, c Revise the Photometric Plan to include the color and finish of all light poles; a bronze matte finish would beappropriate. In the next submission provide lighting cutsheets that are legible. Original Comment: Revise the wall signage proposal by: o Reducing the height, from the ground to the top of the sign /logo box, to 30' maximum. Should the applicant apply for a variance for the sign height, the ARB recommends that the height illustrated in the color elevations submitted for the August 17 ARB meeting would be appropriate for the EC. o Reducing the width of the signage in the south (front) elevation so as not to overcrowd the space. o Reposition the sign /logo box so the top or bottom aligns with the top or bottom of the adjacent window. o Remove the vertical detailing from the large wall on the right and left elevations and keep the medallions and single line on the smaller wall of the same elevations from the drawings submitted August 17, 2009. o Provide a channel letter detail, showing the method of construction and light source (bulb type), clearly showing that no light will spill outward from the top, bottom, sides or back. Indicate the trim cap and return color; bronze would be appropriate. o Provide a logo box detail, including the method of construction and illumination, demonstrating the use of a non - illuminated background, or an opaque ( zero light transmission) background, with only the text (H) illuminating. Provide a sample of the green color proposed for the logo box. Issue: In this latest resubmission: The width of the signage in the south (front) elevation was not reduced so as not to overcrowd the space. 1 The sign /logo box was not repositioned so the top or bottom aligns with the top or bottom of the adjacent window. l `A channel letter detail was not provided, showing the method of construction and light source (bulb N i rype), clearly showing that no light will spill outward from the top, bottom, sides or back, indicating the trim cap and return color; bronze would be appropriate. A logo hox detail was not provided, including the method of construction and illumination,k demonstrating the use of a non - illuminated background, or an opaque (zero light transmission) background, with only the text (H) illminating. A sample of the green color proposed for the logo box was not provided. Recommendations: y Revise the wall signage proposal by: o Reducing the width of the signage in the south (front) elevation so as not to overcrowd the space. o Reposition the sign /logo box so the top or bottom aligns with the top or bottom of the adjacent window. o Provide a channel letter detail, showing the method of construction and light source (bulb type), clearly showing that no light will spill outward from the top, bottom, sides or back. Indicate the trim cap and return color; bronze would be appropriate. o Provide a logo hox detail, including the method of construction and illumination, demonstrating the use of a non - illuminated background, or an opaque (zero light transmission) background, with only the text (H) illuminating. Provide a sample of the green color proposed for the logo box. Please provide: 1. Two full sets of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated ARB revision dates on each drawing and an ARB approval signature panel. 2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting the changes in the drawing with "clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval. 3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. When staffs review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Brent Nelson Landscape Planner cc: ARB File eA IIII , l County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To:Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner From: John P. Diez, Engineering Review Division: Current Development Date:May 25, 2010 Subject: SDP201000039 Holiday Inn Express - Preliminary Site Plan The preliminary site plan for Holiday Inn Express, submitted on May 4, 2010. has been reviewed. Current Development Engineering has the following comments: Preliminary Site Plan Comments x---01 It is difficult to read the direction of flow for the proposed pipes. Please revise. e.Please show the existing curb by the east entrance and show how the proposed curb will tie into it. Please provide a Simple Method Spreadsheet calculating the required removal rate of the proposed site. Please refer to the previously approved plans, WPO200600075 K WPO200700078. The I biofilter proposed on the previous WPO applications has a 50% removal rate. If the post - t'F1t I ;_ tdevelopment removal rate exceeds the 50 %, additional water quality may be required on site. Final Site Plan Comments (For information purposes only) 1. VDOT approval must be obtained prior to final site plan approval.