The Lake Oswego Planning Commission voted 4‑1 on Nov. 24 to recommend the City Council approve a package of changes to the city’s home‑occupation rules while removing three specific numeric restrictions and endorsing a limited outdoor‑activity option.

The measure under review, LU25‑002, would replace a vague city standard that a home occupation “cannot alter the residential character” with clearer, measurable rules. Staff recommended creating three classifications — Type A (no customers), Type B (customers allowed), and Type C (short‑term rentals) — and adding objective limits to make enforcement more straightforward, city planner Michael McNamee said in a presentation to the commission.

“Adding measurable and objective standards gives everyone a clearer understanding of what is expected of a home‑based business,” McNamee said during the staff presentation.

Why it matters: Commissioners and business owners debated whether numeric caps and other prescriptive rules would prevent legitimate home enterprises from operating. Small business owners and neighbors told the commission the changes could produce unintended consequences for long‑running or unique operations, such as a local winery that submitted written testimony asking for higher customer limits.

During public comment, Diane Cassidy, a Lake Oswego resident of the Blue Heron neighborhood, urged greater citizen involvement and warned that separate land‑use actions (including a continued Cruiseway Place hearing) could have broad impacts. “This zone request should be denied outright or at least postponed until the formal evaluation of all zoning in this city has been done,” Cassidy said, adding she learned of a related zone change only after the record closed.

Sam Hall, who operates two registered businesses from home, told the commission limits should not be imposed without helping businesses transition out of residential settings. “If you’re going to start binding people, you might want to start claiming some space and just hold it for people that are from here,” Hall said.

What the commission decided: After extended discussion about hazardous‑material rules, commercial vehicle parking limits and caps on clients, a commissioner moved to send staff recommendations to council but strike items 3, 5 and 6 from the draft (which included the hazardous‑substance prohibition and two vehicle/client numeric restrictions) and to adopt Option 1 for outdoor activity — allowing limited instructional outdoor classes subject to attendance and frequency limits. The motion was seconded and passed on a preliminary roll call read into the record as 4‑1. The commission chair recorded the decision as tentative; written findings will be adopted at the commission’s Dec. 8 meeting before the recommendation is forwarded to council.

On numeric limits: Staff had proposed limits for Type B businesses (clients on site) and for the new urban‑agriculture use. Council feedback and staff outreach had reduced some early proposals — for example, urban agriculture was discussed at 30 clients in early drafts but staff recommended a limit of 10 clients and a calendar cap of 45 days per year; council had urged lower numbers, and at the commission level Type B client limits were discussed in the 6–8 range.

Enforcement and evidence: Senior code enforcement specialist Bill Youngblood told the commission the existing enforcement approach is largely complaint‑based and that a subjective “residential character” standard is difficult to prove in court. Youngblood and other staff said objective numeric thresholds provide clearer evidence when a use is incompatible with neighborhood conditions.

Next steps: The commission’s preliminary recommendation will be memorialized in written findings on Dec. 8; the staff indicated the item is tentatively scheduled for City Council public hearing on Jan. 20, 2026. The Cruiseway Place land‑use hearing that several public commenters referenced remains continued to Dec. 8, when the applicant’s final argument and any additional testimony are expected.

The Planning Commission’s action was advisory; the City Council will make the final legislative decision and may adopt different limits or conditions.