Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I know I just yeah, I'm so nervous.

I'm nervous. I'm excited and nervous.

Talk so green means microphone.

Yes. And so just quickly. We have had from our first meetings. you can hear fine in the room but unless you're speaking into that microphone our recordings aren't picking up the sound so you need to be within three or four inches of the mic when you're speaking and that goes for those public as well and so we'll turn every thing on if i can figure that out and then uh be sure that it's green on the on yours when you're speaking

So your comment there, Jeff, was regardless of whether the microphone is green to speak or red to speak within that.

Yes, right up to it if you can.

Oh, is it time? Thank you, Jim. Okay, so someone will turn it on and I'll actually see it. Okay, right now it's just like an iPhone.

I didn't get a lesson in that.

Nobody talks along with me. All right.

Good evening. Welcome.

Let's get used to that. Hello. Thank you for being here, everyone. Welcome to this Planning Commission meeting Thursday, August 27th. I'd like to call the meeting to order. May I have a motion to approve our agenda for this evening? So moved.

Second.

Lots of seconds. Any further discussion? Tessa, will you call the roll, please? Will you call the roll, please?

Commissioner Orloff?

Yes.

Commissioner Risley? Yes. Commissioner Moritz? Yes. Commissioner Pierce-Mooshin? Yes. Commissioner Sinclair?

Yes.

Commissioner Waite?

Yes.

Chair Newton?

Yes. Our agenda is approved. I heard a little feedback coming there. Any idea how that comes about? Oh, is that right? Okay, so hearing aids too close to the microphone will cause feedback? Okay, well, now we know. That would be a battery discussion, you would think, no?

We'll ask Rusty, technically.

Let's move to the minutes from our July 23rd, 2026 meeting. Are there any amendments to the minutes? If there are no amendments to the minutes, may I have a motion to approve the minutes? I move to approve the minutes as they are. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Any further discussion? Tessa, will you call the roll, please?

Commissioner Moritz? Yes. Commissioner Sinclair?

Yes.

Commissioner Waite? Yes. Commissioner Orloff?

Yes.

Commissioner Risley?

Yes.

Commissioner Pierce-Mooshin? Yes. Chair Newton?

Yes.

Let's move to our public comment section. If you have public comment that you believe is pertinent to the Planning Commission, you are welcome at this time to come forward. We do ask that you limit your comment to three minutes or less. Is there anyone in the audience this evening that has public comment for the Planning Commission? Anyone online? No, okay. We'll move on to our first item, V2601, Jamie Riggie for a parking variance. V2601, Jamie Riggie of Hamlet Construction on behalf of Grace Dinsdale requests a parking variance in relation to the proposed addition of a non-conforming existing structure. The applicant's property is located at 4572 Logan Lane, Tax Slot 0902, Map 41006CB, and variance request is for the adjacent property at Tax Slot 1900, Map 41996CB, in a residential RL zone. The application will be reviewed against the criteria of the Cannon Beach Municipal Code, Section 17.90, Variances. Does anyone object to the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to hear this matter at this time? Does any Commission member believe he or she has a conflict of conflict of interest or personal bias? Has any Commission member had any ex parte contacts or had a site visit?

Site visits. Site visits.

Site visits. May we have the staff report, please?

Yes, good evening. This application is for an off-street parking variance to allow for off-site parking in conjunction with an alteration to a non-conforming residential structure. The Planning Commission has reviewed and approved this alteration to the dwelling, with the condition of approval being that the applicant obtain a variance for off-site parking. Moving into the criteria for 1790.070, Off-Street Parking and Loading Facilities, The staff comment is that the proposed location of the off-site parking area is directly across Logan Lane from the dwelling unit on an undeveloped property at the intersection of Logan Lane and Maher Street. It is zoned residential moderate density R1. The dwelling at 4572 Logan Lane does not conform to the minimum setbacks of the RL zone and has insufficient space for on-site parking. The undeveloped property has a frontage along Mayhurst Street of approximately 69 feet and has been used for storage of various items belonging to the property owner. The owner has provided a recorded easement granting access to the property for the purpose of offsite parking for 4572 Logan Lane. No impacts to traffic flow along Mayhurst Street are anticipated as a result of this proposal. Although no traffic impact study is required or has been conducted, For the site the proposed parking use is off street residential parking for the adjacent property would likely not generate any additional use under municipal code 1790-070A1 as the property currently allows for the permitted residential use and impacts no wetland areas on the local wetland inventory. The easement should assure that the residential parking will be confined to tax lot 1900 under Municipal Code 1790-07082 and shall not impede the free flow of traffic on Logan Lane. There is no evidence in the record that such a variance would create a safety hazard or inconsistency with code or comprehensive plan under Municipal Code 1790.070.A.3. As stated in 1790.070.B, parking variances are not held to the same hardship standards as other forms of variance under the Cannon Beach Municipal Code. And that concludes the staff report.

Thank you. Is there any additional correspondence? No. Okay. Let's move to public testimony. The pertinent criteria to be considered are noted in the staff reports and listed on the criteria sheets on the meeting page of the city's website. Testimony arguments and evidence must be directed toward those criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or municipal code, which the person's testifying believe apply to the decision. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal based on that issue. Prior to the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional testimony, arguments, or evidence regarding the application. The Planning Commission shall grant such requests by continuing the public hearing or leaving the record open for additional written testimony, arguments, or evidence. Persons who testify shall first receive recognition from the chair, state their full name and mailing address, and if appearing in a representative capacity, identify whom they represent. Is there a presentation by the applicant? If you want, you're welcome to come on up.

If you're the... Oh.

You made it in time. If you'd like to make a presentation, welcome to come forward.

The various, everything that I uploaded, you guys have, is my question.

Yes, yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes, I will.

First off, Jeff, can I just jump in? Let's do it official style here. Why don't you come on up to the podium here, and we'll make it official. If you'll just give us your name and mailing address, and then we can start our conversation here with you. Touch the red button there to turn it green. No, on your speaker.

The red button on the speaker.

Did it go green? Oh, yes, it did. We can see it did.

Okay.

You got it.

I didn't know if I needed to bring anything.

Sorry, this will seem so silly, but bear with us. Just need your name, mailing address, and then... Jamie Ridge.

Mailing address is 2964 Highway 101 North, Seaside, Oregon, 97138.

Perfect. Okay. Go ahead.

Sorry. I rushed over, so I'm a little panicked. I understand. I don't know if what I sent you had the county stamp on it or not. It's what the lawyers submitted to the county. This is actually stamped by the county and all completely official. So I wasn't sure about that, and I didn't know if you guys wanted this paperwork, if you hadn't received it already.

I think you can see on the screen, it looks like to me it was stamped there.

What I submitted before, I know that was notarized. It was signed, but I didn't know if the county stamp was on it yet. I think we're good.

And you can submit that to us, Mr. Reed, right over here afterwards.

OK. I just wasn't sure. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. I think this was all that was required from the last meeting we have. So I don't really have more to propose on it. If you guys have any questions on it, I can answer. Question?

I do have one question. What is the surface intended for those parking spaces?

The surface?

Yes.

It will probably just be graveled. Great. Okay. Yeah. There's not going to be any asphalt or anything like that on it. Thank you. Yeah.

Go ahead. On this page, It doesn't have Grace's name spelled correctly.

She didn't spell it right or the lawyer didn't spell it right?

The typed, when she wrote it, I'm sure it was perfect. But it's Kinsdale on the page. It says Kinsdale. It's A3, yeah.

I went out there to change that typo. Good. But it was recorded and the address was recorded, but I'll let them both know. I know they tried to get it done in a timely manner. Other questions?

Okay, thank you.

Can I be a devil's advocate to him?

A devil's advocate in terms of questions for him?

Well, I have a situation I'm curious about.

Okay.

Okay, so you have an easement that's been granted. At some point, they might cancel the easement. At that point, the house would not have a legal parking area. Do you have any options at that point, or what happens?

Well, I don't know. The city would have to... let the homeowner know that if she ever tried to sell it as two different pieces, it wouldn't have legitimate parking. I mean, it doesn't really, it's an older house. I don't think it's ever had parking. The garage could certainly have never fit a car like many houses we see around here that have tiny garages. It's got off-street parking. You know, you can park in front of it. And I think them Her relations, I think her aunt was our client 30 years ago. And even then it was off street parking. I don't ever know.

So she owns both parcels. She owns both. Even though they're in different names, so to speak. Both are in her name. Okay.

The easement property is in her name and the house is in her name.

I thought it said something else. I think it does name an LLC.

Logan LLC.

It's an LLC, yeah.

But she's the sole member. She's the only owner.

Okay. I guess that helps.

Well, you have a concern. There was an opportunity to address it. We can discuss it further.

And I made it clear to her that that issue, they both kind of have to be the same property if you want to have a legitimate place And that's her intention. Like she had always intended for that to be parking. I think someday she wants to put a real garage on that property that has the two parking spots to be able to put her cars in something someday for the house. Like she doesn't intend to build a house or anything on that other lot. In the future, she's talked to me about building a two car garage on that lot for covered parking for the house. Before you guys even talked about this, that was her plan.

Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

Other questions for the applicant?

Okay. Thank you. We'll go through proponents and opponents, and you'll have a final opportunity to respond before we close the record.

Do I press this button?

Yes, please.

You can just leave it on there.

Okay. We'll move on. Are there presentations by proponents? Are there no one online, Jeff? No. Okay. Are there presentations by opponents? How are we doing online? Anybody online? No. Okay. Staff response to anything we heard?

Staff recommends approval is submitted.

Thank you. This is your opportunity to say anything that's come to mind between the time you step from the podium to where you're sitting. Any last thoughts before we close the record? We're going to move to our deliberation once we move, once we close the record.

Me too. That's all.

Thank you. Okay. We'll close the record and move to our deliberation. Who would like to start?

I'd just like to clarify one thing. Robert, you could probably help me. All of the submittals indicate that this is not a wetland lot of record. I believe that's the correct way to state it. But in our GIS, the entirety of the parcel that we're talking about putting the parking on is colored as if it is. And there is a document attached to that.

I wanted this prop. Yeah. Thank you. So this property is identified as a stream corridor in the local wetland inventory. It's not categorized as a wetland. And so as it's not a proper wetland, the provisions of the wetland overlay code don't apply to it. It is rather under the stream overlay. Okay. Yeah, there was a update to the local wetland inventory imagery on the GIS that shows both wetlands and streams with that green coloring, which I think creates some confusion and is something we should work on correcting in the future. But no, it is not an actual wetland site.

Okay. And that's a satisfactory answer. I just... looking at the document and the way it was colored in you know and there is some discussion about existing uh disposal of yard debris had been uh noted in that section um adjacent residents have dumped yard debris blah blah blah i just wanted to make sure we weren't missing something but that's fine

So I think the follow up to that would be that even if it's a stream corridor, there is a 10 foot buffer zone. And I don't know that we have any indication here of where that buffer zone would lie on the property relative to the proposed parking.

Is that map to scale?

Yes, that is. And you can see from that that that is up at the top of that hill. Those two those two parking spaces are all approximately at least 40, 30 or 40 feet up that grade from any stream. Yeah. I mean, if you drive out to that side, that stream is well off of that street there.

Thanks.

Other questions, concerns?

Well, the GIS has shown about 80 feet, so well out of the boundary.

Robin, do you want to come back to your concern?

Oh, yeah. I guess I am concerned that if for any reason Mrs. Dinsdale wanted to sell her property, she would cancel the easement and sell the property, which would create a situation where the house would not have adequate parking. And I guess my concern is, would that work? Or would that, I mean, what would be the ramifications of it?

Maybe a requirement for a variance at that time?

To have off-street parking?

I mean, on-street parking, to have no parking is what it would essentially be.

or on-street parking in front of the home.

Wouldn't that be a disclosure issue, though? I mean, if you have a property that has an easement on it or a variance on the neighboring property, and you don't tell your buyer that you've taken away an easement that granted a variance.

The one she'd be talking to.

Well, no, but if she sold that lot, if she tried to sell that lot and didn't tell her buyer, that there was a variance at one time in place then i would think she would have one, either to have disclosed that, or two, she would have to reduce her price to offset for the risk that someone would take in another body looking at that and going... Well, and the title company would find it for sure. Yeah. I do think there is a little bit of exposure to someone getting cute down the road, but I also think there could be a pretty nasty lawsuit if someone got cute with... with the value of that property being diminished. I mean, it does diminish the value of the property somewhat.

It does.

If you try to sell it as if it doesn't diminish the value of the property, then I think you're probably setting yourself up as an owner for trouble down the road. So, I mean, maybe you get away with it, but chances are, well, there's a decent chance you get caught, I would think.

But can she revoke that easement before she sells? Because she owns the property.

Yes, well.

So if she does, it's no longer encumbered, correct?

It would not be encumbered by the easement, but it would be encumbered by the action. Okay. That allowed it to be put, allowed that variance on her property or whomever owned it at that, potentially whoever owned it at that time.

Is a variance recorded on the title? So would a title search indicate that there had been a variance granted for that parking?

I have a situation right now in Gearhart where I have a house that has an easement by the neighbor and that is, we're aware of it through title.

The easement, yes, but if she removes that easement, I'm not sure that variant, maybe Jeff, you could answer this. I don't know that there's any property record indicating there's been a variance granted.

I don't believe that's recorded usually at the county. You know, there's nothing left.

So that means that she could remove that easement and there would be no record?

Well, there would still be a record of the variance in the city's files. And so any subsequent land use applications would still have to address that fact. The variance wouldn't disappear from our records. It just isn't recorded on the title.

Like if, you know, for instance, if somebody, if she were to sell that other property, you know, well, we're going to have records in our history by location of that property having two parking spots in an easement. And we would require that they have two additional if it's a single family over that other one. So.

I'm just wondering about the legality of what what your enforcement.

system would be for that i'm not saying i wouldn't say that in this case we could go forward but i think counselor risley raises a really good question i think it's i appreciate it then if for whatever reason the easement went away and those two parking spots were no longer available then the house across the road is automatically not in compliance correct And I don't, I mean, I don't know how you address that.

And it doesn't appear it would ever be able to be a rental because of the requirements for parking with a rental.

I'm just thinking this through. Jeff, when you're, and Robert, when you guys look, when someone submits a building permit, you're searching by address for records on that site. And this variance will come up in that this, this evening, this process we're going through will come up in that search.

Yes.

Okay. So. The vulnerability of this decision with what we have in front of us is that down the road, the easement is revoked and someone else comes in, wants to build on that site and asks to have, needs to meet the parking requirement. So is there a way we can put language in our, in any decision tonight that would take away parking. So we have an easement to allow parking for the neighbor, but what we don't have in the decision is that this site doesn't have, it basically would need some kind of provision in the future that they have to go get parking if the easement is gone.

The only thing I could think of, which I've done in other jurisdictions, is that they have to submit a replat. And the replat then has a plat note stating that the easement is granted with this. And so that's recorded with the county, a replat. Jay, any thoughts on that?

Yeah, well, something to think about is looking at our site plan, there is room for two parking spots at the front of the house. Choice is to take out the patio. So two spots would be available regardless. So if they lose the easement, there's still the capability of having the required parking by cover.

We could tie it back that way.

that parking is returned to the site.

Would it be within the setbacks?

Parking can be within setbacks, in the setback. Parking required is not required. The parking requirement is to be on the property, regardless of setback, as long as there's two 9 by 18 spots for a single family dwelling. And there's at least that much clearly in the site plan.

Would it be just broadly something along the lines of if the easement is ever revoked, parking must be restored?

Yeah, restored to site in question. I think that's just the way that it is.

Who wants to come up with language?

So would that be a condition that would be attached to this decision?

Yes. Mr. Sinclair, could you please...

We have had a comment that we're not hearing. We need to talk closer.

Yes. No, I'm just wondering if that condition attached to the decision is sufficiently well recorded that it would still be meaningful at some point in the future. I don't know what else you can do.

The only thing that could be done is have it added to the actual easement. language that if the easement ever is null and void or avoided due to sale, that parking is required to go back to 4572 address. But that's another hoop that they have to jump through. They've been very helpful in what we've asked them to do so far.

I would feel better about a compromise, like what you've outlined, than I would asking them to go back and redraft these. It is imperfect, but that is a way to, maybe not the perfect bridge, but a decent bridge to address a fair concern. How do people feel about that sort of thinking? Okay, now let's figure out how to word it. Stop smiling over there. Not easy. Okay. We've got a lot of attorneys up here. Yeah. And a real estate guy or two. Let's figure it out. Okay. I might turn my microphone off for a minute as I talk out loud.

Do you want me to take a stab at it and then you can... Let's riff.

Let's just riff.

Okay. So let me pull up our form here. Um, so I moved to approve V 26 dash zero one, Jamie reach application for a variance to Austria parking requirements, subject to the following condition that in the event, the easement is ever revoked. The parking will return to the original property and I need the addresses parking requirement parking requirement for two parking spaces will return to the original property.

At what address, Jeff? 4572 Logan.

Good.

I feel like that's pretty good. Do we have a second?

Second.

Any further discussion? Tessa, will you call the roll, please?

Commissioner Pierce motion. Yes. Commissioner Risley.

Yes.

Commissioner Sinclair?

Yes.

Commissioner Wade?

Yes.

Commissioner Moritz? Yes. Commissioner Orloff?

Yes.

Chair Newton?

Yes. B-2601 is approved with condition. Thank you.

You're fine.

You made it in time. Okay, we'll move to our work session. Would the design review committee like to come forward?

So if we could have the design review board come up to the... We can get cozy up here? Yeah. I think we'll need to make room for one more.

Yeah, we can share microphones and such.

Great job.

Thank you.

How do you let it? How do you let it?

um,

Okay. This is a review of Chapter 17.62, Signs and a Discussion of Signage in Cannon Beach. This is a reminder that the work sessions are an opportunity for the boards and committees to gather and discuss information pertinent to the specific topics, and it is solely at the Commission's discretion whether to allow public input on such topics. After a presentation by staff, of other relevant material and questioning, we will consider whether we would like to hear from the public at this time. Jeff, you want to go ahead with your staff report?

All right. Thank you. Well, welcome, DRB. This is my first time with you guys up there as well. So anyhow, we thought it'd be nice to have a joint work session. We'll hopefully go to the next slide All right. And this is the series of work sessions that DRB has held. We went out with postcards and notices to all the business owners twice, trying to get as many as we could to come to the meetings. We did have a good turnout probably on at least two of the meetings, I would say, a good business turnout. And then the others, you know, and to be fair, we have switched meeting rooms i think this is like our third or fourth meeting room we've we've done our meetings in over this course so uh it has been at the chamber and down at tolevon and here and uh so it does keep a moving target through this process but uh signage ordinance came up i think before i came back. Like I like to say is that I've not been at a jurisdiction where signs is not one of your top three problems, and this, you know, there were some issues, and hopefully we can at least talk about those, but I first, when we first started speaking, I tried to show them the complexities of the current signage ordinance, and that's what's over on the left, I won't bore you guys with that tonight. But if we do want to get into the complexities of the current ordinance, I'm happy to kind of go through some of that that we went through in our first two DRB work sessions. And then they recommended the signage ordinance, which is on yours, it says June 2026. There are a few things that are highlighted in there, as well as the strikethrough version, and some of that especially I want to point out business, is one that we'll talk about here in the work session, which we really didn't talk about that much with the DRB level, but it's something that's come up. And I think I'd like to get your all's feedback on that, both of you, DRB and Planning Commission. And so just to kind of walk through some of the difficulties or challenges in the current zoning language, I'll have you note that there are three different types of frontage, and we're going to quiz all of you on this at the end. So site frontage means the length of the property line parallel to and along each public right-of-way. Building frontage means an exterior building wall facing a street, parking lot, or pedestrian walkway. Business frontage means the lineal frontage of a building or portion thereof devoted to a specific business and having an entrance open to the general public. And then as you look at our current ordinance, I've highlighted the different three and how they're laid out. This is within the kind of the commercial districts. So your C1, C2 district areas. And you can see from this, it's a bit of a challenge because it starts talking about the site, then it goes a little bit into the business frontage, then it returns to the site frontage, and then Finally, in the final segment, starts talking about building frontage, only to finish again with business frontage. One of the main objectives, at least from the staff perspective and then working with the Darby, was to kind of restructure it to read a little simpler and to at least... get the frontages down to two out of three, and that was one of my main goals. And so that's what we've done. We have struck the building frontage, and we only have left the site and business frontage, as you read through these documents. And so with that, we have really just included that when faces a street, parking lot, or pedestrian walkway, under that business frontage language. And then one of the key points with the DRB's concerns, and I'm going to turn it over to them and let them give their comments on the process and then where we've gotten to after I kind of summarize what the recommendations were. But materials was, I think, one of the key things. And really, the idea of a wooden sign and it remaining a wooden sign and whether the process had gotten away from that uh or uh you know just the uh enforcement uh had gotten away from it they wanted and the definitions and the terms have gotten away from it there are certain things with materials especially wooden signs with uh The paint and etched one on the windows. And we're seeing more and more decals. We're seeing more and more kind of new technologies approach. Not even that, but, you know, a wooden sign. You know, because nowadays you can make a faux wood that looks pretty good. And I don't know if that is. But, you know, so that was one of the concerns. And it's a big concern with the DRB. And like I said to restructure it so that you have within each zoning district Then you will have it broken down into the total sign square footage per lot Then the total sign square footage per business on that property and then types of signs permitted in each of the districts and so This is for the base regulations for that same commercial district. And you'll see, so now it's broken down as per lot. The number two is going to be talking about the per business. And then it goes into each type of sign for each district. And that's laid out for each one of those. And before, you kind of had to find certain things in certain locations. And I think that this will help the flow of it. Then we've updated some of the exemptions to signs, and you'll see in A, I definitely want feedback on A, if it even reads appropriately or how we can word that better. I think we're still struggling with that one. under exemptions, but we can walk through that. Uh, the flags before you were limited, the only things that were exempt were three flags of national or state government. And then we've added a few, especially what we get probably the most are temporary type of, uh, uh, signs. And so, uh, whether it's a political sign or a temporary, uh, uh, real estate or something like that, uh, or an emergency, we've allowed for those under certain circumstances. And then we've changed pretty much the permitting process or at least put the procedures in there for getting for what you need to get a permit for and then the process. And then we totally changed the review procedures. So each of the following signs are subject to review by the design review board. New freestanding signs. replacement free sanding signs or existing free sanding sign being altered by more than 10% of signage area. Two, non-wooden signs. Three, non-etched or painted window signs. And then the next section should be B there. Each of the following signs are subject to review by the Sign Review Board Chair. Replacement signs for new or existing businesses or temporary signages requested. Emergency signs where construction or normal business activities are impacted and temporary signage is warranted or temporary banners, holiday or seasonal inflables under special event permit. And then just provided a table for each of the districts and what's required. Non-conforming signs currently says under the current language in D, signs other than permanent signs shall come into conformance within the requirements of the ordinance codified in this chapter 90 days from the effective date of such ordinances. So any permanent sign right now that's non-conforming has a time limit on that. And so I wanted to highlight that because we'll still continue to do that. One of the big issues that I would love to, DRB made some late changes trying to address windows. They put in a new term called Windows Shade as well, but we are seeing more and more I will say inventive window signage. And so I've just taken here some examples. You can see the two doors on the left. Those have these films. And then the large Canobie Fitness. I've just taken... A bunch every every business, and so you can see how the coastal yarn they have signs see that one sign that's the wind sign the lower it's not really window sign, so to speak, because it's not etched or. painted on the window, so it you know it's a sign but it's not there and then you've got the firefly one which is more of the traditional kind of signage but you know how how to. handle that, we have put in the new ordinance that a signage is limited to 25% of the window area. Because what we're worried about is, you know, we're seeing, like I showed those two doors, but others where they're taking entire windows and putting film or drapes with imagery on the background and all of that. Here's some more examples. You'll see various types. And then we're seeing there's some right there on the left of the all window signage. But you can also see there on the right there, you know, signs within the windows. And they'll often, you know, they'll put a, like a, someone wearing their gear and then it'll have their brand on, on the, apparel, and then you'll see in that bottom left one on this slide, what we, under the new ordinance, is not permitted under incidental. What was, I think, traditionally has been seen as incidental signage is just pretty much any other type of sign, like putting up pastries or cookies or whatever. Well, that's no longer permitted how the new ordinance will read. It's strictly for kind of directional, and you can see the hours of operations, credit cards, things like that. But I think any of these give you a good example of the complexity of having to try to figure out how you manage window signage in a community. And so that's all I really had. I wanted to let the DRB if they have any kind of comments or their thoughts on the process. And I don't think it's a perfect ordinance. I don't think any signage ordinance I've ever worked with, it's always changing. And I can't tell you how many different signage ordinances I've been in through an ordinance change or amendment. And so I don't expect this to solve it, but we're hoping to bring a new structure to it and start moving it towards a better, more productive. I think one of my biggest concerns with the old ordinance, and I can maybe walk it through if we hold another work session on this, is just to show you, as I did with, if you look back at the old DRB packets in March and May, or in the old... as I did the handouts with them, walking them through a business that has four businesses on site, which many of our business complexes have multiple. And so if a new business comes in, how is that handled with the total site square footage and then each one divvying up how much they get, because, you know, the current ordinance reads you get at least 20, but it doesn't say in those where, you know, the site allows more, but each, you know, can have up to 36, truly, you know, and so it's an interesting game that's often played, and we now, and that's why you'll see that new language about business that has to be registered with the Oregon State, Secretary of State, is because you know, if you look for a loophole in any signage, lots of signage ordinances I work with is they just develop a new offshoot business and even use maybe the same, I want a business with six or seven different businesses. They just use another frontage and then they can add 20 more square feet of signage just under a new name of that same similar business. Maybe you walk through a little adjoining door or it's an inside kind of entrance. So these are some of the complexities that we have with signage. And so I just wanted to point those out, what we kind of looked at, and then now turn it over to DRB if you guys have some comments.

Thank you, Jeff. Thank you. That was great. It's a pleasure to be here with you. Anita? Oh, up here?

Yes. Anyway.

You want to introduce yourself?

I have a slight problem with my, so she's my, I'll try to speak.

And then we have our dear Harvey down at the very end. Hello, Harvey. Oh, Michelle came in. Okay. Yes. Former DRV-er. Yes. And thanks to Jeff to kind of, but I don't know if you want to know how we kind of got here was precisely what Jeff's touched on was that the DRB was noticing that there were signs going up that through either the application didn't quite state what the material was going to be, or there was no follow up, but things were getting out of hand. as far as material, numbers of signs, and then as you could understand when you're dealing with building site or building frontage, site frontage, business frontage, it gets really complicated in a multi-use complex. So for me, and I've been on DRB almost four years in Cannon Beach enough that You know, the signs were almost an artistic element of a business. And so to see it go to where, you know, I've seen some, you know, pieces of old plywood that look like they got stenciled with words. And it just is such a, you know, away from what I think Cannon Beach is. was doing and so I guess the first thing is to decide what our vision is you know and what we want to see what we don't want to see and that that's sometimes easier to decide you know we definitely don't want to see you know maybe neon signs and and that sort of look so but just trying to to figure out what what the DRB can do because if if the DRB If it's going to be administratively handled, then I think it's important that the language is precise enough and understood enough that it is being approved and dealt with in the same manner, you know, that somebody new isn't going to interpret the sign language differently. So that's my goal at this point. And welcome any help or ideas that we can accomplish getting our sign ordinance cleaned up and tightened up.

This is reorganized and simplified so that people can find it better, so that it can be enforceable. One of the things that Michelle helped us so much with is she talked about once a sign was installed, she couldn't tell whether it was wood or plastic because it was already up so high that the code enforcement couldn't get to it. So that's why we've got this provision here, thanks to Michelle. DRB can ask them to bring the staff their sign so that we can inspect it before they install it. So there's a lot of things like that that were worked out so that it can be enforceable. We tried to stick with the new standard of clear and objective. So people knew, businesses knew. So we had many businesses come testify and say, we want more, we want less or, but The stick-on signs on windows, that's not us.

The things that we found too was, excuse me, Valerie, because you just reminded me of a point. Something that we found is that we have an ordinance that states that a copy of the sign ordinance should be given to every new business applicant. And we had no way to know if that was being done. And it did seem like maybe people were filling out their sign application without having read the sign ordinance. And so we wanted to make sure that that gets done because that will be really helpful for anybody. And then to add to that, it's not to be so strict that I wouldn't want somebody to feel like if they have a really cool artistic science made out of stone or wrought iron that they would bring it to the DRB, you know, under a variance and maybe make that process easier so that people aren't thinking, oh, how am I going to make my sign out of wood, but get creative. And I think that would, you know, speak more to the Cannon Beach sign, business sign.

Do you think that they can apply the planning commission for a variance because of aesthetic interest on the DRB? And we would do a recommendation to planning.

Would you go backwards and revisit all the signs before? Or are they grandfathered in?

I found that once a sign has been approved, it's pretty tough to go back and be sensitive to it. If they didn't know what the sign ordinance said and they named their sign and you spent that money and then say, you know, that, that, that, to me, that is Cannon Beach sort of missed a step there in helping them not have an extra expense to having to redo a sign.

We didn't change much of the non-conforming signs section. So they can't be enlarged to me. And so that's under 176208.

But there were some signs that were pointed out here. Are they going to get addressed or not?

Probably if they're exemptions or they're not allowed. That's a sign that's clearly not allowed. I was speaking more to somebody who said they were doing wood and painting and they're where business ends up being decals, even though one was accomplished.

So it's possible.

But some of those examples were blatant, actually.

OK. Yeah, that was it. Yeah, that's almost it.

I'm not sure.

Yeah, Anita, sorry, we need you to, just for the recording and the Zoom, we need you to speak into that. Yeah, and so I do think that that was a, you know, a big area of concern is enforcement, you know, and so we did put in the provision, like DRB mentioned, that we will have someone there when the sign is posted. You know, instead of, you know, as it's done, we have on the application that the code enforcement official will then have to go in and sign off after it's posted, but not there on site when it is posted. So that's going to be one of the new ordinance changes.

And one of the things DRB only really gets involved when it's a freestanding sign, you know, and those are typically the signs that are on the post and there's, you know, four or five businesses in a complex or if it's a different material. And we thought that maybe we should as a committee look at the sign applications just because 10 eyes are better than two eyes. But then there was some concern about whether that would delay somebody's sign in a way that would discourage them. I haven't quite figured out if that was really, you know, a huge concern that, you know, it could be worked out.

Regarding the freestanding sign, I see that you pulled R2 and R3 as a non-permittable freestanding sign. What is the decision process based on that? Because R2 and R3 are going to be our multifamily. housing. For example, Shorewood, just up the street, is an R2. It has a freestanding sign. If we're going to, we're pushing for larger housing, many door facilities, multifamily, would fall in the r2 r3 zone where they're permitted um where a freestanding sign would be a good identifier for that community is that something was that thought about it at your decision time to pull that out of the approval not not that i recall in a discussion

Yeah, I think that's a good point, Jay. We'll put that, and I'll make a note to put that in the next draft of that. That's a good point. And then also one thing we haven't touched on in the colors as well, you know, we talked about materials, but the DRB also, you know, put in a palette type of thing so that showing the You know what's not allowed and because the language for day glow or luminous it's or whatever we thought need to be clear and and so actually a correct color chart or color range in there. Also. Limitations I think another one I did we didn't really point out is the limitation to the size of the incidental sign so it's a one and a half square feet as well. The color palette's a great idea.

I think that I've read through this, and I think it's a drastic improvement from where we were before. And I commend you guys on what you've done so far. Thank you.

And like the DRB said, you know, I think that is one of the, also the big improvements is that it's not just freestanding signs. It's all permanent signs that will be coming before the DRB.

Yeah.

Yeah, I wanted to say thank you to the DRB as well. I do think this is a real improvement. I had a couple of nitpicking questions, but the biggest one that I kind of wanted to bring up was you talk about lit signs. I like it. I would like more definition around dark sky compliance. Maybe even with a definition of what that means.

It's in our criteria. We consider that. When we're looking at signs, we're asking about lighting or any complex. There's got to be a lighting plan. So that is addressed. But dark skies is definitely something that we're mindful of. Lighting.

This is the application. It's a pretty short application, but they have to have a drawing also.

You know, the idea is to be user friendly for the most part, you know, and I think it's just tasteful materials, colors. And I do want to commend our other member, Michelle, because she was really instrumental in helping us figure out materials and colors that were following our code. And so we were really able to get to where we are now with her help. And just the commitment and support of staff. And so here we are just trying to get our sign ordinance tightened up.

One thing with Les' comment, there is a section for required information for the sign permit, but that doesn't clearly indicate anything about the lighting. That could just be a single light item added to that.

I think, yeah, I think that's a great note. I'll make a note of that as well.

Jeff, you had mentioned there was some sections in here that you all were struggling with the language on. Is there a particular section you'd like to focus on with us, maybe to brainstorm?

Well, if you'll turn to that window, in the definition section, you'll see that there's a new, it's called window shade. It means a decorative definition. film or window application or physical blind blocking the sun or view from the public right-of-way pedestrian walkway or parking area. And then, as opposed to the window sign, means a sign permanently painted on or etched on the window pane of a building. And so, I think the, what we're, and how that relates is that a window's, Shade, here's your window signage under the commercial, which is on page 7. You'll see under C, all signage visible by the public, whether from the public right-of-way, pedestrian, or parking, shall not exceed 25% of the total window area. Two, shall be etched on or painted on glass. And three, non-etched. or painted window signs, window shades, or window signs where letters exceed 12 inches may seek a variance through subsection 17, 62, 70. So that's what we're saying. If it doesn't meet those strict two, then they'll need to seek a variance. to get approval.

Jeff, I actually had made a note on that one for the question. So shall not exceed 25% of the total window area. Is that on a per window basis? Or is that the sum of the windows of the business We spent about, sorry, I'm an engineer. That's all I can say.

We spent about a half an hour going on whether it was a window assembly, a window. So that's what we have right now. And so, but I do, that's one of the points. That's why I had all the slides of windows is because I felt we will need to talk further about that. It's a good point. to be determined yeah and so you know i think some drb members wanted to see it per window assembly uh you know so if it's let's just say this this right here and that's this one is a perfect confusing one where it's on a corner so is that you know do i give 25 for the whole thing uh you know and so in other words somebody could take up uh you know, really 50% of one window and put it all in one. And that's kind of what, you know, they're all window surface area or just per window, 25%. And so I think we'd have to do it that way because when we started talking about the window assembly, is that, do you mean three windows together, but you have another three over here, you know, then it gets to be, you know, it's as confusing as it is now. And so-

So are you saying, Jeff, per window?

You know, I think that's my preference. It's just it's easier to kind of manage that way.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, per window, yeah, you know.

Structure.

Yeah.

It's ambiguous glass pane. Yeah. Yeah, not each little pane. Right. Yeah. So the whole of the window, not the little section.

I can see somebody partitioning.

If there's a loophole, let me tell you, people will find it. Yeah.

We think it would make it less busy if we didn't divide it that way.

On line 257, when it's 58, are you talking about a house?

Are you saying 258 there?

Yeah, 258. Are you talking about a house? Okay.

Yeah, non-commercial. Yeah, yeah, exactly.

You have to read that along with... There's a little prediction here. 121, see that on page four? It says, any of the above provided prohibited signs located within a building where that sign is visible from the public driveway, pedestrian walkway, or parking area. And that's prohibited. And then you have this section that says it's an exemption. And I think what we mean to say is that we don't care if it's visible from a house, but I'm not sure that's true. we not care if something's in a residential area and it's visible from outside but it's not lighted?

That is confusing to me. We'll begin with residences are exempt from DRB oversight in any event. But through the process we were working through trying to create a dark sky lighting code that never came to fruition, we went through a lot of that stuff and I forget exactly what chapter and section that the residential criteria is, but it clearly wouldn't allow a neon sign to be visible from a residence.

And yet that didn't get passed, right? Is that what you're saying?

We got to a point, my understanding is it may still

be brought forward i think one of the counselors has agreed to sponsor that yeah but i haven't been asked to be involved so i don't know exactly what's going on with it but so if i understand the way that this reads currently you would not be allowed to have a lighted sign or a neon sign or any of the other prohibited signs in a residential area if it's visible if it's visible from the x which makes a lot of sense yeah okay that was the goal good

Yeah, I like that.

So it seems like there's a, that Vicki put in a couple of words that made it much more clear.

I would love to have more clear language.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So it's in a non-perishable building as long as it's not visible from the exterior. Is that the way it was supposed to go? Yeah. Okay.

We'll play with that sentence.

Mm-hmm.

Jeff, this is minutiae, but I'll go ahead and mention it since we're being quiet here. You've got two sections out of order, .075. Can you give me a line number? Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I can't. 291. Okay. Actually comes before 070 and 304.

just a number eight oh okay yeah yeah that is awesome you caught that you are awesome for good numbers guy engineer yeah so i have a question i do have a question i don't know if this is something that would fall under the sign ordinance but um there was some discussion about parking and

you know, improving signage downtown that may go along with the parking. And I'm just curious what happens if the city decides it wants to put in various signs regarding, for instance, parking downtown. Is there any oversight around the aesthetics of those signs? Because right now it looks like a city sign is exempt from the sign ordinance. But I'm just curious, how do we make sure that signage in commercial areas

maintains the feel of cannon beach yeah you you could you know yep you could put that and so to clarify that would be um i would clarify what types of sign because like uh you know uh parking and and um law traffic type signs is what I'm trying to get at. Those would be exempt, but we could, you know, whether you do it through a square footage, because, you know, a sign, a permanent sign is four foot. So it has to be four feet to even fall into what's considered a sign. So maybe it's that, you know, signs four foot, you know. So, yeah, I can put that in the commercial district. Is that what you're,

That was my thinking just because I think that it sounded like there may be an increase in signage to try to clarify parking, which I understand the purpose. And I'm totally open to DRB's input, but I'm just curious, do we have a concern if we see a large increase in city signage?

Well, my personal feeling is that if you get too many little like incidental signs saying, you know, don't do this, do that, do that over there, that People don't read them, and so my my thought is if you're going to have you know have one informational sign. Maybe or something like that I don't know, but we did talk about how. You know people and parking and wanting to put you can't park here and that sort of thing and how many are too many but being allowed to to give that information so that's something.

Along with tsunami evacuation and all the other informational signs, it can really be confusing if there's too many.

Overwhelming, yeah. It's littering, sign littering.

But if they're uniform, then you can see from another use that this is this.

If we could use the mics, please.

Make it so large. But I do think This just says governmental signs erected on public land are an exemption. So it doesn't say how tasteful they have to be or how appropriate. So I think we'd have to rely on staff and DRB to set some kind of standard for the government signs.

Yeah, so we could strike that line, and then all signs would have to go.

And I think it can't hurt right, you know I it's not that I don't trust the city, but just if we're talking about Community feel and aesthetics I think it's important to be consistent that's all.

Well, there was, I think, a project that the Chamber was interested in that involve qr signs over and and that sort of got me. Yes, really looking at incidental signs and how we might want to say something about number and location.

Yeah, I agree. It seems like it makes sense to think about now while we're going through the process.

Any other thoughts, you guys?

Well, I want to second or third what we've heard already. Thanks for the effort on this. It is something you don't think about every day until you have to or until you start getting confused by the signs.

Yeah, there was a lot of detailed work. Very appreciated.

And I think you're wise to think about the process. There's one consistent way through these different groups that we see breakdowns. It's in not having looked at the process and only looking at one little line versus how does it all come together. So that's a really great place to start.

And I would just put a plug in that I think it makes sense to keep DRB involved in the overview.

Absolutely. Absolutely.

Love to meet you.

Is there anything else we can do to support you guys as you're working through this?

Okay. So next, I would ask, now that you've had a joint work session, would you like me to make these amendments that you've requested and to bring it back for another work session, or are you all ready to have a hearing on? It's up to you guys.

Well, I'm going to say since, I mean, I've seen, I think, four or five different revisions of this, and I would like to see the final so that we're all in agreement and making sure that the order of things are right.

I would think once, you know, once you review that update, you can send it to us and we'd be able to take a look at your recommendation.

So, yeah, I could, I, we could pull that together and get it on their next works, you know, their next meeting, which would then be the week prior to you guys and then get it to you guys. Would you want that as a work session item at next month's meeting or would you like it as a, at the planning commission level at the

Does it make sense to do another joint session to review that? Because it's been really helpful to have all of us in the same room. Yes. Rather than trying to split up review. Sure.

Yeah, there's no rush on this one.

So, Jeff, just going to interject here. Regarding next month's agenda, we do have three items on the DRB agenda already, and possibly two of those could be fairly large. So next month may not be an ideal month to have a work session.

So what about, yeah, so I'm suggesting if it's a joint one again, we could do it here as the Planning Commission.

Yeah. Yeah, the Planning Commission agenda is pretty open, but right now the DRB agenda is pretty congested.

All right. Thanks.

We'll come to you. Yeah.

Yeah. Good. It's fun having company up here. It's lonely. It's too big.

Well, there's a... There's only three of us, so Matthew and we're sitting up here. Okay.

Jeff, do you feel like we've covered that as well as we're going to cover it tonight?

I think so. I think I got some good notes, and I'll bring back the next edition, and hopefully we'll be pretty close to finishing this one.

Okay. Well, thank you again. Yeah. Appreciate your effort on that one.

And so the DRB will stick around, right? Yes. Okay.

We're going to stick around.

Okay. Let's move on to our next item, the tree report. Any comments on the tree report? Okay. Let's move on to good of order. Would anyone like to bring anything forward for the good of the order? All right, Jeff. We talked about a mini tour. I was out of town for the open house.

Yeah.

Are you open for a little mini tour?

I'll do it. If we can finish their findings, we have a correct test. So we go right to their meeting to correct, to approve the findings. Yeah.

I hate this question.

But see, the planning commission, we could go and do a planning commission tour while they're finishing theirs because Robert can handle the DRB because he was the one who handled it in the first place. Is that OK, Robert?

Yeah, we could do that.

OK.

All right. Well, if there's nothing else for the good of the order, then we will adjourn. Thank you again, everyone. Thank you.

All right, let's go. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Hey, Robert. Yes, sir. I'll log out of the PC and go to the DRB, okay?

Oh, we're starting a new meeting?

Yeah.

Okay.

I don't think... Let's just stay on this one.

Let's just keep this one running.

Yeah. Okay.

I'm ready.

and I . But there's just a, I feel that . Yeah. Yeah. Is it the hiding place? Well, it does. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Well, he doesn't say is that. between the parking space and the building, not the sidewalk. And a bunch of boxes in there. It could be said more completely if we said that the loudness from the sidewalk to the parking spaces I kind of think it's just a little ambiguous, but I think it's anywhere. I feel like it's important so that it works with me.

Oh, has the hearing begun?

I have no idea what's going on.

It's almost 725. I just wasn't sure. It sounded like you were deliberating. OK. Well, none of your mics are on, and the meeting hasn't been called into order. Yeah.

Yeah, Tessa, I can't see anybody either.

You can't see anybody?

No, right now the camera angle looks like it's seeing the front left row of the chairs and the front.

Okay, I am at Jeff's. There we go. Okay.

That's better. You mean you can't control that remotely, Robert? Nope, I'm just on the other end of a Zoom call.

Okay.

And if we could just make sure that we're talking into the microphones, please.

Oh, yeah. Both the mics are off. Yeah.

There you go. All right. Meeting is called to order. August 27th, the special meeting of the Design Review Board. And do we have a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. Second. Call the roll.

Board member Duber?

Yes.

Board member Claussen?

Yes.

Chair McNaughton? Yes.

Okay. Any public comment? I see nobody in the audience.

You have to make sure you check Zoom.

People are on Zoom for public comments.

Nobody's raised their hand.

Okay, no one is on Zoom.

All right, the action item here is that we are before us to adapt findings from the August 20th, 2026 meeting regarding the continuation of public hearing, DRB 2626. So we have some proposed findings in front of us. Who'd like to start? Is there a motion to approve the findings or deny the findings? as presented.

Well, I'd like to have some discussion and I don't have it in front of me. I read it through email. And I'm just I guess I'm going back to the municipal code one seven point four zero point zero five zero I. which states a minimum landscaping border of three feet shall be provided between the sidewalk and the frontage of all buildings facing the street and i am feeling like we allowed that um through the planters that are between the parking spaces and the walkway. Correct.

And the final sentence of paragraph 1 states, quote, the addition of planters on the sidewalk separating the parking stalls from the building satisfies the landscape border requirements detailed in CBMC 17-40-050I.

Well, and I understand that, Robert. I guess what I'm, is that I don't feel like it, I think that we sort of gave a variance to that by having the landscape be between the parking and the walkway rather than, as the ordinance states, the sidewalk and the business frontage. So I guess I don't want us to have this be a precedent that someone that might come and say, well, I can put this three-foot landscape barrier anywhere on the site when I'm understanding it to say it has to be by the sidewalk as a buffer.

So could we fix that by adding to your language after you say sidewalk, comma parking space, planter, and frontage, because there's four elements there.

Okay. Hold on. I might ask you, if you have text revisions, it would have been extremely helpful to have been sent those prior to this meeting. So I'm going to have to ask you to now Read off what you want that sentence to say so I can type it.

All right. Do you have it in front of you? No, you don't.

I do have it in front of me.

Can you read the sentence that you just read to us again?

The addition of planters on the sidewalk separating the parking stalls from the building satisfies the landscape border requirement detailed in Municipal Code 17, you know, 40050I.

I think to give it context, I think we should state the order of the structures that we're allowing the planter to be between. So it would be sidewalk, parking space, planters, and frontage.

I think what you're saying, Robert, is that as long as this three-foot buffer is anywhere between the sidewalk and the front of the building, then they conform, right?

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that they're separating the parking stalls from the sidewalk with landscaping as per the code. I'm not saying they can put the planter in the back behind the building and that that counts. I don't think we're creating that kind of precedent if that's what the concern is.

As long as the planters are somewhere between the sidewalk and the front of the building.

Correct. The planters are separating the sidewalk from the parking stalls.

Planters aren't separating the sidewalk from the parking. They're separating the parking from the building.

There's also a sidewalk in between. I'm sorry. I'm really... I'm not following where you're going. This is where, again, it would have been helpful to have received any kind of comments prior to the meeting.

So... Dave Kuntz, yeah but, but the the sidewalk i'm sure. Dave Kuntz, i'm pretty certain the sidewalk they're discussing is the city sidewalk.

Dave Kuntz, know the sidewalks on private property. Dave Kuntz, or we're talking about a sidewalk on private property.

Okay. Okay.

So you're interpreting this rule as somewhere between there, there has to be a landscaping separation between the building and the parking space, whether or not the parking space is on private property, public property, wherever. And right now there is a separation between the building and

Doesn't the rule say in the side and the building?

In front, yes, it does.

Okay. I am open to what your suggestion is for the text.

So we're trying to rephrase the finding to make it clear that we are allowing in this circumstance the planter, the three-foot planter, to be positioned between the parking lot spot and the sidewalk on the east side and the frontage on the west side. Is that right? West side.

Yeah.

So we don't want to ignore the fact that there's a parking spot uh, separating the sidewalk and the planter, because in most circumstances, the sidewalk and the planters live together. They, they seem to be on that, uh, street.

So we all need to talk into the mic. Yeah. So which paragraph are we?

So we're looking at I created a space here. We're looking at the last sentence of the first paragraph. I added a space in here to add in some new text. But the concern is regarding that kind of standalone sentence. They're saying the addition of planters on the sidewalk separating the parking stalls from the building that satisfies landscape order criteria.

Okay, so you're wanting to insert a three-foot...

They're wanting to revise that, but I'm unclear what the desired revision is.

Okay, and so you're saying, what would you like, a three-foot planter between the sidewalk and the parking area?

Well, yeah, just trying to say that this is a little bit different than what the code specifies.

Okay.

But we are allowing it to be in compliant with this code. Okay.

But the planter is not between the sidewalk and the parking spot. It's between.

So if you review the site plan, there's a sidewalk, there's a planter, there's a parking space. That's how I worded this. So apparently that is being interpreted.

It's a walkway. Okay, walkway.

It's a walkway is what the applicant... And we could call that a walkway if we thought you... Yeah, the pedestrian walkway.

Okay.

So we could phrase it so that the planter, the three-foot planter was positioned between the sidewalk on the far side, parking spot next, planter, and then frontage.

Karen Hollweg, Well, we could just say that the planters. Karen Hollweg, satisfy the. Karen Hollweg, Code or because it's between the walkway and the parking so that satisfies that.

Dave Kuntz, Right now, how does this text work I have it up on the screen, the addition of planters on the pedestrian walkway is separating the parking stalls from the building satisfies landscape order requirements.

Can you increase the size of your screen there? Just a little bit, Robert. Yeah, there you go. Okay. That's got it. Okay. So the, uh, Robert Scott, the addition of planters on the pedestrian walkway, separating the parking stalls from the building satisfies the landscape border requirement detailed in 1745. Okay.

That sounds nice. There you go, Robert. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. So Motion to approve or deny the findings as presented. As changed. As amended.

As amended. There you go.

Yes.

So moved. Harvey.

Second. Neda. Call the roll, Tessa.

Board Member Claussen.

Aye.

Board Member Duber. Aye. Chair McNaughton.

Aye. All right, we are adjourned. All right. Thank you.

I just wanted to apologize to Robert that I didn't realize that the procedure was that we should have gotten a hold of you sooner. I thought that this was when we would say that. So I apologize, Robert.

That's okay. We were able to work it out.

Yes, it did. Thank you very much.

Yeah.

Okay, that's great.

Yeah, and for future, yeah, on these types of fines, feel free, call us up and we'll put it in there. And we could even do like alternate, you know, give you the regular text with the proposed.

Well, and that's where I wasn't, you know, I didn't think that we could talk to each other about it and talk to you without talking.

It just seemed like the wrong way to. Right, and thank you for your sharp eye. And you share a pen, Robert. I appreciate you.

Yeah. And so, you know, nowadays, yeah, exactly. The one thing I must caution you guys where there's only three of you left is that you can't go to coffee.