HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2008-11-24 (02),, .
•
•
•
City of Lake Oswego d
Planning Commission Minutes f8 ~ppro November 24, 2008
I. CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Philip Stewart called the Planning Commission meeting of Monday,
November 24, 2008 to order at 6:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 380
"A" Avenue, Lake Oswego, Oregon.
II. ROLL CALL
III .
Members present Were Vice Chair Philip Stewart, Adrianne Brockman, Scot Siegel and
Alison Webster. Chair Glisson and Commissioner Mary Olson were excused.
Staff present were Dennis Egner, Long Range Planning Manager; Jonna PapaefthimiotJ,
Natural Resources Planner; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney and Iris Treinen,
·Administrative Support.
CiTIZEN COMME_NT
Carolyne Jones, 2818 Poplar Way, complained that meeting minutes did not accurately
represent citizen testimony and should be made available sooner. The Commissioners
observed the purpose of the written minutes was to summarize the proceedings and
actions takeJ?, by the Planning Commission, and ~ full audio recording of each meeting
was avail~ble to the public via the website shortly after each meeting. Ms. Jones
explained that she relied more on the minutes than the atJdio for research and to
potentially document a lawsuit related to City constraints on the use of her property. The
Commissioners suggested Ms. Jones could chose to submit written testimony at the
meetings or ask them to attach her own, verbatim, transcript to the minutes before they
voted on them. Ms. Jones raised other concerns about the inordinate volume of
information and how· quickly the Commissioners had gone through it at the previous
hearing. She also complained that the staff reports did not include feedback from
citizens.
IV. MINUTES
The Planning Commission postponed votes on the Minutes of October 13. 2008 and
September 29, 2008 l.Jrttil their December 8, 2008 meeting .
)
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes .of November 24, 2008 Page I of 10
V. PUBLIC HEARING
Community Develonment Code Amendments
A request from the City of Lake Oswego for amendments to the Community
Development Code (CDC) and an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Ordinance l527, LU 08-0051, CDC -Sensitive La,nds Overlay District
Amendments. Arnends portions of the Community Development Code Article 50.16.
Proposed updates pertain to the following topics: consistent usage of terms, permitted
uses in resource areas (second-story additions, utility tunneling, street or trail signs,
access to new lots), "wildlife-friendly" fences, "reasonable development" on property
totally covered by wetland or stream resources, map corrections, development procedures,
water-dependent uses such as docks along the Willamette and Tualatin Rivers, hazardous
materials storage, and ivy removal as a condition of development approval. Staff
coordinator was Jonna· P~paefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner. Continued from
September 22 and 29; ·october 13; and November 10, 2008.
Vice Chair Stewart reop~ned the public hea,ring and expl~ined the ~pplicable procedures
and criteria. He asked the Commissioners to declare any ex parte contacts (including site
visits), bias or conflict of interest regarding the application. None were deClared.
Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner, presented the staff report.
\
New Graphics
•
Ms. Papaefthimiou said t4e revised Sensitive Lands Atlas would now show the stream •
corridor buffer and construction buffer as well as the corridor itself. She presented
, improved graphics that staff proposed to insert to illustrate code strearn corridor
protections. They showed both types of buffers and were to scale. Most replaced
existing grap4ics, but two new illustrations showed the buffers on cuh:erts. She said they
mostly showed what the current code required,· but the illustrations showed steep slopes
as 25% because staff proposed to define a steep slope as 25% or greater in the revised
code. She said staff also proposed to measure the buffer from the edge of legal till
instead of from the top of bank in situations where legal fill covered the original top of
hank. Ms. Papaefthimiou said they currently had to estimate where the top of bank had
been. She said they still needed to fashion a method to resolve where the top of bank was
at a. culvert. When asked, she confirmed the buffer area had to remain natural vegetation.
One Commissioner suggested the culvert buffer should actually be labeled a "distitrbed
area," because it typically was. The Commissioners saw a need to discuss how to
differently address intermittent streams. They generally accepted the proposed graphics
because they were more realistic represent~tions of the concepts they were supposed to
ilh,tstrate. However, they planned to examine and discuss the specific standards later.
Simplified Review
Ms. Papaefthirniou discussed proposed arnendtpents to the Sensitive Lands Overlay
District code. Some amendments simplified the environmental review process for small
projects) by making the "trigger" for the process ''development," instead of "land •
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes ofNovember 24, 2008 Page 2 of 10
·J
•
•
•
disturbance" and exempting certain activities. from review, such as repairing an existing
structure or removing iVy and replacing it with native plants .
The Commissioners considered vertical additions to nonconforming structures in
Resource Conservation (RC) or Resource Protection (RP) Districts and whether
cantilevered additions should be allowed to project out from the original footprint of the
structure. They noted a cantilevered structure might affect a resource by blocking rain
and sunlight. Staff advised that the "footprint" did not include the area under the eaves of
the structure, or a shaft or courtyard, and "structure" was anything 30 inches or higher
above the ground, so any cantilevered structure (such as a deck) that was 30 inches or
more above ground had to be within the original footprint. The Commissioners said that
should be made clea,r in t.l:te code Cl,Illendments.
The revised amendments listed certain types of development projects in resource districts,
including landscaping and repair activities, which would not be subject to the
en:virorirtlental review process, as long as they were accomplished in a manner that
conformed to the applicable . standards, which called for minimizing impacts and a
mitigation plan. No application or fee would be required, but the developer would be
subject to code enforcement action, if necessary. Staff anticipated this change would help
landowners who seemed somewhat anxious and uncertain about what kind of permission
they had to get to do those things and it would make some restoration and enhancement
projects easier. They noted S\lCh projects created a public benefit, and the proposed
process would not requite costly, professional, resource delineation. The proposed
amendments also would specifically allow signs and kiosks to mark roads, trails and
public facilities in resource districts. None of the Commissioners challenged these
changes.
Carolyne Jones, 2818 Poplar Way, was rtot sure that the material the Commissioners
were discussing was in her packet. The Commjssioners and staff explained they had a
binder cont~ning aU the sequential staff reports related to the SenSitive Lands Overlay
District amendments and that staff had modified the written mate~~l somewhat so it fit
on the slides they were presenting. Ms. Papaefthimiou explained the graphics were in the
original staff report. She said staff made copies of the staff reports available for the
public to tefer to dUring Planning Commission meetings and those reports were also
posted on the website the same day they were mailed out.
David Miller, 5621 Willow, stated that he was the architect of a house on Cedar Court,
which was on a lot that was fully constrained by the RP District. He related it was the
first time he had ever done work in Lake Oswego artd he had found the Lake Oswego
code mote difficult than the code of any other jurisdiction he had worked in. He
indicated that the proposed changes would be helpful. ·
What is a ttReasonable Sized House?"
Ms. Papaefthimiou discussed what was a "reasonable sized house" to· allow on a fully
encumbered lot. She said staff currently followed the City Attorney's advice to apply the
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and lot coverage that would be allowed on the smallest legal lot
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes ofNovember 24, 2008 Page 3 of 10
. ·I
in the zone. For example, on a larger-than-1 0,000-square-foot, totally resource-
encumbered lot in the R-1 0 zone, the development would be subject to the same limits •
applied to, an unencumbered, 10,000 sq. ft. lot in that zone, and the developer was
allowed to build one residenti~l dwelling with a garage and access. However, they were
not necessarily entitled to conventional landscaping or accessory structures. She then
pointed out the staff report suggested three alternate ways to fmd what was a "reasonable
sized house." She said st~ff and Commissioner Brockman had subsequently fashioned a
fourth alternative. Option A set a maximum disturbance area and was similar to the
method in the Metro Title 13 Model Code. Option B related allowable lot coverage to the
minimum sized lot in the zone and added a disturbance area. Option C related allowable
house size to the average size of abutting houses, and set a maximum disturbance area.
The fourth and newest alternative reflected Commissioner Brockman's advice to factor in
the relationship between neighbors and step down the height of a structure as it began to
encroach into code-required setbacks between neighbors. Commissioner Brockman
observed that buyers knew what the resource desigtJ.ation was and what the "rules" were
when they purchased the property, and height had a big impact on neighbors.
Case Studies
Ms. Papa~fthimiou then presented case studies of what development might be allowed
under the different options on totally resource encumbered lots under the current code and
under the alternate options.
The first case study the Commissioners examined was an R-10 zoned parcel on Cedar
Court. Commissioner Siegel observed the City had to balance community values of •
protecting the natural resources; assuring the development was compatible with the
neighbors, and applying the code fairly and consistently.. Commissioner Brock.man
. suggested allowing the owner flexibility of design if it was environmentally friendly. She
thought that a cantilevered deck could be over a resource if its design let water and
sunlight through. She recalled Frank Lloyd Wright had designed houses over streams.
She recalled seeing lots of houses on stilts in Lake Oswego. Vice Chair Stewart observed
that economics and property rights had to be co11sidered. Commissioner Siegel then
suggested allowing the developer to choose the alternative that maximized the benefits to
both the owner and the community. They could trade architectural features they wanted,
such as a deck, with incorporation of environmenW-and sustainability:-related features.
Commissio11er Webster observed the state and regional governments prioritized resource
protection, so there shoul4 be a limit on how much leeway the property owner could
have. Commissioner Brockman stressed that if an owner could build something
environmentally friendly, they should. be able to do that. She suggested owners be
allowed to replant natural vegetation in a buffer area. She said that would still protect
wat~rways from erosion. She suggested fashioning some kind of special review for
bigger homes that met all setbacks and code requirements. The burden would be on the
applicant to show it was environmentally friendly.
Tim Mather, 1590 Fernwood Drive, the owner ofthe Cedar Court property, said th~ lot
was a challenging site, and he had found the City had no process that allowed him to
mitigate gesign and "buy square footage back" with features like a water harvesting •
City ofLake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of November 24,2008 Page 4 of 10
•
•
•
system, permeable pavement, a planted roof or using environmentally sensitive
construction techniques (some of which wete currently allowed in the City of Portland) .
Mr. Mather said he was currently allowed to develop 10,000 sq. ft. of the 41,000 sq. ft.
lot. He said he wanted to build a small house with three bedrooms, a guestroom, a
kitchen and a larger garage, but he. wa,s challenged to fit in a drivewa,y. He said Option C
. was "not a bad way to go," but since his was a lakeftont lot, the formula should compare
what he wanted to build with other lakeside homes and not the smaller, lower-value,
homes further uphill. He cautioned the amendments could start a firestorm of
controversy. He noted that if a 30-foot culvert buffer were applied to a commercial lot
there might not be enough room for parking when it was redeveloped. He reported he
had removed ivy 'from all the trees on the site and left som~ dead trees for bat habitat.
When asked, sta,ff confinn.ed that the current code allowed the 1applicant to have a
driveway as large as they could demonstrate was the minimum necessary for adequate
access. They noted that the current code did not offer any incentive to minimize
driveway area in return fot having more area fot landscaping. Mr. Mather explained he
wanted to be able to tum around in the driveway and that took more space.
Commissioner Siegel observed the Option C formula allowed less square footage than the
house could be tiildet current code, and he agteed it would be fairer to only factor in the
sizes of nearby, similarly situated, lakefront houses. Commissioner BrockmM suggested
the process should clearly tell applicants the protections the City would look for, for the
neighbors and the environment, and allow them to propose something that would achieve
those goals .
Ms. Papaefthimiou summarized that the Commissioners were suggesting two processes:
a process that allowed a lot of discretion a,s long as the applicant showed that what they
were proposing met clearly stated coniin\iility neighbor-compatibility and environmental
goals, and that required a high level of review; and anoth,er track that applied clear and
objective standards and dimensions. Vice Chair Stewart suggested allowing a landowner
to use permeable pavement when there was not enough disturbance area left to build a
driveway. Mr. Mather related he had to relllove a deck from the plans. He said if decks
were allowed and they wete of petineable material many types of native plants could live
under them .. He suggested allowing a mitigation landscape plan to be submitted with the
house plan. Staff observed that would me@ adding a set Of bonuses for mitigation
features to the clear and objective standards process. Coinmissioner Brockman recalled
testimony by Ms. Jones and Mr. Hedges at the previous hearing and suggested owners of
parcels like theirs could be allowed to divide and develop them if they demonstrated that
could be done in a manner that was environmentally compatible. She invited them to
submit a list of types of mitigation to be considered in establishing new standards for
review.
Coniiliissioner Webster stressed the need to set priorities and standards that reflected the
values of the community and were applicable to every lot. She held that the Planning
Commission should not decide what the limits were lot-by-lot. She said if the problem
was that some owners ha,d an encumbered lot and could not develop it to the extent it
could be, if unencumbered,. then the City had to determine how much weight to give
protection of the resource and assign limits to the extent to which development could
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes ofNovember 24, 2008 Page 5 of 10
"chip away" at the resource. For exa,mple the City might say owners of totally
constrained lots could develop 75% of the area they might have been allowed for an
unencumbered lot. Commissioner Brockman suggested such applicants be offered a •
choice of a quantitative process that required them to meet specified standards, or a more
. flexible-review process that allowed them to present a· plan that pr9tected both City values
of protection of neighbors and protection of the environment. She clarified that
~ppliccmts using the more flexible process still h~d to comply with zoning regulations.
Commissioner Siegel said he was not yet convinced there was a need for a discretionary
design exception for larger homes, but he thought it would be useful to allow the
disturbance area to be used for both driveways and patios because today's:builders could
use materials and techniques such as pettileable paving and rain gardens.
Staff then presented the case study of an R-15 zoned; totally resolitce encumbered
property on Poplar Way.
Cap Hedges, SW Breyman Place, Portland, OR 97219, owner of the parcel, explained
how he had once proposed to cluster -threehoines-on lt -in wh~t he believed was the most
environmentally advantageous use of the land. However, the code lim:lted development
to a single-family home. He explained how his plan for three homes would have a lesser
impact on resolitces and help pay for the costly infrastructure he would have to in~ta,ll.
During the questioning period, Mr. Hedges clarified it was not a landslide area but two
manmade slides had been created by PGE pole installation. The Commissioners
observed that the three homes would be cantilevered over the resource buffer.
Ms. Papaefthimiou explained _both of the lots in the case studies were good examples of •
totally encumbered lots. She noted that such lots were usually large parcels that had not
been developed because they were oddly configured, steep, located where installing
access was challenging, and on the "edges" of uses such as the lake, Tryon Creek Park
and Marylhurst University. Staff and the Commissioners noted that resource district
constraint could also affect smaller lots. They had heard about a house on a smaller,
almost totally encumbered lot at the comer of Springbrook Court and Summit, at their
previous hearing.
Corn.nllssioner Brockman observed the code treated owners of riverfront and lakefront
land differently than it treated owners of resource-constrained land along drain~geways.
She sai,d if the City wanted to impose the standards, they ought to let the owners do what
they could within the context of not harming the envirot;unent and the wildlife habitat.
Staff explained they were going to propose new Metro Title 3 protection requirements for
riverfront property, but most of the lal<.e had not been designated a Title 3 resource during
the original sensitive lands inventory process. They said the primary purposes of the
Sensitive Lands standards were to protect water quality and moderate flow as streams
drained to other locations and to protect wildlife habitat. The City was supposed to adopt
standards that resulted in the same functional protection as the Metro model code (which
required larger buffers than the Lake Oswego code) did.
Mr. Egner advised that the question before the Planning Commission was how to fashion •
code so it avoided legally "ta,king" property by allowing "reasonable" development, and
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Min~tes ofNovember 24, 2008 Page 6 of 10
•
•
•
.. ··,··.
they should determine what was an acceptable amount of development to allow while
protecting neighbors and the environment. Commissioner Brockman clarified she also
' wanted to protect the environment and quality of habitat, but by using performance
standards, instead of rigid rules.
Carolyile Jones, 2818 Poplar Way, reported that there were 30 nonconforming homes in
her neighborhood t_hat would be affected, induding her OW11 smaller, olqer, home. She
worried that if she wanted to improve her house she could not increase the disturbance
area. She said her lot was big enough to partition into two lots, and she would like to do
that, but she did not want to be forced to build a ''tower." She said she and her neighbors
did not support the provisions related to nonconforming use and they wanted to keep their
current zoning. She said they. were good stewards of the streams and the water was clean.
Mr. Egner clarified that Ms. Jones could not divide her property under the current code,
becat1se no one was allowed to divide property if the division created a totally
encumbered lot. However, if she remodeled the existing house or tore it down to build a
new one, she could build a "reasonably sized house." Staff clarified that an owner did not
have to go through a land use process to add a vertical addition to an existing,
nonconforming structure. -
Staff ex:plajned that they had not been able to find a way under existing code or the
.options discussed in the staff report that would allow Mr. Hedges to develop the three
dwellings he wanted to build. They advised that a Pla.Iiiled Development (PD) was not an
available option for developing a totally encumbered parcel. The Commissioners
observed that the entire clustered development he had described might be smaller than
each of the huge single-family homes around it. Staff confirmed that the site was large
enough for a three-lot PD if it were not encumbere4. Mr. Hedges related that the
Glenmorrie Neighborhood Association had endorsed his plan. Mr. Egner recalled it was
Mr. Hedges'' application to develop his parcel with three homes that had generated the
City Attorney's interpretation that a "reason~ble sizeci house" was one home. Vice Chair
Stewart suggested the method that encumbered the least amount of the resource was the
better method. Mr. Egner said that someone else might argue that one house with a
bigger footprint than the three attached dwelling houses had less environmental impact
because it generated less activity around the house. Commissioner Siegel suggested the
focus might be .on what was a "reasonable disturbance area," which might include deck,
driveway, pet and patio areas, and specify what areas could or could not be fenced.
Commissioner Brockman suggested allowing houses on stilts that did not disturb the
resources under them and allowed water and sunlight. Mr. Egner said he intended to
explore ways to allow land divisions and development at the planned density, yet protect
the resource.
Ms. Papaefthimiou summarized that the Conunissioners wanted to see a tiered review
process for totally encumbered lots. One process would have clear and objective,
quantitative, standards that people could use to save time and hassle. Another would be
for applicants who were willing to go through a discretionary process tha,ttook longer and
required them to address performance standards and submit more detailed plans for
design review. The standards to be applied Would focus on the amount of disturbance
City of Lal<e Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of November 24, 2008 · Page 7 of 10
area and let people decide how to use it for structures, landscaping or _other features. The
performance standards were intended to reflect community values of protecting resources,
compatibility with neighbors and code consistency and fairness to all property owners; •
Commissioner Siegel stressed the code should be clear enough that readers would know
what they could do with their property. He said the same options should be available to
the owner of an existing house and the owner of a vacant lot. Mr. Egner recalled the Infill
Task Force wanted to incorporate incentives into the code to encourage owners to keep
existing houses by making it easier to add onto them, so they did not f~el they had to
demolish them to take full advantage of code.
Modification of Dimensional Standards (LOC 50.16.040)
The Commissioners discussed how to ensure neighborhood compatibility when an owner
of ai1 existing, lega1ly nonconforming stn.,Icture wanted to expand into their other setbacks
in order to protect a resource. The current code focused purely on positioning the house
to better protect the resource .. The Commission had voted to repeal this provision at their
last meeting after they saw an example of how such positioning adversely impacted
neighbors. Repealing it meant an applicant had use the variance process instead. Staff
and Commissioner Brockman related they had examined this issue since, the last hearing
and now had another alternative tb suggest that might better address relation_ship to
neighbors than the variance process.
\
Staff observed the Commissioners had already discussed how to define "reasonable
development' on a constrained lot. They said this section would only allow an owner to
modify setbacks to achieve "reasonable development," If they already had a building •
envelope that was the "reasonable development" they were entitled to they .could not
modify setbacks. If they proposed to modify setbacks to achieve reasonable development,
the change Was subject to criteria that said it could not be detrimental to public health or
safety or materially injurious to adjacent property. Those were the same criteria as were
applied to grant a Class 1 variance, Commissioner Brockman recalled the house on
Springbrook Court/Summit was so close to the street that in her opinion it obstructed
driver sight lines. Staff explained that injury to adjacent property might be the impact to
privacy or views, value or livability. How much of an impact was materially injurious
was open to discussion. For example, what percentage of view blocking would that be?
The Commissioners agreed the important aspect of this process was that the property
owner had to worl_{ it out with their neighbors.
The proposed criteria also called for the/result to be compatible with the scale of existing
development. Staff had inserted $Om~ numeric standards here -for the purposes of
discussion -that limited the extent of change. The Commissioners wondered if the
height limit of 18 feet (for the part encroaching into the setback area) was enough for a
second story. They thought it might allow 1.5 stories, and the second floor would feature
a sloped roof. Commissioner Siegel recalled that the Lake Oswego code measured height
to the roof peak. He said this limit might not make sense on a sloped lot. Staff offered to
check with Building Department staff.
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of November 24,2008 Page 8 of 10
•
..
•
•
•
One of the proposed criteria was that the result of the change would rtot in:ft:irtge oil the
privacy of adjacent lots. Staff explained if the modification was a significant
encroachment into the setba,cks, a review might look at pl~s and ensure they protected
privacy. Commissioner Siegel asked if staff also recotnrnended a privacy review for
balconies or porches. Ms. Papaefthimiou said staff planned to propose such a review for
buildi)lgs on flag lots. The staff report suggested tiered review: one clear and objective
process to deal with minor modifications of a setback (which was to be the minimum
necessary for reasonable use), that required the change to be according to numeric
standards; and another, discretionary, process to hear requests for major modification of a
setback. Commissioner Brockman said that process gave neighbors an . opportunity to
participate in the process that they currently did not have and it a,Ilowed the City to
impose conditions of approval that would protect them. Ms. Pa:paefthimiou advised that
the process should give owners of totally encumbered lots that were at the end of a dead-
end ·street or along an undeveloped right-of-way the ability to build to the edge of the
right-of-way if there were no intention to ever improve it.
Ms. Papaefthimiou observed a consensus to tnove forward with the new graphics and the
simplification of review provisions and a consensus on the concept of only allowing
owners to modify their. setbacks when they had not yet achieved "reasonable
development." She said the discussion had given her a sense of what the Commissioners
thought "reasonable development'' was. Staff related that the public forum regarding
Sensitive Lanes mapping changes was scheduled for the following week, and they would
refine the options for determining what was reasonable development a,nd present them
with other CDC changes at a January public forum. Mr. Egner anticipated the Planning
Cotnmission would consider the mapping changes after the code changes were settled and
adopted. He noted ther~ was still wm::k to be done on how to deal with rninor drainages
and riverfront protection concepts.
David Miller commented that the two-tiered, "hard line" vs. discretionary, approaches
made sense if "disturbed area" or ''developed area'' were defined, and if the owner was
then a,llowed latitude to come up with a solution that·also met community values. He
agreed the code should be as clear and as flexible as possible.
Carolyne Jones advised that very few Class 2 variances were granted because the
applicant had to prove a hardship that could not be a self-made hardship. She added the
variance process required large fees. She held the hardship in most cases had been
created by City regulations.
Commissioner Brockman thanked the representatives of the owners of the case study
. properties for offering the Planning Commission their ideas. Commissioner Brockman
moved to continue the public hearing of both LU 08-.0051 and LU 08-0052 to December
8. 2008. Commissioner Siegel seconded the rnotioll and it passed 4:0 .
City of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of November 24, 2008 Page 9 oflO
VI. OTHER BUSINESS -PLANNING COMMISSION
Periodic Review
Staff announced that the Planning Commission and staff would discuss the staffs
periodic review r~commendations at their next meeting.
Planning Coml!fission Goals 2009
Mr. Egner distributed copies of the 2008 Planning Commission Goals Status Report and a
supplemental list entitled, Planning Department Projects/Programs Options, which listed
other work items staff wanted them to consider working on in 2009. He highlighted
I
items on both lists. During discussion he explained that the City Council had directed
staff to reduce the scope of the Boones Ferry Road Refinement study and the Historic
Resources Advisory . Board wanted to create an Iron Heritage Trail program. The
Commissioners planned to fashion their 2009 goals at their next meeting.
Water Quality Presentation
Ms. Papaefthimiou ~greed to find out if the Tualatin District's videotaped presentation on
water quality was available so the Commissioners could view it.
VII_. OTHER BUSINESS -COMMISSION FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Stewart
adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
CitY of Lake Oswego Planning Commission
Minutes of November 24, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
n~ ~einen
Administrative Support
Page 10 of 10
·;
•
•
•