Loading...
Findings 08-23-2021 APPROVED LU 21-0019 APPROVED: 08/23/2021 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND ZONING MAP ) LU 21-0019-2011 AMENDMENTS TO REDESIGNATE 0.15 ACRE OF ) (City of Lake Oswego) WLG R.25 AND 0.10 ACRE WLG RMU TO WLG OC, ) AND CDC AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW MULTI-FAMILY ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS& ORDER RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE WLG OC ZONE LIMITED TO ) THE SUNSET DR-BOONES FERRY RD SUBAREA AND ) SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; ) ORDINANCE 2872 1 NATURE OF APPLICATION 2 3 The applicant is proposing to amend: 4 • Comprehensive Plan Map for portions of three lots,from WLG-R 2.5 (0.15 acre) and WLG-RMU 5 (0.10 acre)to WLG-OC; 6 • Zoning Map for the same portions of the three lots,from WLG-R 2.5 (0.15 acre) and WLG-RMU 7 (0.10 acre)to WLG-OC; 8 • Community Development Code (LOC Chapter 50)to establish an "Area of Residential Use 9 Allowance in WLG OC Zone" and adopt the following use allowance and development standards 10 for the Area: 11 o Amend LOC 50.03.002- Use Table to permit Multifamily Residential development 12 subject to a use-specific standard requiring inclusion of affordable housing on properties 13 in the Area of Residential Use Allowance in WLG OC Zone; 14 o Amend LOC 50.04.001.4.b.iii - Dimensional Table for Commercial, Mixed Use, and 15 Industrial Zones: West Lake Grove Zones to allow 5 feet additional height for multifamily 16 development in the WLG-OC Zone when located at least 80 feet from all R-7.5 zoned 17 properties; and 18 o Amend the purpose statement in LOC 50.05.005.6.a - Design Standards for the Office 19 Commercial (WLG-OC) Zone to include limited residential uses. 20 21 The proposed amendments are detailed in Attachment B of draft Ordinance 2872 (Exhibit A-1). No 22 actual development is proposed at this time. 23 24 HEARING 25 26 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meetings on June 27 14, 2021,July 12, 2021,July 26, 2021, and August 9, 2021. (The record was left open for submission of 28 additional written materials after the close of the July 12 public hearing.)The following exhibits were 29 entered into the record: 30 31 F Exhibits: Written Documents 32 33 F-001 Applicant's Narrative, 05/2021 34 F-002 Traffic Memo by Kittelson &Associates, 04/27/21 35 F-003 Neighborhood Meeting-Summary Notes, 05/04/21 LU 21-0019-2011 Page 1 of 10 APPROVED: 08/23/2021 1 F-004 Housing Advocates Meeting-Summary Notes, 05/05/21 2 F-005 Boones Ferry Road Development Capacity Study 3 F-006 Email to Neighborhood Associations—Zoning Follow-up, 05/10/21 4 F-007 Supplemental Staff Memo from Engineering, 07/20/21 5 F-008 Supplemental Staff Memo from City Attorney's Office, 07/23/21 6 7 G Exhibits: Public Comments 8 9 TESTIMONY NEITHER FOR NOR AGAINST: 10 11 G-001 Email from R. Reeve, 05/20/21 12 G-002 Email from T. Lee, 06/14/21 13 14 TESTIMONY IN FAVOR: 15 16 G-100 Email from T. Kraemer, 06/13/21 17 G-101 Email from R. Launchbury, 06/13/21 18 G-102 Email from A. Erickson, 06/13/21 19 G-103 Email from J. Cockrell, 06/13/21 20 G-104 Email from K. Griffin, 06/13/21 21 G-105 Email from B. Yazhari, 06/13/21 22 G-106 Email from A.Tompkins, 06/14/21 23 G-107 Email from K.To, 06/14/21 24 G-108 Email from A. Zukas, 06/14/21 25 G-109 Email from K. Bloom, 06/14/21 26 G-110 Email from T. Atwood, 06/14/21 27 G-111 Email from S. Sprecher, 06/14/21 28 G-112 Email from S. Davis, 06/14/21 29 G-113 Email from M. Nielsen, 06/14/21 30 G-114 Email from L.Adatto, 06/14/21 31 G-115 Email from LOSN, 06/14/21 32 G-116 Email from K. Frost, 06/14/21 33 G-117 Email from K. Wehn, 06/14/21 34 G-118 Email from K. Snook, 06/14/21 35 G-119 Email from K. Boyle, 06/14/21 36 G-120 Email from J. Korwin, 06/14/21 37 G-121 Email from J. Gustafson, 06/14/21 38 G-122 Email from J. Watson, 06/14/21 39 G-123 Email from H. Schrimsher, 06/14/21 40 G-124 Email from D. Atwood, 06/14/21 41 G-125 Email from D. Gardner, 06/14/21 42 G-126 Email from C. Borduin, 06/14/21 43 G-127 Email from A. Sawin, 06/14/21 44 G-128 Email from A. Waterbury, 06/14/21 45 G-129 Email from B.Jenkins-Pleas, 06/14/21 46 G-130 Email from D. Doby, 06/14/21 47 G-131 Letter from R. Maese, 06/30/21 48 G-132 Email from T. Kohlhoff, 07/02/21 49 G-133 Email from M. Puhlman, 07/02/21 LU 21-0019-2011 Page 2 of 10 APPROVED: 08/23/2021 1 G-134 Email from M. Kohlhoff, 07/02/21 2 G-135 Email from H. Schrimsher, 07/03/21 3 G-136 Email from M. Buck, 07/11/21 4 G-140 Letter from Applicant, 07/14/21 5 G-141 Email from W. Poinsette, 06/13/21 (previously shown in error as "Opposed"G-239) 6 G-142 Final Written Argument from Applicant, 07/21/21 7 8 TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION: 9 10 G-200 Letter from Bruni Family, 06/06/21 11 G-201 Email from D. Wilkinson, 06/08/21 12 G-202 Letter from F. Newton, 06/07/21 13 G-203 Email from J. Norris, 06/09/21 14 G-204 Email from K. Heard, 06/10/21 15 G-205 Email from Williams-Cotten, 06/10/21 16 G-206 Email from C. Durkee, 06/09/21 17 G-207 Letter from L. Andrews, 06/11/21 18 G-208 Email from S. Kessler, 06/11/21 19 G-209 Email from G. Bradley, 06/11/21 20 G-210 Email from B. Wilkinson, 06/11/21 21 G-211 Email from D. Linkfield, 06/11/21 22 G-212 Email from K. Gadinas, 06/13/21 23 G-213 Letter from E. Mawe, 06/13/21 24 G-214 Email from K. Olson, 06/11/21 25 G-215 Email from A. Wong, 06/13/21 26 G-216 Email from S. Kessler, 06/13/21 27 G-217 Email from J. Wychules, 06/13/21 28 G-218 Email from H.Trickey, 06/13/21 29 G-219 Email from J. Balcom, 06/13/21 30 G-220 Email from S. Croft, 06/13/21 31 G-221 Email from M. Smith, 06/13/21 32 G-222 Email from L. Mraz, 06/13/21 33 G-223 Email from C. Bell, 06/14/21 34 G-224 Email from E-Spenlinhauer, 06/14/21 35 G-225 Email from P. Kelly, 06/13/21 36 G-226 Email from C. Vanleeuwen, 06/13/21 37 G-227 Email from S. Glazer, 06/14/21 38 G-228 Email from T. Villalobos, 06/14/21 39 G-229 Email from K. Wynne, 06/14/21 40 G-230 Email from A. Ogale, 06/14/21 41 G-231 Email from G. Bradley, 06/14/21 42 G-232 Email from G. Kempton, 06/14/21 43 G-233 Email from A. Lightcap, 06/14/21 44 G-234 Letter from T. Cutler, 06/14/21 45 G-235 Email from S. Kelly, 06/13/21 46 G-236 Email from P. Kiessling, 06/13/21 47 G-237 Email from B. Linkfield, 06/13/21 48 G-238 Letter from D. Bice, 06/13/21 49 G-239 Email from W. Poinscttc, 06/13/21 (Moved to "Support"and Relabeled G-141) LU 21-0019-2011 Page 3 of 10 APPROVED: 08/23/2021 1 G-240 Email from T. Heath, 06/14/21 2 G-241 Letter from T. McFadden, 06/14/21 3 G-242 Email from S. Meckel, 06/14/21 4 G-243 Email from S. Webb, 06/14/21 5 G-244 Email from N. Heath, 06/14/21 6 G-245 Email from M. Beirwagen, 06/14/21 7 G-246 Email from L. Heath, 06/14/21 8 G-247 Email from G. Heath, 06/14/21 9 G-248 Letter from K. McFadden, 06/12/21 10 G-249 Letter from J. Howsley w-Jordan Ramis f-Renaissance, 06/14/21 11 G-250 Email from B. Hoyt, 06/14/21 12 G-251 Email from B. Sirianni, 06/14/21 13 G-252 Letter from C. Wheeler and A. Ogale, 06/14/21 14 G-253 Email from A. Wong, 06/14/21 15 G-254 Bus Schedule from Jordan Ramis f-Renaissance, 06/22/21 16 G-255 Letter from C-Krebs w-Lake Forest NA, 07/12/21 17 G-256 Letter from C. Krebs, 07/12/21 18 G-258 Letter from G. McDowell w-LFNA, 07/14/21 19 G-259 Email from J. Steinbock, 07/14/21 20 G-261 Email from H. Bradley, 07/14/21 21 G-262 Letter from C-Krebs, 07/14/21 22 G-263 Email from G. Bradley, 07/14/21 23 G-264 Email from G. Bradley, 07/14/21 24 G-265 Email from J. Wychules, 07/14/21 25 G-266 Email from M. Beirwagen, 07/14/21 26 G-267 Email from S. Croft, 07/14/21 27 28 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 29 30 A. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code-Procedure (LOC Chapter 50) 31 LOC 50.07.003.1.b Burden of Proof 32 LOC 50.07.003.7 Appeals 33 LOC 50.07.003.15 Major Development (excluding subsection d.ii) 34 LOC 50.07.003.5 Conditions of Approval 35 LOC 50.07.003.3 Notice of Public Hearing 36 LOC 50.07.003.4 Hearings before a Hearings Body 37 LOC 50.07.003.16.a Legislative Decision Defined (Quasi-judicial 38 Comp. Plan Map, Zone Map, and CDC 39 Amendments to be processed via Major 40 Developments Procedures) 41 LOC 50.07.003.16.c Required Notice to DLCD 42 LOC 50.07.003.16.d Planning Commission Recommendation 43 Required 44 LOC 50.07.003.16.e City Council Review and Decision 45 46 LU 21-0019-2011 Page 4 of 10 APPROVED: 08/23/2021 1 B. City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 Land Use Planning 3 Policies A-1.b,A-1.c,A-1.d, A-1.e,A-1.f,A-1.g,A-1.h, A-2,A-3, A-5,A-6, B-10, B-11, 4 C-1, C-3, C-5, D-1, D-2, E-1, E-2, E-3.a-c 5 6 7 Community Culture (Civic Engagement) 8 Policies 1, 2,4, 5, and 9 9 10 Inspiring Places and Spaces 11 Goal 1: Policies 1.b, 2, 3, 7 12 Goal 2: Policies 3,4 13 14 Complete Neighborhoods and Housing [Buildable Lands and Housing Needs Analysis] 15 Policies A-1.d, A-3,A-4, A-5, B-1, and C-1 16 17 Connected Community 18 Policies B-1, B-2, B-3, C-1 (maintain LOS 'E'for arterial street intersections during peak hours), C- 19 6, C-8, F-2, and G-3 20 21 Economic Vitality 22 Policies A-2, A-8.c, B-1 23 24 Lake Forest Neighborhood Plan 25 Goal 1 Land Use Planning: Policy 2; Policies 4.a,4.b, 4c, 4d 26 Goal 6 Policy 1 Sound Quality 27 Goal 9 Economic Development and Commercial Lands, Policy 3 28 Goal 10 Housing/Residential Land Use, Policy 4 29 30 C. Oregon Statewide Planning Goals 31 Goal 1: Citizen Involvement 32 Goal 2: Land Use Planning 33 Goal 5: Open Space, Scenic and Historic Areas 34 Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards 35 Goal 9: Economic Development 36 Goal 10: Housing 37 Goal 12: Transportation 38 Goal 14: Urbanization 39 40 D. METRO Urban Growth Management Functional Plan 41 Chapter 3.07 42 Title 7: Housing Choice (Title 7, Sections 3.07.710 through 3.07.750) 43 44 E. Transportation Planning Rule (Chapter 660, Division 12) 45 OAR 660-12-060(1) and (2), Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendment 46 47 LU 21-0019-2011 Page 5 of 10 APPROVED: 08/23/2021 1 FINDINGS AND REASONS 2 3 The Planning Commission incorporates: the Staff Report dated June 3, 2021 (with all exhibits attached 4 thereto,the Supplemental Staff Memos (with all exhibits attached thereto) dated June 10, 2021 and July 5 20, 2021,Applicant's Rebuttal Evidence (with all exhibits attached thereto) dated June 14, 2021, and 6 Applicant's Final Written Argument (with all exhibits attached thereto) dated July 21, 2021, 7 supplemented by the further Findings and Conclusions below. If there is any inconsistency between the 8 supplemental findings and the incorporated matters,the supplemental findings control. 9 10 Following are the supplemental findings and conclusions of the Commission: 11 12 1. Traffic Analysis.The Commission received oral and written testimony that the applicant's 13 analysis of traffic impacts in Exhibit F-002 (Traffic Memo)was inadequate and that a Traffic 14 Impact Study(TIS) should be required. The Commission also received testimony arguing the 15 applicant had not considered a reasonable worst-case scenario for purposes of the Traffic 16 Memo. The testimony was not based on a professional traffic engineer's analysis. No 17 applicable criteria were cited; however, the Commission takes note of LOC 50.07.003.1.a.iii 18 Traffic Impact Studies, as follows. 19 20 With respect to the criteria,the Commission finds the TIS criteria applicable to 21 comprehensive plan amendments and zoning (development code) amendments are 22 contained in subsections 2.b and 2.e.i of LOC 50.07.003.a.iii. Specifically, subsection (2)(b) 23 applies where "The site is subject to a Zoning Map or text amendment or Comprehensive 24 Plan or Map amendment that increases the intensity(potential vehicle trip generation) of 25 allowed uses" and subsection (2)(e)(i) applies where "The City Engineer finds (i)The City or 26 other roadway authority has documented traffic safety or operations concerns within the 27 study area, such as frequent crashes, poor roadway alignment, limited sight distance". 28 [emphasis added in bold] 29 30 Based on the supplemental staff memo from the City Traffic Engineer dated July, 20, 2021, 31 and in the absence of a contrary professional traffic engineering analysis,the Commission 32 finds the applicant's Traffic Memo is sufficient.The Commission concurs with staff that a TIS 33 is not required, specifically because the proposal does not meet the thresholds in LOC 34 50.07.003.1.a.iii, including subsections (2)(b) and (2)(e)(i).The proposed amendments do not 35 increase the intensity of allowed uses and the City Engineer has not found, and the 36 Commission similarly has not found in the Record,that a roadway authority has documented 37 a traffic safety or operations concern within the subject area. Further,the Commission finds 38 the applicant's Traffic Memo uses a reasonable worst-case scenario (restaurant and daycare 39 center, which are both permitted uses in the WLG OC zone)for purposes of assessing future 40 potential traffic. 41 42 The Commission notes that a TIS would be required at the time of development review for a 43 future application to develop multifamily housing or other uses in WLG OC zone, and that for 44 purposes of analyzing the proposed amendments the Traffic Memo need only analyze the 45 worst-case scenario under existing versus proposed zoning. At the time of a minor 46 development review(which includes multi-family housing per LOC 50.07.003.14a.ii(5)/LOC 47 50.07.003.13.a.ii(2)), current code (LOC 50.07.003.5.a.iii) allows conditions of approval to be 48 applied when "reasonably related to alleviation of a need for public services or facilities LU 21-0019-2011 Page 6 of 10 APPROVED: 08/23/2021 1 [including streets] created or contributed to by the proposed development."The conditions 2 include "requiring on-site and off-site construction of or improvements to public facilities 3 where necessary to ensure adequate capacity and where service demand will be created or 4 increased by the proposed development." LOC 50.07.003.5.b.iv. 5 6 Conclusion 7 8 The Commission finds that the traffic assessment provided in Exhibit F-002 and validated by 9 the City Engineer's Traffic Memorandum provides the appropriate level of analysis for a 10 comprehensive plan map and zoning map and text amendment and a TIS is not required 11 under LOC 50.07.003.1.a.iii.As noted, a detailed traffic impact study may be required for the 12 specific development if the proposed development results in any of the conditions listed in 13 LOC 50.07.003.1.a.iii(2). 14 15 Further, the Commission finds, based on the staff report dated June 3, 2021,that the Oregon 16 Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) and the applicable policies of the 17 Comprehensive Plan Connected Community Chapter, are also met. 18 19 2. Condition of West Sunset Drive.The Commission received oral and written testimony that 20 West Sunset Drive is a substandard street (narrow pavement, potholes, lacking parking, etc.) 21 and not capable of serving future development of multifamily uses on the site.The 22 Comprehensive Plan policy cited was Land Use Planning, Policy B-10(k)—"Maintain 23 regulations and standards that minimize or mitigate traffic impact on adjacent 24 neighborhoods". [Emphasis added in bold.] 25 26 The Commission finds that existing City code has regulations and standards that minimize or 27 mitigate traffic impact on adjacent neighborhoods with this policy, as follows. LOC 28 50.06.008; 50.07.003.5 requires that new developments provide street frontage 29 improvements, including paving, sidewalks, and storm drainage facilities.The code also 30 requires higher intensity uses receive access from higher classification streets where allowed 31 to mitigate traffic impacts on local streets. In addition,the WLG design district regulations 32 (LOC 50.05.005.4.b) specifically require that developments adjacent to West Sunset Drive 33 and Boones Ferry Road have multiple accesses, including access onto Boones Ferry Road,to 34 mitigate traffic impacts on the local street system, and that they plan for future driveway 35 connections to abutting properties when feasible.The proposed amendments maintain these 36 existing regulations and standards that minimize and mitigate traffic impacts on adjacent 37 neighborhoods. 38 39 The allowance of multifamily housing in the WLG OC zone, and rezoning of 0.10 acre of WLG 40 RMU and 0.15 acre of WLG R-2.5 to WLG OC, as proposed, does not alter these existing 41 regulations. Moreover, as addressed in Commission's Supplemental Finding#1, above,the 42 amendments do not allow any greater impact on the surrounding street system, including 43 neighborhood streets,than uses that are already allowed by the existing zoning.As 44 demonstrated by the applicant's Traffic Memo (Exhibit F-002),total daily trips and trips 45 during the morning and afternoon peak hours are less than what could occur with other uses 46 that are currently allowed in the WLG OC zone. 47 48 LU 21-0019-2011 Page 7 of 10 APPROVED: 08/23/2021 1 The Commission also notes, although not a criterion for zoning amendments,that the City's 2 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) offers a mechanism for improving local streets.The CIP is 3 reviewed biennially with public input as part of the City Budget process. The City also offers 4 a Local Improvement District program whereby property owners may collectively approach 5 the City to request financing(at low interest rates)for local street improvements abutting 6 their properties. 7 Conclusion 8 9 The Commission finds that Land Use Planning Policy B-10(k) is met. 10 11 3. Parking 12 13 The Commission received oral and written testimony concerning whether adequate parking 14 would be provided for any future development on the site if it is developed as multi-family 15 housing. Although the testimony did not cite a specific policy,the Commission assumes the 16 applicable Comprehensive Plan policy that was intended to be addressed was Economic 17 Vitality, Policy B-1(h): 18 19 Provide opportunities for redevelopment and development in employment zones 20 while:... h. Promoting the efficient use of land by providing adequate parking for 21 customers and employees, according to national transportation standards; 22 23 Staff found that this policy was not applicable because the expansion of use for the site 24 would allow housing, e.g., residents, and that the use would not generate customers and 25 employees. (Staff Report pg. 17.) 26 27 The Commission finds that this policy is not applicable because: 28 29 (a)This policy's intended focus is on non-residential uses that attract customers and 30 employees as the principal classification of those visiting the use, rather than the incidental 31 house cleaner, maintenance or landscape service provider, or similar trades persons to 32 maintain the property(which would not be an "employee" of the residents, and would be 33 expected under the existing zoning, in any event); and 34 35 (b) As similarly applied to any multi-family housing within the City, future multi-family 36 housing development on the site will demonstrate compliance with the existing Parking 37 Standards per LOC 50.06.002, including Table 50.06.002-3: Minimum Off-Street Parking 38 Space Requirements,for multi-family residential uses. Expanding the use for this site to 39 include multi-family housing promotes redevelopment of the site, and adequate parking will 40 be assured at the time of future development, as it must comply with the then existing 41 Parking Standards. (The Commission notes that this quasi-judicial proceeding is to 42 determine whether to expand the potential uses at this site to include multi-family housing. 43 A later development application, whether for housing or for any other permitted use,would 44 be subject to then existing development standards. Any change of the parking standards for 45 multi-family dwellings, or other uses,would require a legislative amendment of LOC 46 50.06.002.) 47 48 LU 21-0019-2011 Page 8 of 10 APPROVED: 08/23/2021 1 4. Procedural Issues 2 3 a. Conflict of Interest 4 5 Some testimony claimed a conflict of interest in the Planning Commission considering an 6 application submitted by the City's planning staff. From the context of the testimony, the 7 concern is one of bias by the Commission, not that the Commission members would have a 8 "actual conflict of interest" or"potential conflict of interest," as defined in ORS 244.020 9 Definitions and relate to a financial interest in the outcome of the decision. The 10 Commission finds that it is the hearing body per LOC 50.07.003.2.b, not the planning staff 11 and that it receives and reviews all of the evidence and testimony independently. The 12 Commission reviews the evidence relative to each criterion in order to determine if the 13 criteria are met. 14 15 b. Pre-Application Conference 16 17 Some testimony asserted that a pre-application conference was required before the 18 application could be filed (Exhibit G-234), in the belief that this application is a "major 19 development" per LOC 50.07.003.15. A comprehensive plan map or zoning map or text 20 amendment is not itself a "major development," It is only when an amendment is for a 21 specific development proposal that requires a comprehensive plan map or zoning map 22 amendment that it is a "major development." LOC 50.07.003.15.a.ii(2). Rather, quasi- 23 judicial code amendments are to be processed as a major development. LOC 24 50.07.003.16.a.ii. 25 26 But not all major development procedures apply. Pre-application conferences are held for 27 "minor and major development permit applications." LOC 50.0-7.003.1.e.i(1)(emphasis 28 added). A change in the comprehensive plan and zoning map or code text is not a major 29 development permit application, as it is not a permit for any development. See LOC 30 50.10.003.2 Definitions, "Development" and "Development Permit." 31 32 c. Application signed by City Manager 33 34 Some testimony asserts that the application was not "approved by the city manager." 35 36 "City Manager" is a defined, but expansive term within the Community Development Code 37 referring to city staff: "The person holding the position of City Manager or any officer or 38 employee of the City of Lake Oswego." LOC 50.10.003.2. The application was signed by 39 Scot Siegel, Director of Planning and Building Services, on behalf of the City of Lake Oswego. 40 (Exhibit F-001, pg. iii, iv). The Staff Report states that the applicant is the City of Lake 41 Oswego (pg. 1), and Mr. Siegel also was involved in the presentation of the application to 42 the Commission. The Commission finds that the application was submitted by "the City 43 Manager" as that term is defined the Community Development Code. 44 45 LU 21-0019-2011 Page 9 of 10 APPROVED: 08/23/2021 1 ORDER 2 3 IT IS ORDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Lake Oswego that: 4 5 1. The Planning Commission recommends that proposed Ordinance 2872 (Exhibit A-1, with 6 Attachment B, dated May 10, 2021 and Attachment C, dated June 3, 2021, LU 21-0019 be approved by 7 the City Council. 8 9 I CERTIFY THAT THIS ORDER was presented to and APPROVED by the Planning Commission of the City of 10 Lake Oswego. 11 12 DATED this 23th day of August 2021. 13 14 15 Robert Heape 16 Robert Heape, Chair 17 Planning Commission 18 19 ATTEST: 20 21 PRELIMINARY DECISION—August 9, 2021 22 23 AYES: Fischer, Heape, Phillips, Semler 24 NOES: Leek, Pape 25 ABSTAIN: None 26 EXCUSED: Stewart 27 28 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS AND ORDER—August 23, 2021 29 30 AYES: Fischer, Heape, Leek, Semler, Stewart 31 NOES: None 32 ABSTAIN: None 33 EXCUSED: Pape LU 21-0019-2011 Page 10 of 10