Architectural Review Board Meeting   8/15/2022

It's 101.

I'm calling the August 15th, 2022 meeting of the Albemarle County Architecture 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.

A quorum is present.

Architectural review board members present electronically are Frank Hancock, Dade Van Der Werf, Frank Stoner, Taro Matsuno, and myself, Chris Henningsen.

The 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 is 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.

All right, great.

All right, great.

Thank you.

All right, the consent agenda.

There is one consent agenda item today, which is ARB 2022-70 Maplewood Initial Site Plan.

Does any ARB member want to move the Maplewood application off the consent agenda for discussion?

All right, I'll take that as a no.

Would anyone like to move to approve the consent agenda?

I'll move to approve the consent agenda.

Thanks.

Can I get a second?

I'll second.

Great, thank you.

All right, thank you.

There is one regular review item today presented by Chris Taggart.

It is ARB 2022-66, Rio Point Final Site Plan.

Are you all viewing the slide show?

Yes.

Thank you.

The application you are viewing today is a proposal to construct 295 single and multifamily units and apartment buildings and detached townhomes in addition to associated site improvements.

This review represents the second review of the site plan and the preliminary review of architecture.

The site is located along John Warren Parkway near the intersection of East Ryle Road.

In the ARB's review of the rezoning in 2019, the board emphasized the need to reduce uniformity and add diversity to the design of the buildings in this development.

In March of this year, the ARB recommended approval of the initial plan with a condition related to relocating the stormwater facility north of buildings 8 and 9 out of the landscape buffer.

Based on a review of the approved application plan, the initial plan was approved with a condition that the previously mentioned stormwater facility be located so that a depth of 30 feet of landscape buffer closest to the parkway remains available for planting.

There are three different architectural designs for the apartment buildings with various elevations of building types B and D being the designs that would be visible from the entrance quarter.

The overall designs and building types B and D are contemporary in style, but feature forms and building materials that reflect those used historically within the county.

The north elevations of these building types feature front and side yable roof forms, color and material changes, and projections and recesses to help reduce uniformity and break up the mass of the building.

However, the east and west elevations feature a substantial amount of white siding, which limits the diversity in character, color and materials.

Revising elevations to extend the stone to the first and second floor and adding additional variations in color could help both add human scale and break up the elevation.

A landscape plan has been provided with this submittal.

Most of the comments made in the staff report related to landscaping refer to the landscaping of the interior of the site.

With the layout of most of the interior of the site, the available planting areas overlap with the landscape in pedestrian ways, perimeter parking areas, and softening of long building elevations.

There are 500 parking spaces with the landscape plan stating that 51 large interior trees have been provided.

However, only approximately 25 trees are interior to the parking areas, and they're not idling distributed.

Revising the landscape plan to provide trees

in the areas between the park buildings and sidewalks and along the parking area between the clubhouse and pool will help bring the tree counts closer to entrance corridor requirements and more easily distribute the trees throughout the site.

A perspective that shows the view of the intersection of the Parkway and Rile Road has been provided.

The perspective shows a wall along the northeast of Building 8 that would have some visibility, but the orientation of that wall differs from that showing the site plan.

A sidewalk is also shown in the perspective that does not appear in the site plan, and the three-story townhomes south of the travelway leading to the park are not shown in the perspective.

The design of the townhomes was not mentioned in the staff report, but the north and south elevations also feature a substantial amount of white siding.

A revised perspective that clarifies the level of visibility of the site elements as they're shown in the site plan will be needed to determine impact on the entrance corner.

Details regarding the plantings and the landscape buffer and the design of the Trail Hill Park have been provided with this plan.

The plantings and landscape buffer are a mixture of deciduous and evergreen species in a naturalistic arrangement as requested by the ARB during the review of the rezoning application.

The park located in the north corner of the site includes a turning loop, parking row, and gazebo structure, as well as a pedestrian connection landscaping, associated pedestrian connections and landscaping.

However, the amount of paving used in this area creates more of a paved parking area and not a park.

Revising the design of the park to reduce the amount of paving and providing amenities that appropriately address the insurance core are needed.

Staff offers the following points for discussion.

And staff's recommendation on the final plan is that since there are a number of revisions requested, and this is the first review architecture, we recommend the revisions listed in the staff report be reviewed by the ARB at a future meeting.

All right, Chris, thanks a lot for the presentation.

We'll move to questions from the board.

Frank Hancock, do you have any questions?

Thanks, Chris.

Very thorough staff report and review.

I did have one question regarding that came up in the staff report.

I'm trying to find it now, but there was a line about the interior trees and how the parking, the parking count wouldn't, there were no extra parking spaces.

Could you, could you just clarify what you meant by that?

Yeah.

The site requirement requires a certain amount of parking based on the number of units provided.

And they're actually below the requirements or they're requesting invariants.

I think recall the number off the top of my head, it's 528 and they're requesting 500.

So they're already under the amount of parking space they would be required based on the number of units that they're providing.

So there's no, there's likely no further room to go lower.

So with that,

I have to get creative in providing interior parking trees.

Thank you.

One quick question for Chris.

In the park area,

I'm not 100% certain on the required elements.

I don't think they would approve the application plan kind of specified specific required elements in the park.

It kind of gave a general requirement that a park area be dedicated to the county.

I think the applicant probably could better answer the question, but I think these are elements that the applicant is kind of providing for us to review.

And is the comment regarding the amount of pavement suggest that they could eliminate a bunch of pavement?

And if so, what

Gotcha.

All right, thanks, Dave.

Sure.

Thank you, Chris.

Chris, thanks for the good presentation and the diagrams.

I think one highlighted

the planting buffers.

And I had one question related to that.

That was whether the 50 foot planting buffer is overlapped with one of the stormwater facilities.

And the ARB's comment in the initial plan was to actually relocate that.

But in review after the ARB recommended approval initial plan, the wording of the approved application plan states that

Right, yeah, that has plantings in 30 feet that actually has a planting in the buffer there even within that the 50 foot

30 feet would be reserve planting and 20 feet kind of like an open, empty area back from the rest of the development.

OK, thank you.

Thanks, and thanks, Chris, for the thorough staff report and presentation.

I don't actually have any questions.

Is there a representative of the applicant here?

It's Joe Rigg with Stony Point.

Natalie and Jason with Klein Designer on.

Great.

All right.

Yeah, sorry about that.

This is Jason Locks with Klein.

We've also have Jeff with our landscape design.

Okay, neither one of them have a last name.

While we wait on him to pull up the presentation, just to answer Mr. Steiner's question,

The county per proffer, we were required to give them 12 parking spots in the Trailhead Park.

I believe in the current plan that Chris was showing, there were 14 locations per parking and we're going to reduce that down to 12 so that we can open up as much green space as possible there.

The roundabout was thought to potentially be a little bit more of a saver in the mouth because of the space that we have there for the trailhead part to make it, you know, just kind of a less of a turning radius there.

I'm sorry, I'm having an issue sharing it.

Our apologies, James.

For some reason, the way that the Zoom call came up, it didn't indicate that we needed to be a panelist to present.

I think that was the lead.

Sorry.

I think he was having an issue trying to find out how to access the panelists part.

Yes, we do.

Sure, by all means.

What we're looking at is our current building elevations.

This is building B.

C and D are fairly similar, as you can see.

Obviously, we made adjustments mostly before we received comments back from the ARB, but we have done a bit of a reduction in stone.

Mostly this is a VE item to continue to value engineer this project.

Obviously, I don't know how well everyone is informed with just where we are in the market at this time, but a lot of material costings have gone up significantly through the roof and we've had to make sure that we find additional ways of bringing value to this project so that we can continue to ink it.

This is roughly where we're at now.

With receiving your comments, I think we're gonna be open to you all's interpretation of if it's more of a media thing that you're looking for, or if we are considering more that we can do some more color variation here with our lab and board and batten siding.

to continue to break some of the media apart.

That's obviously something we're willing to consider here.

Natalie, you can jump to the next slide here when you're ready.

As an addition of what you see just off of building C with this split elevation, the water table has continued around.

You can also see we've reduced some of the metal roofing that we had as an accent above.

We'll keep it at the awning locations, but we've had to make some reductions there as well.

Noting the white space is something that was really on the east and west elevations that was called out.

Building D, again very similar to what we see on the other ones, a little bit of a stone reduction, continuation of the metal plan that was being changed out.

I heard the comment as well that it sounds like it's the east and west elevations looking specifically coming down the entry corridor that we're looking at on these elevations.

Again, some minor stone reduction here.

This is the clubhouse elevation.

Some changes in our next iteration.

We've reduced one of the chimneys, tried to make this project a little bit more symmetrical.

Overall site plan, this will be pretty close to where I feel like we're going to be.

We've done some minor reductions in space on the interior, just brought this building a little bit closer to the correct massing of what our original intent was.

We still on the east elevation, which will be the visibility of coming off East Riot Road there.

That's going to be heavily stone.

You also see that on the north elevation as well of the building.

We've also added additional stone to some of the column structures on the north elevation.

and keeping the clubhouse south elevation the entry point.

It really to today we've tried to keep this as uniform as possible.

This will be the pool elevation.

Same thing, we've made some reductions in the size of the building.

Tried to create plenty of media break.

Mostly what you're seeing if you look at the north elevation, that's a screened in area for a community space.

You also have bathrooms.

This is your mailbox structure as well.

We reduced the chimney out of this look.

You've got a fair amount of metal and media break that's here.

I know we're going to make some adjustments.

If you look at the east elevation and west elevation columns, those are going to get a little bit more increased to match more so, or at least the

In spacing with what we're looking at on the clubhouse version, for the most part, this is what we're hoping for this building to look like.

I think we're going to make some adjustments as well just to this peak gable and try and get all of the roof lines hopefully either on the same plane or at least where they mesh up a little bit better there.

Next slide.

We've got some work to do on view two.

Just to add in the trailhead part, this is a comment that we've noted that one sidewalk that was shown is something that we're going to need to make adjustments there.

We'll also make sure that the townhome building that's visible coming off of that rider road east is visible in this view as well.

This slide we're just really just calling out just some of the schematics of what we'll need to show here.

We've added in a lot of our trees with the landscape buffer.

What the visibility from the road is once the trees have started to mature, that kind of thing about what visibility you'll see coming off the entry corridor.

Just a quick update on the code required planning, what we're anticipating putting into certain locations.

We've got Earthcraft on this project as well, so we're going to have some planning that we're going to try and implement.

In and around the street parking, you can already see in a couple of just the bump outs in between the corners of the parking areas that there's tree locations installed there.

We've got to stay three feet off the building with any major planning or bushings with the earth craft.

certification that we have, but wherever space is allotted that we have the ability to put trees, we'll do that.

This is additional planning buffers.

Chris has already shown that slide.

I don't think we've had any additional changes there.

Trailhead Park, what he's calling out here are just the

The proffers that we agreed to with the county of what we were expected to see with the trailhead park, the main items that they were asking us to include are a gazebo, which will be a post and beam structure, most likely a rectangular somewhere between

Right now what we're contemplating is a 12 by 15 post and beam structure there.

We'll have to have park benches along some of our walk paths, and we also are going to include some public art.

I think our next slide shows you roughly what we're contemplating on those.

The anchor diamond pro-retaining wall will be the typical median colors, the James River.

You can see the sculpture in that right corner there by John Rubino.

We've had a few of these.

He's a local artist here in town, and he's done a couple of other projects for us in the past.

His work's beautiful.

I think it's gonna tie in nicely with other artwork that we see up and down the Greenway now.

No, Joe, that was a good summary.

All right.

Well, thanks a lot for your presentation.

We'll go to questions from board members.

Yeah, thanks.

You know, the main thing we were looking at there, Frank, was that just with some of the setbacks that we have, trying to make the road wide enough for turn radius to back out and kind of keep that around was our main thought process.

Originally, the cul-de-sac was a design feature when we had the initial plan of having our walk path in that north corner

and doing a walk paths where we're there.

I think it was mostly in the thought process that people would want to unload bikes or anything along those lines in that location.

That's great.

Thanks, Joe.

All right.

Thanks, Frank.

I had a similar question to Frank's, which was whether that was required for fire access or anything.

Certainly, if it's not required, I think it'd be great to have more green space there at the trailhead.

One question I had in terms of creating more diversity and articulation, maybe scale in the ends of the building, I noticed that the

Building type D seems to have one corner that's got a three bedroom apartment, which starts to break up the mass of the end elevation.

I mean, I think in the east and west elevations, as you develop them, they are treated the same, but there is a bigger change in plane, I think, of the three bedroom.

Is there flexibility in terms of where that three bedroom goes in building type D?

And if so, could it be used possibly with gable roof form to give some more articulation

Jason, do you want to jump in on that one?

I think at this time, I mean, the unit matrix is set for the client's program and perform of the articulation to the facade.

Gables could be investigated to break up or create more articulation to the roof planes.

Thank you.

That's helpful to understand that potential flexibility.

And then

I appreciate the presentations of the pool house and the clubhouse.

I think from this board's perspective, since we don't see those in the entrance corridor, they're of less concern.

This is Jason with Klein Design again.

So make sure I'm understanding your question correctly.

No, I think I appreciate and certainly like you, I'm aware of how volatile the construction materials market is.

It sounds like you are trying to preserve some of the nicer material like the stone for the clubhouse and the pool house, since those areas aren't

visible to the entrance corridor.

I was wondering whether there's the option to instead apply those amounts that you're still trying to keep in the project at the EC.

Understood.

OK. Joe, I'd like to leave that one to you to answer.

Yeah.

Yeah, for sure.

I think it's something that we would definitely be considering because we do have a fair amount of stone coming into the entry sequence to Rio Point.

I'd have to see from just where we can get the numbers out to on how much stone we can add.

I think, you know,

We're all looking roughly at those lower portions just to have a little bit more material break.

I think the biggest item that I'm looking at here is really to make sure that we're getting the best bang for our buck just with the amount of landscape buffer and trees that we're gonna have in some of these locations, making sure that we're utilizing that stone in all the right places.

One place I do see that aspect working out is going to probably be where those townhomes are located just because I think they're going to be more visible.

They don't have that landscape buffer that's really going to kind of

dilute what you're seeing from the building scale.

So, yeah, I think there's some wiggle room that we're looking for there.

Yeah, I think from my perspective, it's not necessarily an amount or not even necessarily that it's stone, but just that to the extent

I think in terms of the impact of the buildings on the entrance corridor, it would be helpful to have more articulation of different materials and a base, especially where they have the four-story facades.

Great.

Well, thank you.

I appreciate your answers and consideration.

Those were my questions.

I don't at this time.

All right.

Yes, just one question.

Frank, I guess you're assuming just why go lap signing instead of board and batten or a fiber cement panel there?

Yeah, just to try to understand that architectural element, the change, you know, there's very few windows on those elevations and

Sure.

The main reason you don't have a lot of windows located on these sides of the building mostly is because you have the kitchen that runs along that west elevation.

You also have

bedrooms above on the third level.

And that's the bed wall, as I call it.

I don't know if that's the correct term.

But that was the main thought process there.

The reasoning behind lapsed siding, mostly it's because it's the most cost-effective material at this time.

And you really, the only sides that you're going to see there that are really visible from that entry corridor are that the main six building that's right, six townhome building that's on that location.

If it's an entry quarter view, I think that we would be susceptible to trying to make some adjustments there.

But really, you also have some flat panel that's located in these locations.

What you see in between the windows and the flat fiber cement panel,

These are going to be color breaks that we end up putting in as well, just to kind of potentially put some character in there.

It does.

All right.

Thanks, Frank.

I have two kind of

stupid clarification type questions.

One, and this is maybe just the rendering, but there was a staff comment about the standing seam metal accent roofs, which comes off as like very yellow in the rendering.

It's going to be something more metallic by all means.

We're still working through some of the color effects there.

If we need to brush it up a little bit on the next one, I'm sure we can get something that looks a little less yellow.

To clarify there, the intention of that was more on the khaki brown range.

Certainly yellow was not in the color spectrum.

The second, and I think this seems painfully obvious, but I just want to clarify the trailhead part.

Can you talk about the intent of that?

To me, it seems like that is intended

to provide parking and access to the general public to the trail that runs along the parkway.

No, you are 100% correct there.

That is the intent of the trailhead park is to

Okay.

All right.

Thanks a lot.

All right, thank you.

The ARB will now go into discussion.

I do have some concerns about the, basically about the material.

I think that this kind of gets to the conversation we were having a couple of weeks ago about the sort of white structures, the area used for the use of white as a color and the sort of lack of

Material distinction on the ends of the buildings that would be visible for the corridor.

And then I think the other thing is just for me trying to figure out how the plantings on the interior of the site might be reworked to get closer to that number.

I did want to take a look at that drawing that was presented in order to just understand a little bit better the changes that were made.

Frank Hancock, do you have comments?

Sure.

I think Taro makes some great points.

And I think I agree with the comments in the staff report.

and I think another thing to consider too is that we were presented with a bunch of updates today and it sounds like the design is still evolving so maybe we we need another review that what we've commented on you know might not be applicable just seeing some of the changes that the applicant brought forth today a few things to think about for next time

Getting to my question, I think maybe some more focus on the side elevations of the townhomes.

I think they will have an impact on the corridor.

I know there are a few windows and maybe look at incorporating some more windows if possible.

I think that'll help break up the mass of those ends of the building and definitely help some human scale.

As Taro mentioned, I think the reduction in the white siding, that's also a comment in the staff report.

I think that's something to consider.

One thing, thinking about the landscape plan, the diagrams are great, and I think give you a sense of what this buffer could be, but moving forward, we want to see where every plant is, you know.

So go ahead and it sounds like that's in the works anyway but just you know finalize those plans I think that'll be helpful for us to see where each one of those trees is located and I appreciate Dave's comment I think there are a lot of great design elements in the pool house and the clubhouse building those buildings look great and just if we could get some of that attention some of that detail

on some of the EC-facing buildings.

I think incorporating some of those materials, some of those design moves I think would be really helpful.

So those are my thoughts.

All right.

Thanks a lot, Frank.

Sure.

Thank you, Chris.

Yeah, I agree with Frank and Taro.

I think, like Frank, it would be helpful to see another submission just incorporating the additional views of the townhomes and hopefully some further exploration of articulation of sort of the east and west winds of wing ends of the building day.

I think Frank said it nicely that, you know, looking to bring some of the same material and design articulation from the clubhouse and pool house to the larger buildings that are visible to the ECA would be great.

I think that's it for me.

Thank you for your comments.

I don't really have much to add to what other committee members have already indicated.

I am supportive of pretty much everything that's been said.

Sounds like a lot of changes are underfoot, so we'll need another opportunity to review sort of the changes and I look forward to seeing what they bring forth.

I certainly understand the cost challenges in the market today.

That said, I would agree, I think some of these entrance corridor elevations are important and it's a long-term hold, I suspect for these guys, so maybe a little additional investment over the long term won't be unbearable.

Yeah, that's about all I had to say.

All right, thanks a lot, Frank.

I also agree with what was said by my colleagues.

I guess I would add that as far as the park, my feeling is that the real amenity is the trail along the parkway and

I, and this may be counter to what everybody else thinks, I would like to see more parking there and not less if there was a choice or same amount of paving, but maybe more given to parking, less for the turnaround, just because it seems that the purpose of that area is really to allow people to have a place to park and access the,

the great blocking trail that's along the parkway.

And as long as that area had a good appearance from the entrance corridor, I think, you know, functionally it would serve the community better to have more access than the necessarily to have a little park area there, even though, you know, that would be nice for residents and members of the general public.

Also, yeah, regarding the color, we've had a lot of discussions lately on other jobs about the use of white, and it seems like these buildings do have white as the primary color.

So that was one of the staff comments to tone that down, but even,

if it was reversed where a lot of these buildings have areas of gray and areas of white, if that was kind of flipped so that white became not the primary color, I think that would kind of satisfy the requirement as well.

So those are my only comments.

I'm also looking forward to seeing how this evolves next time.

All right, do any board members have any adjustments that

Just one quick question.

Yes.

Sorry, there was a mistake there.

I can take a moment to pick up the right comments, or if you want to take a moment, I can do that.

More familiar?

I ask one point of clarification, where if you can back up, scroll up

Provide perspective from the parkway without landscaping and the future building.

Would you like to clarify?

So I've changed it to say provide perspectives from the parkway with and without landscaping and with and without the future building.

Yep.

Sure, yeah.

On those perspectives, are the perspectives that we've provided, obviously somewhat limited to the Google Earth perspectives that we've shown, are the perspectives appropriate?

Yeah.

It could be that maybe that adds to number two.

Yes.

The only other one I had was just to make sure that

I think maybe item 16, maybe we can incorporate a couple of things that Chris mentioned.

I've added more parking and less turnaround pavement would be appropriate.

Yeah, that works for me.

Actually, because this is really preliminary comments on the architectural design, it would just be a list of comments forwarded to the applicant.

All right, well, in that case, if there is no motion and no vote,

We'll move on to our work session.

There is one work session today.

It is on the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines Addendum.

Are you able to see the slide?

Great, okay.

OK, so this sheet includes both segments, the segment that's east of the Ivy Depot or the central Ivy segment and the segment that's west of that central segment.

I'll just point out at the beginning, there is an error on this sheet.

The captions for these two historic structures have been flipped so we need to switch those back to make those correct.

Mariah has given us two layout options.

So this is Ivy East and Ivy West again.

So we'd like to get your input on what your preference would be.

These are those two side by side

So what you get in this layout is the map that shows the boundaries of the segments, but you have smaller photos.

Here you get the larger photos.

Okay.

And just for reference, we have the Ivy Depot segment that you looked at last week.

This is a new segment this week.

This is the Rhinehart Rose segment.

It's the section from around Boar's Head to just east of White Gables.

Know that we need to add a sentence here under the first bullet under the historic notes.

I think maybe this is also the first time you've seen the historic notes section added.

in on these shoots.

In revising the text back and forth on this segment, we realized that we had inadvertently left out the specific explanation of why we went with the Reinhardt Road name, so we need to add that text back in.

You all may be familiar with it.

And this has a different format for the captioning.

We also put the university segments in.

We did fill in the captions at our last meeting.

There were a few that didn't have the captions filled in, so we've got those in now.

Just a quick look at our schedule.

Here we are today with the last segments of 250 West.

Hopefully at our next meeting, we'll have I-64 West and Route 240 for you.

What we've got here in the blue box is the assignments that board members are working on.

Thanks, Taro and Dade.

I've got your surveys in.

That's great.

And we'll be looking for the rest of those.

So we'll be starting to put

meetings together to meet with each of you to go over your findings and then Mariah and I will be working to get those into the format that we've been working with.

All right.

I guess we'll just run through.

Looks very good to me, Margaret.

I think in terms of the choice, I do like having the bigger pictures available.

I think if we wanted to be able to key them to locations, it might be possible to add small numbers or letters along the segment and then give that same designator to the picture.

All right, thanks, Dave.

Like Dave, I like the bigger pictures, but I also like the map.

So it's kind of a tough call.

It'd be great if there was some way maybe to incorporate a smaller version of the map kind of above the photos.

I agree.

I think we definitely need the maps.

Could we add two more pictures and have it be a two pager?

Love the maps.

All right, thanks, Frank.

Yeah, I think it's helpful to have the maps.

And I guess the only other alternative, I think you have plenty of suggestions for how this could be fixed, or just some of these comments could be addressed.

But I guess the only other option I could imagine is a three-column layout, where you have the map, and then you have the images, and then you have the views or something like that.

I think it's important to have the maps and however you can manage to make it work.

All right, thanks a lot.

Am I crazy or did the Reinhardt, the next slide, did that have the map and pictures?

Yeah, I definitely think the map is very helpful and I like the large pictures too.

And I really like Dade's suggestion that if you could key the photos to the map just with a little numbering or letter or system, not to pile on more work, but

Moving on to Reinhardt Road.

I guess if there's a way typographically to distinguish the precedent images header from the text that gives sort of what each segment of photos is trying to show, that may be helpful.

I don't know if you do it, and I don't know if this happens in other parts,

Not to make it less consistent, but I do think you could do like, you could even just do like a line or something underneath the text that spans the distance of the, like an underline or something just to kind of associate the images with that text.

Something like that could be helpful because I had a little trouble understanding until it was explained.

Okay.

That's good.

Yeah, I think these are great.

One other possible suggestion, maybe on the map,

Highlighting the area that we're examining.

In a couple cases, I had a hard time determining where on the map I was or where the images were coming from.

So yeah, I don't know whether maybe an orange or just something that makes it clear that where the beginning

An endpoint.

And I know the black dots are there.

OK. OK. Not essential, but I think that when we spoke with Mariah about that before, to change that would be very time consuming.

Anyone else?

That's everything for today.

Thanks a lot.

So we'll move on to other business.

Approval of the August 1st minutes.

Would anybody like to make a motion?

All right, I'll second that.

Mr. Hancock.

Alright, thanks a lot.

The next ARB meeting is scheduled for September 6, 2022 and

We believe that we will be going back to in-person meetings in September.

The Board of Supervisors meets on Wednesday and they'll be addressing that topic, so we'll know for certain at that time, but we're pretty sure that's what's going to happen.

So the ARB will be going back to meeting in 241.

September 6th is the Tuesday.

It's the day after the Labor Day holiday.

There were a few dates in the coming year where the room was already scheduled for other meetings.

Tuesday the 6th is one of those where it's not available at 1 o'clock.

So we would be meeting beginning at 2.30 if that will work for everyone.

We do not have any regular review items for that day.

All board members will need to be in person.

It's possible that some attendees can attend virtually, but all board members need to be in person.

And the 2.30 time is just specific to the next meeting.

Okay.

That's right.

And there's one date maybe like in November where it's earlier in the day.

Again, if this time doesn't work for you all for September 6th, again, we don't have any regular review items so we could not have a meeting on that day, but I do think it would be good to

Margaret, I will be out of town.

Same here.

Okay, great.

So it sounds like we'll have a quorum.

We'll check again as we get closer.

Thanks a lot.

So are there any other items anyone would like to discuss?

If not, this meeting is adjourned until our next meeting on September 6.