Approved Minutes - 2000-01-03CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
January 3, 2000
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Development Review Commission meeting of January 3, 2000, was called to order in
the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380 "A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon, by Chair
Julie Morales at 6:00 PM.
II. ROLL CALL
Commission members present included Ms. Morales, Ms. Binkley, Mr. Cushing*, Mr.
Kiersey, and Mr. Miller. Ms. Ostly was excused. Staff present were Tom Coffee,
Assistant City Manager; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; Morgan Tracy, Associate
Planner and Iris Treinen, Senior Secretary.
III. OTHER BUSINESS - Findings, Conclusions and Order
*Commissioner Cushing arrived at 6:04 p.m.
Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney, explained to the Commission the voting procedures
regarding the Findings, Conclusions and Order (FCO). At the conclusion of the
deliberation phase, a vote is taken to indicate the tentative decision of the Commission -
whether the application should be approved or not. Based on that tentative decision and
the discussion by the Commission during the deliberation, the staff then prepares a FCO,
with findings and conclusions to state the rationale of the majority and the order to state
the decision (approval or denial) of the majority.
The purpose of the FCO is to reflect not only the final decision (approval or denial), but
also the rationale (findings and conclusions) of a majority of the Commission. Upon
adoption, the FCO should represent the rationale and decision of a majority of the
Commission members.
When a commissioner is reviewing the FCO to determine whether the FCO should be
approved, the commission member should determine if the findings and conclusions
agree with the commissioner's individual rationale and decision. Commissioners opposed
to the decision would be expected to disagree with the proposed rationale (findings and
conclusions) in any substantive votes regarding the rationale or decision. Any changes to
the rationale (findings and conclusions) by a majority of the Commission, even if not
affecting the ultimate decision, would need to be reflected in the final version of the
adopted FCO.
Commissioners opposed to the decision of the majority should vote against adoption of
the FCO because the findings do not reflect the dissenting commissioner's individual
Development Review Commission Minutes Page 1 of 3
January 3, 2000
findings and conclusions, even though the dissenting commissioner may believe that the
FCO accurately reflects the rationale of the other (majority) members of the Commission.
In other words, the final vote on the FCO is not just on the degree to which the FCO
accurately reflects the rationale of a majority of the Commission, but also as to the
correctness of the findings and conclusions as to the criteria. If a commissioner disagrees
with the majority of the Commission, then even though the dissenting commissioner
believes that the FCO accurately reflects the rationale of those other (majority)
commissioners, the dissenting commissioner should still vote against adoption of the
FCO because those findings do not reflect the findings, conclusions and order of that
individual commissioner. (Mr. Boone noted that commissioners are not bound to their
prior, tentative decision positions and could change their minds.)
Mr. Boone also reminded the commissioners that the time required for a majority of the
commissioners to agree to the stated rationale and decision was subject to (counted
within) the 120 -day time limitation.
LU 99-0056, a request by Michael and Theresa Fister.
Commissioner Cushing moved for approval of LU 99-0056, Findings, Conclusions
and Order. Commissioner Binkley seconded the motion and it passed with
Commissioners Binkley, Cushing, Douglas and Miller voting yes. Chair Morales voted
no.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Kiersey moved for approval of the December 6, 1999, minutes with
corrections as noted. Commissioner Binkley seconded the motion, and it passed with
Chair Morales and Commissioners Cushing, Kiersey and Miller voting yes.
Commissioner Binkley abstained.
V. PUBLIC HEARING
Tom Coffee, Assistant City Manager, related that the applicant, Venture Properties, had
requested that the hearing be continued to January 17, 2000. Mr. Coffee pointed out that
since January 17, 2000, was a holiday, the meeting would actually be held on
Wednesday, January 19, 2000.
Commissioner Kiersey moved to continue LU 99-0042 to January 19, 2000.
Commissioner Miller seconded the motion and it passed with Chair Morales and
Commissioners Binkley, Cushing and Kiersey and Miller voting yes.
VI. GENERAL PLANNING AND OTHER BUSINESS
None.
Development Review Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3
January 3, 2000
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Development Review Commission, Chair
Morales adjourned the meeting at 6:13 PM.
Respectfully submitted.
Iris Treinen
Senior Secretary
1:\dre\minutes\1-3-00 Evening Minutes.doc
Development Review Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3
January 3, 2000