Compatibility built into codes

Will "compatibility" be the defining factor in making infill decisions in Lake Oswego?  Or will "discretionary" decision-making lead to unhappy neighborhoods?

Be very careful whenever someone says "balanced approach".  That means bad things can still happen when you aren't looking.

The big problem everywhere is building either too big, or in the case of split lots, too small homes in established neighborhoods.  The key word here is "established".  As vacant parcels of land large enough for new planned developments disappear, builders are consuming lots in established neighborhoods by tearing down existing homes.  New dwellings should fit in with the neighborhood in scale and style.  Be a good neighbor.  Not be the loud, crazy one at the party that disturbs everyone else.  If the neighborhood doesn't suit the taste of the eventual buyer, perhaps a different neighborhood would be better suited for a new home.

Lake Oswego is built out - except for a few parcels, there is no land left for subdivisions in our city.  The UGB has seen to it that land inside the boundary will be ever more expensive than ever, so more tear downs are to be expected.  The city does not need to densify the neighborhoods, but builders will  divide larger lots.

How do we get from incompatible to compatible new homes? 

Codes.  

• There should be no misunderstanding about what makes your neighborhood tick, and what defines its character.  (See last paragraph here.) Do not leave definition vague, but make it objective - height, roof pitch, house style, setbacks, etc.  
• Make sure this gets into the city's Community Development Codes.  There is no other way.  No codes, no compatibility.  
• Talk to the Planning Commission (also the Commission for Citizen Involvement) for how to start this process.  
• Advocate for and protest against things you see going on that are good and bad for your neighborhood.
• Support other neighborhoods in their quest for the integrity of their neighborhoods.   

   

Under Amanda Fritz, Portland development bureau told to say 'no' more often

The Oregonian/Oregonlive, February 17, 2015  By Eliot Njus

Portland regulators have been told they need to tell developers "no" more often.

City Commissioner Amanda Fritz, who oversees the Bureau of Development Services, told the department's staff in a memo this month that it needs to "raise the bar" in certain land-use reviews. In particular, she said, staff members should put more emphasis on considerations like neighborhood compatibility, the preservation of trees and availability of on-street parking.

All are issues that have attracted residents to testify at City Hall by the dozens in the past several years as a post-recession building boom has ruffled some feathers in long-established neighborhoods.

"I don't support the philosophy of cramming in density at all costs," Fritz wrote in the memo, obtained by The Oregonian/OregonLive. "We need a more balanced approach."

The directive won't impact development that's allowed outright under city code. Rather, it's a change in how planners make "discretionary" land-use decisions, in which some criteria is subjective.

In October, the Portland City Council denied a lot division sought by infill developer Vic Remmers, overruling staff at the Bureau of Development Services and a city hearings officer. It agreed with the Woodstock Neighborhood Association that the lot arrangement, which would create two skinny lots around 30 feet wide, would be incompatible with the existing neighborhood.

The rebuke of the bureau's original findings on the case sent a message it needed to figure out how to account for the character of the existing neighborhood.

The Woodstock case points to the difficulty of determining what's "compatible." A hearings officer who reviewed the case before the City Council described compatibility as "particularly vexing from a legal standpoint because they are so subjective as to be nearly meaningless as a standard."