The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutARB201500114 Review Comments 2016-06-06APPLICATION REVIEW HISTORY ARB #/Name_ARB 2015-114, Shell Signs ACTION DATE NOTES County received application 09-08-2015 Corresponding submittal deadline/ARB meeting date 09-08-2015 deadline 10-19-2015 meeting Transfer from intake to ARB Staff 09-09-2015 First ARB staff review 09-09-2015 09-22-2015 Completeness check Checklist check Comments to applicant 09-25-2015 12-31-15 Email Email with amended comments Resubmittal received by staff 10-02-2015 01-06-16 Email from applicant that she will revise Revised drawings received Resubmittal reviewed by staff 02-03-16 Were all comments addressed? No Comments to applicant 02-03-16 Email – with a request that applicant call to review over the phone. Resubmittal received by staff 04-25-16 Resubmittal reviewed by staff 05-31-16 Were all comments addressed? Yes Comments to applicant Resubmittal received Resubmittal reviewed Approval letter sent Applicant Survey Included? 06-06-16 Email/mail ARB meeting date ARB action Short Review Comments Report for: ARB201500114 SubApplication Type: Shell - Signs SIGN Date Completed:10/02/2015 Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:Email from applicant indicating they will revise application in reponse to comments provided. Division: Date Completed:12/31/2015 Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:12/31/2015 Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:12/21/2015 Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments:12-21-2015 ARB Meeting ARB-2015-114 and ARB-2015-115: Shell Signs The ARB viewed the proposed signs for the Shell stations, considered the shade and extent of the red color that was proposed, and directed staff as follows: 1. Red 485 is acceptable as used in these signs. 2. Backgrounds of the panels in these signs shall be opaque. 3. The color of the framing elements in these freestanding signs shall be revised from white to gray. 4. There appear to be several more colors in the freestanding sign panels than would typically be approved. For example, note the red background, green background, two shades of yellow, and multiple colors in the Kroger card. The total number of colors used shall be consistent with standard practice. 5. Generally, for signs in the Entrance Corridors, red 485 may be acceptable on a case-by-case basis as a secondary color. Division: Date Completed: Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:09/25/2015 Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:02/03/2016 Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Division: Page: 1 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On: June 08, 2016 Reviews Comments:02-03-15: Emailed comments to applicant with a request to call so we can discuss. Date Completed:06/06/2016 Reviewer:Brent Nelson ARB Review Status:Administrative Approval Reviews Comments: Division: Page: 2 of 2 County of Albemarle Printed On: June 08, 2016 Brent Nelson From: Margaret Maliszewski Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 12:40 PM To: Brent Nelson Subject: shell signs Brent, This is the ARB's action on the Shell signs: a. ARB-2015-114 and ARB-2015-115:Shell Signs The ARB viewed the proposed signs for the Shell stations, considered the shade and extent of the red color that was proposed, and directed staff as follows: 1. Red 485 is acceptable as used in these signs. 2. Backgrounds of the panels in these signs shall be opaque. 3. The color of the framing elements in these freestanding signs shall be revised from white to gray. 4. There appear to be several more colors in the freestanding sign panels than would typically be approved. For example, note the red background,green background,two shades of yellow,and multiple colors in the Kroger card.The total number of colors used shall be consistent with standard practice. 5. Generally, for signs in the Entrance Corridors, red 485 may be acceptable on a case-by-case basis as a secondary color. I won't have time to contact the applicant before the holiday, and I want to talk with you about#3 and#4 before we make contact again. Let's chat as soon after Christmas as possible. Margaret Margaret M.Maliszewski,Principal Planner Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,Charlottesville,VA 22902 434-296-5832 x3276 1 r✓ r.rii b. ARB-2015-114 and ARB-2015-115: Shell Signs The ARB viewed the proposed signs for the Shell stations, considered the shade and extent of the red color that was proposed, and directed staff as follows: 1. Red 485 is acceptable as used in these signs. 2. Backgrounds of the panels in these signs shall be opaque. 3. The color of the framing elements in these freestanding signs shall be revised from white to gray. 4. There appear to be several more colors in the freestanding sign panels than would typically be approved. For example, note the red background, green background, two shades of yellow, and multiple colors in the Kroger card. The total number of colors used shall be consistent with standard practice. 5. Generally, for signs in the Entrance Corridors, red 485 may be acceptable on a case-by-case basis as a secondary color. c. ARB-2015-67: CVS Equipment Screens The ARB considered the revised design for the rooftop equipment screens and determined that the drawings should include details with the following information: 1. Specify the metal. 2. Specify the type of paint/paint application process to ensure a good appearance long-term. 3. Add a detail(s)to further clarify the appearance of the panels. Next ARB Meeting: January 4, 2016 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:42 p.m. to the next ARB meeting on Monday, January 4, 2016 in Room 241, Second Floor, County Office Building at 1:00 p.m. ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD-PAGE 5 December 21,2015 FINAL ACTION MEMO 'kiw' Niue Brent Nelson From: Brent Nelson Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 5:26 PM To: Melissa Brent Subject: ARB 2015-114, Shells Signs, Staff Comments Attachments: Corrected drawing.pdf;ARB 15-114_Staff Comments_02-03-16.pdf Importance: High Melissa - My staff review comments on your revised drawings received January 6, 2016(Corrected Drawing, attached) are attached (ARB 14-114,Staff Comments 02-03-16).As you will note when you read them, my current comments are in BLUE color. Please call me (434-296-5832 ext. 3024)to discuss before making any revisions. Thanks, Brent Brent W. Nelson Planner Planning Services, Community Development Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Road, 22902 434-296-5832, ext. 3438 bnelson@albemarle.org From: Melissa Brent [mailto:melissa_brent@mgpermits.com] Sent:Wednesday,January 06, 2016 1:21 PM To: Brent Nelson<bnelson@albemarle.org> Subject: Re:ARB 2015-114,Shells Signs, Amended Staff Comments Importance: High Hi Brent Please find attached the corrected drawing for ARB 2015-114 site 1129 Richmond Rd. Please review and advise. I am working on the other one. Thank you Melissa Brent MG Permits LLC 410-507-0605 On 12/31/15, 2:58 PM, "Brent Nelson" <bnelson@albemarle.org>wrote: 1 Melissa - At a recent regularly scheduled meeting, my supervisor Margaret NTaliszewski spoke to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) about your above-noted sign proposals and the color issues.The ARB directed staff that the proposed limited use of Red PMS 485, as a secondary color, was allowable.They also noted that the total number of sign colors in the proposed freestanding signs appeared to exceed the limit of 3 the ARB Sign Guidelines recommend.This guideline is located on page 5 of the ARB Sign Guidelines located Here <http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms Center/Departments/Community Development/For ms/ARB Applications/Entrance Corridor Sign Guidelines.pdf> . It was noted that the existing gray color for the sign frame should be maintained. Note: revising the proposal to maintain the existing gray frame and gray tenant panel background color would help to address these issues.The red tenant panel background color for the Shell V-Power panel would be allowable. I have amended my previous staff comments accordingly and attached them to this email. Please let me know if you have any questions. Brent Brent W. Nelson Planner Planning Services, Community Development Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Road, 22902 434-296-5832, ext. 3438 bnelson@albemarle.org<mailto:bnelson@albemarle.org> 2 of A COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road,North Wing Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126 Staff review comments on drawings received January 6, 2016 are below in blue color. Melissa Brent MG Permits 5609 Wilkens Avenue Catonsville, MD 21228 Re: ARB 2015-114, Shell Signs 1129 Richmond Road Amended Staff Comments Dear Ms. Brent, My previous staff comments for the above-noted sign proposal have been amended as noted in red below. 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. Staff comment—This comment has been adequately addressed. 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.Staff comment—This comment has not been adequately addressed—height of the gas pricing text is not indicated on the drawing. Entrance Corridor signs due to its intensity, d: Sign colors:The total number of sign colors exceeds the maximum 3 recommended by ARB sign guidelines leading to an overall unbalanced, uncoordinated appearance. Revise the drawings to show the existing gray color frame and gray tenant panel background color maintained as it is on the existing sign—with the exception of the red background color for the Shell V-Power tenant panel which is allowable.Staff comment—This comment has not been addressed. 2. Regarding the canopy sign proposal: r %ow Noe a. 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. Staff comment —This comment has not been addressed. 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 434-296-5832, ext. 3438 bnelson@albemarle.org