Architectural Review Board Meeting   5/16/2022

All right, it is one o'clock.

I am calling the May 16th, 2022 meeting of the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board to order.

This meeting is being held pursuant to and in compliance with ordinance number 20-A-16, an ordinance to ensure the continuity of government during the COVID-19 disaster.

Quorum is present, Architectural Review Board member is present electronically are Frank Hancock, Taro Matsuno, and myself, Chris Henningsen.

Opportunities for the public to access and participate in the electronic meeting are posted on the Albemarle County website at the Albemarle County calendar.

The public has real-time audio-visual access to this meeting over Zoom and real-time audio access over telephone, both as provided in the Lawfully Posted Meeting Notice.

This meeting is being recorded and will be made available on the county's website.

This online meeting is a public record and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

All speakers, when it is your turn to speak, please first state your name for the record.

Everyone who is participating today, it is good practice to mute your microphone until it is your turn to speak.

Applicants who are making presentations, note that your presentation is limited to a total of 15 minutes, which you can divide among your team members.

Carolyn will let us know when the 15 minutes are up.

Do any ARB members have anything to disclose?

No, I do not.

Great.

No, sir.

All right.

Great.

So there are no consent agenda items today.

There is one regular review item today.

It will be presented by Margaret Maliszewski from the Planning Division of Community Development.

First item is ARB 2022-32 Chipotle Final Site Plan.

Margaret, you got it.

Trying to get my presentation started.

Great.

OK, this is a proposal to replace an existing vacant restaurant building in the Hollymead Town Center with a new structure to house a Chipotle restaurant.

The building is located just north of the PetSmart store, and it's south of the Target store and Target parking lot.

And it's immediately adjacent to Route 29.

The existing building at the site

I need to make one more adjustment.

Just a second.

Here we go.

The existing building at the site was approved by the ARB as part of Area B in the Hollymead Town Center.

The ARB completed a review of the initial site plan and architectural design for the Chipotle proposal at the December 6, 2021 meeting.

The action at that time was to recommend approval of the initial plan, and there was a list of comments and requests for changes or additional information

on both site and architectural issues to be submitted with the final site plan.

Those comments and the changes made to adjust them were included in the staff report, and I'll give you a summary of all that right now.

One of the architectural issues identified in the December review was that the EPIS band at the top of the wall appeared to be top-heavy, and it was recommended that it should be reduced in height or otherwise revised to reduce the scale.

In the current proposal, the height of the band has been reduced by two feet, and that eliminates that top-heavy appearance and resolves that issue.

Also noted in the December review were the accent elements that were included in the design.

And those were metal panels at the drive-through window tower and a series of metal tubes on the same wall.

In that review, we thought that the charcoal colored metal for the drive-through window tower would be compatible with other colors in the shopping center, but we asked for more information to clarify the appearance of the metal tubes.

In the current submetal,

The metal tubes are now in the same dark charcoal color as the drive-through window.

The amount of that dark color that's now proposed calls into question the appropriateness of the color, as well as the type of material.

An online search showed multiple materials and colors that have been used for drive-through window features in other Chipotle restaurants.

An alternate may be available that provides a more coordinated appearance in this particular location.

Another issue identified in December was the design of the extension of the screening wall that runs parallel to the entrance corridor street.

The existing wall has a series of windows that should be retained, although the drawing notes that the existing wall will remain

It doesn't show the windows, and we want the windows shown just to avoid any confusion.

There could be other ways to do it than to add the windows to the actual drawing, maybe better notes or an addition of a photograph with notes could resolve it, but we want to make sure that there's no confusion that those windows should be retained.

In December, we noted that the proposed landscape plan did not show the full extent of landscaping that was previously approved along the frontage.

The note has been added to the current plan to state that all that planting will remain.

We've recommended, however, that the plan be revised to show tree protection fencing along the entrance corridor to ensure protection of those plants.

And then there was one other minor landscape issue.

We recommend a second look at the planting size for the Mount Vernon English Laurel that's proposed.

Currently, the proposed planting size appears to be the mature size for the plant.

Previously, we noted several technical lighting issues that needed to be revised to meet county requirements.

There's one outstanding issue is that the finish for the light fixtures and poles has not been identified.

It still needs to be added to the luminaire schedule, and we've asked for clarification regarding the illumination of the metal tubes.

Finally, although a separate application is needed for any new signs, we noted in the staff report that the wall sign illustrated in the drawings and photographs

show a sign type that does not meet the approved comprehensive sign plan for the shopping center.

The drawings submitted for this ARB application show a sign on the elevation that isn't visible at all from Route 29, and that's what we would refer to as the west elevation.

There we go.

And that one doesn't require ARB reviewer approval.

The sign on the wall facing PetSmart may have a lesser degree of visibility, and you may want to discuss that.

but the sign facing the Target Store will be clearly visible.

Let me back up for a minute here.

Skipped over something.

Since the time that the staff report was completed, we have received sign applications for this building.

And those applications show a sign on the elevation that faces Target in addition to the sign locations that were shown in the ARV submittal.

As indicated in the December review, the sign design is not consistent with the approved comprehensive sign plan for the Hollymead Town Center.

That comprehensive sign plan calls for channel letters with red faces mounted directly to the building and the proposed design has white channel letters on a background panel with both face and halo lighting.

So we would like to have your direction on the signs today, even though they're not getting approval today.

We would like your directions that we can process the sign applications more efficiently and not have to return to the ARB in the future to resolve the issue.

So today you're taking action on the final site plan and architecture.

Our recommendation is for approval with the conditions listed in the staff report.

I can pull up a more readable list of comments

All right, great.

Thank you, Marga.

So questions for staff.

No, I don't think so.

Marga, just clarify what you're looking for from us for the sign.

I know we don't have all the materials for the comprehensive sign plan,

Sure.

The issue is that we can't, staff can't approve the sign applications as they are currently proposed because they don't, the sign types, the sign colors and the sign illumination does not match with the comprehensive sign plan for.

On the elevation that faces PetSmart,

You may want to discuss the amount of visibility there.

You can see in this, in the photo in the lower left hand corner, this aerial view.

This is the existing building and it's very close to the Petsville building.

With the proposed building, there's a wider gap there, so there would be more visibility of that sign, but the sign is on sort of the

It is.

It's at what we would call west end.

So it will have some visibility, but not as much as the one on the north elevation, which is at the east end.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Yeah, Margaret, I was just wondering if you could repeat the current requirements around the signs for the existing

Sure.

What I did was point out what the differences are.

The comprehensive sign plan calls for channel letters with red faces mounted directly to the wall.

Those channel letters would be face-lit.

What's being proposed is looks like channel letters on a background panel.

That's great.

All right.

I do not have any questions for staff.

Yeah, this is Steve McCray with Kimley-Horn.

Let's see here.

Yes, so this is Steve McCray with Kimley-Horn, joined by Ryan Perkins, also with Kimley-Horn.

I know Eugene Thompson, the lead architect with Ionic Design is also on this call.

and I can't tell from my screen, but Jason Horn might also be on this call as a developer.

We really don't have too much more to add on top of Margaret's presentation.

Thankfully hers was very nice and detailed.

We did receive y'all's summary of recommendations and we would like to go through a few of those and ask you all a few questions if you all wouldn't mind.

Sure, thank you.

Let's see here.

And no problem.

Hi, everyone.

Thanks, Margaret, again.

So, yeah, like I said, we do have Eugene on today, and I think he can help with some of these architecturally related comments.

Just quickly going through the site comments just to knock those off the list.

And sorry, I'll skip around.

I'll probably start from the bottom.

So number nine, adding the tree protection fencing to make sure that all the trees along the entrance corridor are safe from construction activities.

That's no problem.

We can do that.

It just seemed like

OK. That's totally fine on our side.

We can do that.

The lighting plans, just making sure everything is noted as bronze.

We can do that as well.

The light poles and the fixtures will notice being bronze.

So that's number six.

And I guess we'll have a discussion about the metal tube feature, but yeah, if we stick with the lighting as part of the metal tubes at the top of the globe, then we'll see if we can get that worked into the photometric plan that we provide.

Number five, just a standard note about the mechanical equipment being shielded or eliminated.

We're fine with that as always.

So those are really the only site-related comments that we're on here.

I guess we'll jump back to the top and discuss the metal tubes and the drive-through tower colors.

Well, I would agree with you that doing the darker color starts to dominate that wall.

I guess I was understanding that these tubes weren't necessarily approved, so that's when we switched to the other panels, but we could certainly go back to these and use these as a standard, if that's the desire of the board.

Steven, can you jump back to the elevations, the second tab?

Okay.

Yeah, I think from at least I understand my comments that Margaret made was that the tower material seemed like it was going to match and everything, but maybe that when we added those same kind of panels to where the tubes are going to be or change the tube colors, I guess, that became maybe a little bit too dominant.

Is that my understanding of the comment?

So we could certainly go back, but it would probably need to be more of the red since that is kind of the standard color, I would think.

And then if I was to comment on the signage, though that's not in my scope there, if I understood also the signage comments, wouldn't we have a signage probably above those tubes?

It was sounding like that the sign package that may have been submitted had some signage above the tubes per that photo of the Chipotle, that different Chipotle.

Yeah.

So if you look at that top view there, the east view, I think the comment was that that signage there is probably going to be difficult to see.

So if we use the one on the south elevation and then we move the one from the east over to the opposite, over to the west,

I did not follow that.

Oh, okay.

So signage located on the south elevation, keep that where it's located.

Just to be clear, the issue of visibility is not that

We're not trying to make your signs more visible.

You're wanting them to be.

The issue was if the ARB felt like the proposed location

Gotcha.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Well, I'll defer to the sign gods for all of that.

And just so the sign applications that came in last week, it looks like

Okay.

Okay.

So you're saying the bottom elevation here, we're calling the west here, that face is target.

That's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is the sign type

So if you put it on the south and you put it on the west, you need to comply?

Gotcha.

Well, in this drawing, if you put it on the east or west, it needs to comply.

All right, well, I guess, well, if there's any questions for the applicant, Tara, do you have any questions?

No, I don't have any questions.

Frank, any questions for the applicant?

No, I don't have any questions.

All right, thanks.

I guess, and my question would be related to the sign, and I guess it doesn't sound like the representative who would actually know about the sign specifically is here, so I might just save that for later.

So.

We'll go to if there are any members of the public who would like to comment.

All right, thank you.

So we will now go into discussion.

I had a couple of thoughts.

about this.

In general, I thank the applicant for working with staff and with the board and previous iterations of this drawing or this building.

I would say that as far as the issue of the color of the tube wall and the drive through tower goes, that it seems like there is precedent for that color to be matching.

It looked like it was pretty close to the dark

Chipotle Pepper icon as a part of the signage that would be similar to that color.

I think something of that sort probably matches more closely to the I think that there's a bit of visible something in a loading dock area in the adjacent building that there's precedent within the shopping center for some sort of element of that color.

So, you know, if color is a concern, I think that that's one way that the applicant could certainly go.

And as far as the sign goes, I do agree that it's not exactly in keeping with the comprehensive sign plan as previously approved.

But I also don't, just having a glance around at some of the other signs in that area, it does seem that there are at least red signs with different lighting methods that are

in my opinion similar to the ones that are proposed so I wouldn't necessarily find this too far from the previously approved comprehensive sign plan is sort of my first instinct.

So those are my comments and thank you also to Margaret for putting together the presentation and for setting this all up.

And thanks a lot.

Yes, thanks, Taro.

And thank you to the applicant and Margaret for your presentations.

A few thoughts.

I think given if you're thinking about this from the corridor, given the grade change, given the extensive landscaping and within that, the evergreen trees,

Then you add on the fact that you're keeping that existing screen wall and adding on to it.

I just I don't know that this has that big of an impact on the entrance corridor.

And another point, you're shrinking the building.

So I think is a good thing as far as if you're just thinking about how this building sits on the corridor.

So, you know, I think it's a nice site plan.

I think it's a nice

kind of reinvigoration of this out parcel.

So I appreciate that.

And I think it's definitely an appropriate use building on the corridor.

I agree with Taro on the signage.

I did the same thing, kind of glanced around.

I think maybe the big difference is that red panel

that the Chipotle letters kind of stand on top of or in front of.

I don't know how that all works together, but there's definitely precedent for white letters.

And then since it is a red color, it doesn't seem to be that far off from what other buildings in the development currently have.

Maybe that's just guidance, Margaret.

I'd like to see like the full package and have all the information, but it doesn't seem that far off initially.

And that's really all I have.

And I think it's a nice application.

It's very similar to what the initial site plan was.

All right.

Thanks a lot.

I actually agree with what both my colleagues said.

I think to echo Frank's point, I think the existing landscaping, the extension of that existing screen will kind of make this a very, you know,

The only way you would see this building from the corridor at least is very obliquely.

So I think that kind of takes a lot of pressure off what's being done.

I think the move to reduce the top heavy appearance of the building was great.

And I agree with what Tara said about the color.

I think there is precedent for that.

I don't really have a problem with the color.

I'd say I think actually with the tubes, what appears to be kind of like blank areas of very dark color on the elevation, I think in reality, just because of the tubes, which are kind of proud of the background, would have a lot more interest than is kind of

appears from the elevation itself.

So I don't really have any comments beyond what the staff recommendations are.

I think as far as the signage, once again, it's pretty low impact.

And I tend to agree with my colleagues that I don't see the proposed signage as a big

I need the applicant to stop sharing the screen so I can share mine.

Thank you.

So the first comment in the list is about the color of the metal tubes in the drive-through tower metal.

I noted that and I did not have a problem with the color, but considering that it says consider, I did not have a problem with that particular action.

Oh, okay.

Sorry.

And number 10 is about the signs.

And I did add what's showing up in red here.

I think in this situation, I personally am comfortable with what's proposed.

Tara and Frank are in agreement.

We could maybe take that away.

Yeah, I think so.

OK.

If we could just clarify that for this particular site that the difference in the design as compared to the approved comprehensive sign plan is because the reduced visibility.

from the entrance corridor.

Right.

Margaret, one question, if we strike this item, will we still see the application for the sign or will you see it and you'll just review it given

with this information.

If we leave in separate applications that are required for well and free standing signs, that just clarifies that they still need to come in.

We'll still review them.

Other things may change with those applications.

Well, is that correct, Eugene?

If we go back to the metal tubes versus the panel, would the metal tubes need to be eliminated?

No, it would not have to be.

Okay.

And was there also a comment about the color of the tubes?

I know, I think someone said they didn't mind.

I have written down red.

So I had suggested if the color is an issue that I think that going about it with that darker red in the Chipotle logo or something similar to the precedents we had been shown would be a good way of dealing with that.

I also don't have a super strong feeling on the color one way or the other.

Can I make a suggestion?

That was kind of what I was considering is just that it would both be compatible with the rest of the shopping center and seems to be compatible with the branding.

Do the other members have an opinion on it?

I guess my thought is if the tubes are the thing that brought up the question of the drive-through tower, that resolving the tube issue returns us to the previously approved tower color.

Yeah, I guess for me personally, that doesn't really change my thinking.

I was kind of basing my comment on what was shown in the most recent submittal.

When we say red are we is it basically the color that's in the architectural drawings package that it's the last page that says approach and it has a picture of an existing Chipotle.

To be specific on the color of red.

So based on that discussion, I added the brand red to the tubes is acceptable to number one.

Would anybody like to make a motion?

I'll move for approval of the certificate of appropriateness for ARB-2022-32 Chipotle final site plan with the comments listed in the staff report amended as follows.

Item number one, add the sentence, the brand red for the tubes is acceptable.

Item number two, amend to read, clarify on the plans that the metal tubes will not be eliminated.

And strike item number 10 completely.

Oh no, excuse me.

Mr. Hancock?

Aye.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, so we have one work session today, which will be presented by Margaret Maliszewski and Mariah Gleason.

Great.

So it's been a while since we discussed the guidelines update.

So I thought I would just give a brief overview of what's been done and where we are in the process.

So for a long time, both staff and ARB members have wanted to provide design guidelines that are specific to individual corridors to better address the different contexts and the different characters of those various streets.

And this work has been delayed for a variety of reasons, but primarily due to the difficulty of scheduling time for a full update to the design guidelines, just given

Workload and Competing Priorities.

So in 2019, we thought that we would try to break down the work into smaller pieces so that we could start making at least little bits of progress along the way.

And we started looking at historic precedents as a path towards clarifying how the guidelines or how the ARB is interpreting the guidelines.

Some of that work continued into 2020,

And then in 2021, we divided the corridors up among ARB members.

And you all started traveling the corridors to document the character and the context.

And we started with the corridors in the western part of the county.

And this is a list of the corridors that ARB members have already visited and reported back on.

So that's Route 250 West, Route 151, the western part of the interstate, Route 240, and 29 Business in the Barcast.

At first, with that work, findings were presented in PowerPoint format with maps and street views and interspersed in the presentations and the discussions about them was conversation about how information would ultimately be formatted.

And we started referring to these addenda as one-pagers.

Then we gave some very basic examples of how that information might be displayed in a single page format.

and we drafted an outline of the information that should be included in those one-pagers.

And then we transitioned to a different template for pooling that information together.

And this led to additional discussion about the format of the template and what might be needed for corridors.

As AirB members were traveling the corridors and pooling this information together, it became obvious that some of the corridors had

a lot fewer buildings than other corridors did or the corridors that are, some are more focused on landscape than on architectural detail.

And then in some cases there would be a single building or a single site that is a really good example of multiple characteristics of things that we had wanted to identify.

So we brought Mariah on board to help us with this fun pager design format.

And just a quick little background, Mariah joined the county in 2018

and she was promoted to the position of urban designer in 2021.

It has taken some time to transition Mariah into the urban design work just because of all the other important work that she does for the planning division in addition to that urban design work.

And we still have limited time, a limited portion of Mariah's time for this project, but I am happy today to have Mariah here with us to share with us this template work that she's done for those one-pagers.

And so from here, I've got Mariah's work in this PowerPoint.

Yeah, very good.

Thank you for the introduction and thank you for having me.

It's exciting to go back in here and look at what everybody's been finding along the corridors and just learn about the unique history of each of our corridors in the county.

and the attributes and ways those aspects can inform a more robust and definable character as these corridors continue to develop.

I think it's very obvious that there are some tensions between the one size fits all approach for the entrance corridors and it isn't always the appropriate solution.

So I think this work is really timely and exciting to be doing.

So yeah, just in looking at kind of a test fit and mock-up,

We thought we would start with a mock-up of a corridor layout and then a mock-up of a segment layout because I think each of you all were very thoughtful and conscious about breaking these corridors down into definable segments if they were longer corridors and just acknowledging that in a 22-mile stretch they might have different aspects to them.

The entrance corridor that we started with was the Route 250 West and the segment, the first segment being the Afton Mountain segment, which is the westernmost segment of this particular corridor.

So the first mock-up is the corridor layout.

And just to explain the elements contained here, it's a large title, just naming the entrance corridor and then a subheading underneath it that defines the

the terminating points in the intersections.

And then there's a key map at the top left.

And then from there, it goes down to the kind of the information that's contained on this would be the history.

What is its development pattern?

The general, or how, I guess, what is the history that's associated with this in particular?

64 might be, this is, it has a very different history than like another one of our, like Route 29, which has a different characteristic than, is it Critickers?

The one with Blue Mountain Brewery on it, that little segment.

So just kind of acknowledging that the general characteristics of progression, and that's for these larger corridors that kind of

go from a very urban or very rural to very urban just kind of delineating what is the general progression that one would experience as they enter into the county.

The zoning land use was also something that was brought up in a lot of the presentations.

We know these aspects might change and we don't want this aspect to date the entrance corridor, but just to give a general overview of there are some

Some legacy zonings where there are different commercial areas along the way.

So like in this particular example, that would be the Ivy corner area where there's just kind of this little village or in a Crozet where the pattern of development gets more dense and then it gets less dense.

Again, just acknowledging those things.

And then the length.

I built these out as spreads.

You're going to see them right now as pages.

That might be a talking point in terms of do we see this in a printed fashion and online as a spread or as individual pages.

Going to the next page, that last sheet would be the left side and this sheet would be the right side.

So you'd have the big map of the entire corridor highlighted and its segments named out.

And then in this, you would have a little segment map that just defines the segment name and then the description of it so that you can look from the whole corridor and see how each

each segment fits into the larger corridor.

And we're thinking that these descriptions would be a balance between descriptive and inspirational so that it kind of provides some, it has some connotation to it that is motivating in some ways.

And then going to the next slide, if you will, Margaret,

This is an example of what a segment would look like.

So it takes that title and names the segment.

It grays out the rest of it.

So you can still kind of follow what quarter each of these is tied to, but it just kind of continues the line item, again, laying out where the segment terminates, the key map, using a box to display where along that segment

or where along the corridor, excuse me, this segment exists.

The map again, highlighting where on the corridor it exists and zooming in so you can kind of see the development pattern just in the aerial, but it's not so, for this one in particular,

I don't think they're going to be the same scale because some of them are different lengths.

This one is three miles.

There might be some that are a mile.

So I don't know that we want all of those to be at the same scale, but that could be a talking point.

And then the information contained here is using that methodology, what I found in the presentations was that there was already this summarizing of

what the important takeaways were.

So I think it's important that we still continue to use that methodology and just have everybody have the same evaluation criteria.

And as we approach each of the corridors and segments, so we don't have one person that's only looking at A, B, and C, while person two is looking at X, Y, and Z, but that everybody is considering aspects A through Z.

through the cream rises to the top in terms of what is most often seen.

So we've laid this out in historic use patterns.

There are some of these corridors that have a historic categorization assigned to them, and we'll want to kind of acknowledge that.

General characteristics would be that same descriptive inspirational

comment or language so that it's, if people are just, if a applicant or developer is just navigating to the page that they need, that they don't miss that inspirational text.

And then we've divided it into structures, landscape, unifying elements that might not fit into either or, but they might be overarching.

And then the characteristics to avoid.

I think in some of the presentations, there was this question about, you know, what do we, maybe there are things that we acknowledge, but we don't want to see them continue to move forward.

In this corridor in particular, it was that many of the structures in the corridor predate the entrance corridor guidelines.

So just, it leaves room to acknowledge those things.

And then the precedent images at the bottom kind of lay out in a way that we can describe their location and then their significance to the corridor.

So in like three lines, they don't have to use all three lines, but it's there if we need it.

So this is laid out with a couple of precedent images.

So there's a square and then kind of a landscape, but then there's, if we could go to the next page,

Like Margaret was saying with this, sometimes there are many examples and sometimes there are a few examples.

This kind of precedent image would be kind of a rollover sheet that if there were a lot of precedent images, we still leave some space and some organization to having those extra images.

And this was just kind of a play with a gridded system.

Those can plug and play in any way.

It's just utilizing a grid-like layout, but we can fill it however best fits the photo and information we're trying to convey.

And if we could go to the next slide.

Acknowledging that some of these corridors don't have a lot of contributing structures for one reason or another, this was an example of where if there's only one precedent image, it gives more

More room to show that image and then describe it on the right hand side.

But then it still maintains a lot of the aspects that we did before.

And some of this is just filler text.

So that's the kind of layout we were looking at for the corridor, the segment with a lot of information and with

that might not have a lot of precedent images.

I guess I've done a lot of talking.

or does this template look good?

I guess I'll start.

Personally, I think this template's great.

Doing a couple of these presentations,

Really hard to grapple with the amount of information and the kind of variety of conditions that you see along some of these corridors and kind of a one size fits all is definitely not appropriate.

It seems like this format at least gives you a lot of flexibility to

expand where expansion is possible or warranted like to take 250 for example you know there's probably more buildings between the you know city of Charlottesville border and say you know

the 250 bypass, then there might be like in the next several miles of road.

So there's a lot of variety and I think a lot of these corridors are going to have that.

So I applaud your effort to continue trying to distill all this information into a format that is relatively consistent, but able to, you know,

expand or contract based on the character of the segment that you're talking about.

Frank or Taro have any comments?

I agree, Chris.

Mariah, Margaret, I think this is great.

I think it's really nice graphic design, very legible and thoughtful.

and Adaptable.

Just off the top of my head, I was trying to think, you asked if there was anything missing.

I wonder if there's any like, do we do like related documents?

But then I was thinking like small area plans or like Rio 29, but that might be an outlier because it's kind of, you know, not requiring ARB, but you know, anything

else you guys are working on or the county's working on that would be relevant to development on one of these corridors.

So that might be something to add.

But no, I think it's great.

I think it could be a one-sheeter, but I think you're right.

I think there's going to be times where we're going to need more than one sheet, supplement images or supplement structures.

Yeah, I think it's really terrific work.

I just would echo the comments of my fellow board members.

And I guess the one thing which seems like you've thought about it, I mean, there's a lot of thought that went into the work that you all have already produced.

I guess the one thing as somebody who would potentially use this document to either prepare a submission or

to review a submission that I think that looking at each corridor section, like for instance, the Afton Mountain segment, just ensuring that whatever information, at least my initial instinct would be that the segment, this section would be the thing that I would turn to if I were trying to prepare a submission or to review it.

So just ensuring that all of the general requirements and pieces that we would refer to would be included here.

And that the front section would be sort of for context, but not necessarily things that we'd need to be pulling from.

Yeah, that was kind of the...

That was what we were trying to accomplish by having that contextual piece and that was exactly it.

It was a larger context and that if you were a development team that you could go to a specific numbered sheet and say, oh, I see what I need to do here.

Yeah.

Seems great.

Thank you.

Great.

Amara, do you want me to jump to my next slide or did you have other questions or comments right now?

No, I'm fine.

Thank you.

Okay.

Great.

So thank you for those.

That's all very helpful.

So it sounds like the template format looks good.

I'll make sure that I get in touch with the ARB members who are not here today, make sure they look over this and see if they have any other comments to add.

But since it sounds like we have at least a majority who's good with this format, I think what we'd like to do next then

You probably noticed that a lot of the text on those sheets was not real text.

So we want to take one of the segments and really do it completely and just take that test to the end, make sure it's all working well, and then bring that back to you for review and then continue to do that with the quarters that have already been done.

And so hopefully we'll just be able to

You know, over the next few months just sort of work our way through those and get those to you.

What you're looking at here is a list of the quarters that have yet to be surveyed.

So we're also just wondering if we can get confirmation.

Are our ARB members still interested in continuing that survey work and bringing that information back so that we can transition into the templates?

We've got a few highlighted there.

Those were ones that had been assigned to Fred who is no longer on the board.

So, Taro, hopefully we can bring you in on this.

So, those are the questions really.

We've confirmed that the template looks good.

I think I saw some nods there.

Yeah, I think so.

You know, maybe we could probably reshuffle the, you know, the assignments to considering, you know, make sure everybody still has the time and, you know, willing to take on, you know, I guess it would be

Maybe, so what I would like to do is to get one template more complete for our next meeting and maybe have everyone look at that and then consider that, how the information is going into that and then we can look at this list again and sort of reassign and come from there.

That would be great, yeah.

Is it helpful for us to prepare these presentations?

And then for staff to kind of take that and put it in?

Or is that harder?

If they're like, well, he said this, but it's wrong, or I don't doesn't really deal with this.

Is there a way we work with staff maybe that's more efficient?

I don't know.

I mean, I'm happy to do these presentations.

I just don't want to like create more work where

I think Mariah, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounded like when you went back and listened to them, it was helpful because people were sort of summarizing their findings.

I don't want you to waste time putting it into a format that we're not gonna use.

I wonder if it's,

And I don't know if we could do it outside of this meeting, but is it, does it make sense for like a board member to be assigned or still have these assignments, but then you work with planner or you Margaret or, and have a meeting to share your findings as a board member and kind of get on the same page with a planner.

And then this group brings it to the overall board.

Maybe it's in like in the format done.

Yeah, well, I think you all brought up some really good questions while you were considering each of the corridors.

And I think there was an aspect of there was a lot of thinking that went into that survey of each one.

But when you're

then going to take a segment that's, in this example, 22 miles long.

You have a little bit of time to speak on it.

People naturally came up with the most relevant aspects first.

So I think there is an element of sitting with it, but maybe it does turn into more of like an interview kind of thing where we just kind of diagram it out together after

The ARB member has kind of done the research, and that way we're capturing maybe those moments that staff is like, oh, well, I saw this also when I drove it.

Did you see that?

Do you think that's important?

And there's kind of almost a group activity going on, and there's not a, well, the board member said this, but staff doesn't really agree, or staff said this, and the board member doesn't agree.

That's already being worked out in the process.

with that kind of interview collaborative aspect.

Yeah.

I think we can make that work.

I'm not trying to get out of any work.

I do like the idea that we would have a chance to check in with staff and just make sure we're on the same page.

Yeah, especially on any that I do.

Well, I've never done one of these before.

Yeah, well, and in either case, I'm happy to help out.

This sounds exciting and valuable.

That's terrific.

We're so glad to hear it.

We're very excited to be making progress.

Thanks, Mariah.

Okay.

All right.

Well, great.

So, other business.

We're down to approval of the May 2nd minutes.

All right, I will second the May 2nd.

All right, Mr. Stoner.

All right, thanks a lot.

The next ARB meeting is scheduled for June 6th and

That actually may or may not be a in-person meeting.

We will find out when the Board of Supervisors meet on the 18th, I think.

So we will keep everyone posted on that.

Taro and Frank, are you both planning on being at that one?

Yes.

Yes.

Great.

And I guess we'll find out from David and Frank also by email.

Are there any other items anyone would like to discuss?

All right.

Well, in that case, I will adjourn the meeting until Monday, June 6th.

Time is 2.08 PM.

Thank you.

Thanks a lot.

See you next time.