Lake Oswego Planning Commission Meeting – November 24, 2025: Home Occupation Standards Text Amendment
Lake Oswego Planning Commission Meeting – November 24, 2025
The Lake Oswego Planning Commission met on November 24, 2025, to conduct a public hearing and deliberation on a proposed text amendment to the Community Development Code regarding home occupation standards (LU 25-0002). The meeting included public comment on two topics, a detailed staff presentation, and a commission vote that resulted in a modified recommendation to the City Council.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Diane Cassidy (Blue Heron neighborhood resident, 50-year resident, commercial property owner) spoke during the public comment section about the proposed zone change at 4000 Cruiseway Place. She expressed concern that the zone change was treated as a mere map amendment, minimizing citizen involvement. She stated that the Blue Heron neighborhood was not notified despite the project's citywide implications, and she argued that the applicant had not been truthful about why the property is being emptied. She made a formal complaint to the Commission for Citizen Involvement regarding inadequate public process. She urged denial or postponement of the zone change until a citywide zoning evaluation is completed.
- Sam Hall (address: 2 Grouse) testified during the home occupation hearing. He stated he runs two businesses and a nonprofit from his home and voiced concerns that the proposed regulations are too restrictive without offering benefits to local businesses (e.g., market access, pop-up spaces, grants). He noted that his business requires an agricultural license for purchasing materials and worried about unintended consequences. He suggested the city should consider creating support pathways for home-based businesses.
- Diane Cassidy also testified on the home occupation standards, specifically regarding the proposed urban agriculture use. She expressed concern that limiting customers and frequency would harm existing businesses like a winery that operates without complaints. She advocated for grandfathered uses and neighbor-approval mechanisms rather than blanket restrictions.
Discussion Items
Home Occupation Code Amendments (LU 25-0002)
- Staff (Michael McNamy) presented the proposed changes, which aimed to replace a vague subjective standard ("alter residential character") with clear, objective regulations. Key proposals included:
- Remove the subjective criterion and create three home occupation types: A (no customers), B (customers visit), C (short-term rentals).
- Add a limit on hazardous substances above typical household quantities.
- Add a reference to existing nuisance codes.
- Limit commercial vehicle parking with visible markings to one vehicle within 300 feet of the property.
- For Type B businesses, limit clients/customers to eight at a time (later reduced to six based on council feedback).
- Two options for outdoor activity: Option 1 (allow small instructional classes of ≤6 people, ≤2 sessions/day, ≤6/week, 9am-7pm, no Sundays/holidays) or Option 2 (outright ban, consistent with current staff policy).
- Create a new urban agriculture use (conditional) in R-10/R-15 zones on lots >1 acre, limited to 20,000 sq ft or 35% of lot, with client limit of 10 (originally 30, then reduced after council concerns). Tastings allowed 7am-8pm on ≤45 days/year. Farm stands were removed.
- The commission received one written testimony from an urban agriculture business owner requesting a client limit of 30 instead of 10.
- Commissioners raised concerns about the need for such detailed restrictions without evidence of widespread neighbor complaints. They debated the arbitrariness of specific numbers and unintended consequences for small businesses. Code enforcement staff explained that the current subjective standard is difficult to enforce, and the proposed numbers come from a history of complaints (e.g., pool rentals).
- After deliberation, the commission agreed to strike three elements: the hazardous substances limit (item 3), the commercial vehicle parking limit (item 5), and the client limit for Type B businesses (item 6). They also chose Option 1 for outdoor activity (allow with limits) instead of an outright ban. For the urban agriculture use, they decided that client/customer limits should be established through the conditional use permit process rather than a fixed number.
Key Outcomes
- Motion and Vote: Commissioner Modeno motioned to recommend approval of the home occupation code amendments as modified (strike items 3, 5, 6; adopt Option 1 for outdoor activity; and use conditional use process for urban agriculture client limits). Commissioner Guinea seconded. The vote was 4-1 (Chair Mitchell, Vice Chair Don Shark absent; Commissioner Bruce absent; Commissioners Modeno, Guinea, Schlei, Tween in favor; Commissioner [not specified] voted no).
- Next Steps: The commission will adopt a written order on December 8, 2025, at 6:30 PM, forwarding its recommendation to the City Council. The council is tentatively scheduled to hold a public hearing on January 20, 2026.
- Upcoming Meetings: December 8 includes consideration of findings for the home occupation amendment, a work session on tree regulations, and a continued hearing for 4000 Cruiseway Place (zone change). January 12 and 26, 2026, will include a Foothills Plan update and work plan review.
Note: The public comment regarding the Cruiseway zone change was noted but not formally considered in the home occupation decision, as that record was closed.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, folks. I'd like to call to order the Planning Commission meeting of today, November 24th, 2025. Christina, would you please call the call take the roll? Chair Mitchell. Here. Vice Chair Don Shark is not here yet. Commissioner Modeno. Here. Commissioner Guinea. Here. Commissioner Schlei. Here. Commissioner Tween. Here. And Commissioner Bruce is also absent. Thank you. Item number three on tonight's agenda is the public comment section section. The purpose of the public comment is allowed to community members to present information or raise an issue for items not on tonight's agenda. Christina, do we have anyone? We do. Diane Cassidy. Good evening. I have I have some handouts for the commission. Who do I give it to the question? I think check is the green uh thing on the microphone working right in front of you. Green square. There's a red button. Do I push it? Yeah, push it and then turn to green. Actually, I think you can hear me. Okay. My name is Diane Cassidy. I live on Ren Street in Lake Oswego in the Blue Heron neighborhood. I've been a resident of Lake Iceweg for about 50 years, and I am a I have for the last 25 years been the an owner of commercial property, both office and apartment complexes, mostly in the Clackamas County, but some in Washington County also. Currently I um and the owner of I've sold most and own an office complex in the Tiger Triangle. I'm here today because uh about your this body's um position as the commission for citizen involvement. The I didn't hear about the cruise way proposed zone change until November 5th when I just happened to pick up a newspaper telling about the public hearing that had already occurred. I would have liked to have been informed of that. I would have liked to have known and testified about that. Um but unfortunately Blue Heron isn't on the list of neighboring website. I mean, when neighboring communities, I am on the board of directors for the neighborhood association, but again, we were not um close enough to be included. A zone change with the magnitude of impact that this could have on Lake Oswego should not be considered as a mere code, excuse me, I guess a mere comprehensive map amendment. It has been downsized and minimized to such a degree that citizen involvement has been basically penciled out. It's been the minimal, it's been minimized to the point where um let's see, uh, where the just the magnitude of the potential that this could bring is um doesn't reflect what the comprehensive plan that we all work so hard for for over several years. Uh back in 2013, our efforts are just meaningless, and the plan itself can be just torn up and thrown away if this sort of thing is allowed to happen. This kind of um application should be treated as a whole that includes the entire city because the implications are so broad. It changed it will change the entire nature of the city with an R0 zone. This one property can accommodate up to given the the applicants um estimates from 600 to, and if you change the size of the units, maybe 800 units of housing. Um but we don't know what their plans are because this has been separated from a development plan altogether. This is just the map amendment.
openpublica.com