The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutARB201700027 Correspondence 2017-04-054/5/2017 RE ARB2017-00027 Spectrum Physical Therapy Sign -- revisions needed.htm To: Alex Leff Subject: RE: ARB2017-00027: Spectrum Physical Therapy Sign -- revisions needed From: Alex Leff [mailto:aleff@gropen.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 4:28 PM To: Heather McMahon <hmcmahon@albemarle.org> Cc: T.J. Ronayne <TRonayne@gropen.com> Subject: Re: ARB2017-00027: Spectrum Physical Therapy Sign -- revisions needed Thank you for the quick confirmation, and once again for your time. Alex Leff -*4KK PEN 1144 E. Market Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 P 434.295.1924 x104 I F 434.295.1926 aleff0erooen.com View what's new at www.aroaen.com On Apr 5, 2017, at 4:24 PM, Heather McMahon <hmcmahonnalbemarle.org> wrote Dear Mr. Leff, Thank you for your revised drawing; I believe that the concerns I had and expressed to you have been addressed with the re -scaling of the second line of text. I will be able to administratively approve this revised design and will be in touch with you again shortly. Thanks, Heather McMahon, Senior Planner Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434-296-5832 x3278 hmcmahon@albemarle.ore From: Alex Leff [mailto:aleff ftropen.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 4:20 PM To: Heather McMahon <hmcmahon(o)albemarle.ore> Cc: T.J. Ronayne <TRonavneCa)erooen.com> Subject: Re: ARB2017-00027: Spectrum Physical Therapy Sign -- revisions needed Dear Ms. McMahon, Thank you for your thorough explanation of this matter. While it is not the news I was hoping for, I am appreciative of the time and careful consideration you have given to my situation. Please find a revised set of drawings attached in which the second line is scaled to match the width of the top line. If you have any further recommendations to ensure final approval, please advise accordingly. Thank you, Alex Leff •JK"FEN 1144 E. Market Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 P 434.295.1924 x104 I F 434.295.1926 aleff@erooen.com View what's new at www.gropen.com On Apr 5, 2017, at 1:23 PM, Heather McMahon <hmcmahon&albemarle.ore> wrote: fi le:///l:/DEPT/Com m unity%20Devel opm ent/Planning%2ODivision/Design%20PIanni ng/ARB/action%201efter/2017/Signs/ARB%202017-27%2OSpectrum %2OPh... 1/5 4/5/2017 RE ARB2017-00027 Spectrum Physical Therapy Sign -- revisions needed.htm Dear Mr. Leff, Thank you for your email yesterday with the revised drawings attached; I'd like to respond to some of your comments regarding this case While I appreciate the thoroughness and attention to detail which you and the staff at Gropen have displayed in these proposed drawings and complete application — and while I sympathize with your present predicament— I am unable to administratively approve the signage for Spectrum Physical Therapy as the current drawings stand. We can, however, ask the ARB to weigh in on the issue at their April 17, 2017 meeting under "other business". My hesitation stems from language in the ARB's Sign Guidelines, specifically Section 9.d, which states "The size of a wall sign shall be coordinated with the size of the architectural element on which it is placed" and "The sign should not overcrowd [my emphasis] the architectural element, the wall, or the sign area." I believe that the present design [pictured below] does overcrowd the wall area on which it will be mounted: As I stated in my last email, the approval of a Comprehensive Sign Plan (CSP) does not equate with the approval of the individual sign designs, which is why this individual case is before my review today. In fact, as the ARB Sign Guidelines stipulate in Section 10, approval of a CSP relies upon 1) coordination of placement to create a unified appearance and 2) compatibility among signs is judged in terms of color, font, and typeface — scale and proportion are not mentioned in this language, and therefore are subject to individual review. Hypothetically, had your conceptual presentation been adopted as the final design approval, what you are presenting today would not comply. The conceptual drawing [pictured below] depicts a design in which the first line of text (i.e., "Spectrum") is larger than the second line (i.e., "Physical Therapy"); in your recent submission, your second line of text has been enlarged so that the 'ph' of "Physical" and the'py' of "Therapy" spill outside the margins set by the 's' and 'm' of "Spectrum" rather than well within it: ! ,-wa f/ _'.h" 1'Iryafll7n.FY y� ' 7EMAHT opo Furthermore, Section 10.a of the ARB's Sign Guidelines state that "the first approved sign installed in a multiple business center will establish the standard for all future signs for that center. The future review of proposals for new signs in existing multiple business centers will take into consideration the character and appearance of the existing building(s) and with existing sign(s)." I have interpreted the last part of the clause to also i ncl udeapproved future signs. I bring this up because of the recently administratively approved (by me) sign request, ARB2017-28 for Charlottesville Pediatric Dentistry [image below]. If your requested sign design for this latter business had been akin to that shown in the conceptual design (in which the second line of text is larger and its margins spill beyond the first line of text), then what you currently present for Spectrum Physical Therapy would be similar in appearance; however, the final design proposal you submitted for Charlottesville Pediatric Dentistry (which was approved) displays a secondary line of text that is smaller than the first line and with margins that align with the top text — which is dissimilar for what you are now proposing for Spectrum Physical Therapy. fi le:///I:/D EPT/Comm unity%20Developm entIPlanni ng%20D ivi si on/Design%20Planni ng/ARB/action%201etter/2017/Signs/ARB%202017-27%20Spectrum %20Ph... 2/5 r Fr c MITT FA RID IkWMS WHii[ �AEFS RID M1UAr41 ar e• K S' •• P.uNrEV ro wl� enxx moon ac..YuuPAOH'369�l0 Fen10M1l0en y�cypp wy � Yar r. r. 0.�iri Mw As I stated in my last email, the approval of a Comprehensive Sign Plan (CSP) does not equate with the approval of the individual sign designs, which is why this individual case is before my review today. In fact, as the ARB Sign Guidelines stipulate in Section 10, approval of a CSP relies upon 1) coordination of placement to create a unified appearance and 2) compatibility among signs is judged in terms of color, font, and typeface — scale and proportion are not mentioned in this language, and therefore are subject to individual review. Hypothetically, had your conceptual presentation been adopted as the final design approval, what you are presenting today would not comply. The conceptual drawing [pictured below] depicts a design in which the first line of text (i.e., "Spectrum") is larger than the second line (i.e., "Physical Therapy"); in your recent submission, your second line of text has been enlarged so that the 'ph' of "Physical" and the'py' of "Therapy" spill outside the margins set by the 's' and 'm' of "Spectrum" rather than well within it: ! ,-wa f/ _'.h" 1'Iryafll7n.FY y� ' 7EMAHT opo Furthermore, Section 10.a of the ARB's Sign Guidelines state that "the first approved sign installed in a multiple business center will establish the standard for all future signs for that center. The future review of proposals for new signs in existing multiple business centers will take into consideration the character and appearance of the existing building(s) and with existing sign(s)." I have interpreted the last part of the clause to also i ncl udeapproved future signs. I bring this up because of the recently administratively approved (by me) sign request, ARB2017-28 for Charlottesville Pediatric Dentistry [image below]. If your requested sign design for this latter business had been akin to that shown in the conceptual design (in which the second line of text is larger and its margins spill beyond the first line of text), then what you currently present for Spectrum Physical Therapy would be similar in appearance; however, the final design proposal you submitted for Charlottesville Pediatric Dentistry (which was approved) displays a secondary line of text that is smaller than the first line and with margins that align with the top text — which is dissimilar for what you are now proposing for Spectrum Physical Therapy. fi le:///I:/D EPT/Comm unity%20Developm entIPlanni ng%20D ivi si on/Design%20Planni ng/ARB/action%201etter/2017/Signs/ARB%202017-27%20Spectrum %20Ph... 2/5 4/5/2017 RE ARB2017-00027 Spectrum Physical Therapy Sign -- revisions needed.htm j� NCK Ei mat Nf wa _ TRM&14EW OMOR VMI ON TIKES `til RYs i'. t7 hs PAINTED RETLOW4 (fte 3OLCI law I r? ltw J FRONT UTCHANNEL LErlEN5 S' X S' R&MWAY PNkiEo J WNRE FACES RETURNS TO MArCm DWA COLOR UM M 'C A1RRON' 2073-10 i WKrEO RETURNS iPHS 30 1C � YRu i ! a 1 4 f In short, you have two different designs here, and one needs to be the dominate choice so that the signs are uniform in appearance. I suggest changing the second line of text on Spectrum Physical Therapy so that it falls within the margins established by the top line of text. This will be my recommendation to the Board as well. If you have further questions, please feel free to call or write me. Thanks, Heather McMahon, Senior Planner Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434-296-5832 x3278 hmcmahonPalbemarle.org From: Alex Leff [mailto:aleff(@erooen.coml Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 4:23 PM To: Heather McMahon <hmcmahon(@albemarle.org> Cc: T.J. Ronayne <TRonayne gropen.com> Subject: Re: ARB2017-00027: Spectrum Physical Therapy Sign -- revisions needed Dear Ms. McMahon, Thank you for this update, and my apologies for the missing attachment. Please find it below As you have pointed out, the distinction between the Comprehensive Plan and the final sign permits is now very clear to me! I will certainly manage all future projects accordingly. In this particular case, I did order both illuminated signs and they have shipped from our vendor. This was, of course, motivated by my intention to meet our clients' timeframe for installation, but I now understand how the review process works and that a `parallel' approach was ill-advised. The replacement costs for new lettering would certainly be significant, but of primary concern to us is protecting the long-term relationships at stake with our clients. My hope is to move forward with this specific installation as planned, with the guarantee that I — and our design team as a whole — will not make this mistake again. Thank you once again for your message, and I look forward to your final determination. Best regards, Alex Leff -*A( )PEN 1144 E. Market Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 P 434.295.1924 x104 I F 434.295.1926 aleffCWerooen.com View what's new at www.aroven.com fi I e:///I:/D EPT/Com m unity%20Devel opm ent/Planni ng%20Division/Design%20PIanni ng/ARB/action%201etter/2017/Signs/ARB%202017-27%20Spectrum %20Ph... 315 4/5/2017 RE ARB2017-00027 Spectrum Physical Therapy Sign -- revisions needed.htm On Apr 4, 2017, at 3:47 PM, Heather McMahon <hmcmahon@albemarle.org> wrote: Dear Mr. Leff, I am in receipt of your email and am writing to inform you that I have discussed your concerns with Margaret Maliszewski; we are in the process of further analyzing this particular sign application (for the Spectrum Physical Therapy sign) as it meets the ARB's standards and criteria as set forth in the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Sign Guidelines(http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms center/departments/Community Development/forms/sign forms and info/Entrance Corridor Sign C ). Please note that the approval of a Comprehensive Sign Plan is not the same as an approval of individual sign designs. I will be sending you further comments tomorrow, but in the interim, I would like to note that your previous email did not include an attachment of a revised drawing for the Spectrum Physical Therapy sign. Also, you mention that any revisions could be "potentially costly;" can you clarify whether the sign has already been ordered/produced? Thank you, Heather McMahon, Senior Planner Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434-296-5832 x3278 hmcmahonCa)albemarle.org From: Alex Leff [mailto:aleff(@gronen.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 11:43 AM To: Heather McMahon <hmcmahonCZDalbemarle.org> Cc: T.J. Ronayne <TRonavne(lgrooen.com> Subject: Re: ARB2017-00027: Spectrum Physical Therapy Sign -- revisions needed Dear Ms. McMahon, I have carefully reviewed your letter regarding Spectrum Physical Therapy's sign at Timberwood Commons. Gropen is committed to compliance with all ARB Guidelines and values our ongoing collaboration with the Department of Community Development. For this project, my coworker Jennifer Jackson and I spearheaded the effort to meet all regulatory requirements and ensure a successful outcome. In January, we met in person with Stewart Wright with the expressed goal of vetting the Timberwood Commons designs prior to submitting final paperwork. Rebecca Ragsdale and Margaret Maliszewski also helped us successfully incorporate client - requested design changes late in the process. We have been proactive in our role as permit applicants whenever possible, always seeking to anticipate and avoid costly missteps and ultimately best serve our clients' needs. A Timberwood Commons Comprehensive Sign Plan was reviewed and approved last year for the Building Management Company prior to construction of the new buildings. Gropen provided a design layout for this Plan; the original design for Charlottesville Pediatric Dentistry on Page 1 appeared like this: as � rqY FIY,�1o+ Stl'1'•M' t�tlf CU.BCN 41 34 R CHARLQTTESVILLE Pcdiatne DenfiStry -� r F- ,•� r•nT -77; . m 1:.. F -F rf G x D MUI PI11ifL fO FNid1 6Nt wale SkYw yrs M J0.ww Baa fi I e:///I:/D EPT/Com m unity%20Devel opm ent/Planning%2ODivision/Design%20PIanni ng/ARB/action%201etter/2017/Signs/ARB%202017-27%2OSpectrum %2OPh... 4/5 4/5/2017 RE ARB2017-00027 Spectrum Physical Therapy Sign -- revisions needed.htm The scale and proportion of this approved design for Charlottesville Pediatric Dentistry was the basis for Spectrum's decision to update their logo with a more prominent, legible second line. In making this adjustment, we believed we were acting within an approved set of design parameters because of the ARB's approval of the Comprehensive Sign Plan as shown, and the fact that the building frontage for Spectrum's space easily afforded the increased signage area needed to enlarge `Physical Therapy'. Also, despite the enlargement, the second line letter height remained two inches smaller than the top line — 20" as opposed to 22". We feel that the sign's appearance complies with the required considerations for scale and proportion, unoccupied wall space, architectural harmony, and consistency across multiple businesses as described in the Guidelines. After a year of planning and development, any changes would be quite damaging to our client relationships — and potentially very costly. I have attached a revised plan that includes the LED illumination statement. For all reasons mentioned above, I would like to request your approval of the current submittal as shown. My sincerest thanks for your time and consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss this matter in more detail. With best regards, Alex Leff 4*1MVEN 1144 E. Market Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 P 434.295.1924 x104 I F 434.295.1926 aleff(@Rrooen.com View what's new at www.aroaen.com On Mar 31, 2017, at 2:02 PM, Heather McMahon <hmcmahonna albemarle.org> wrote Hello Mr. Leff, I am writing to you in reference to the Application and Checklist for Sign Permit for the Spectrum Physical Therapy sign proposed for 1622 Timberwood Boulevard in Charlottesville, which you submitted to our office on Wednesday, March 29. After reviewing the proposed signage for compliance with ARB standards and criteria, I have found that there are two concerns that need to be addressed. For more details, please see the letter attached to this email, which has been posted today. You have 15 business days (i.e., until April 21, 2017) to submit the additional and corrected documents and supporting materials so that your application for a permit can move forward. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me at this email address or at my telephone number below. Thanks, Heather McMahon, Senior Planner Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434-296-5832 x3278 hmcmahon(a)albemarle.ore <ARB2017-00027 Staff comments 3-31-17.doc> fi I e:///l:/D EPT/Comm unity%20Devel opm ent/Planni ng%20DivisionlDesign%20Planni ng/ARB/action%201etter/2017/Signs/ARBa/x202017-27%20Spectrum %20Ph... 5/5