A group of 43 residents of the North Tabor neighborhood signed their names in opposition to the 2020 zoning change that has ushered in several apartment projects without off-street parking. The group feels the street parking congestion will create unsafe conditions for pedestrians and cyclists using the east/west greenway running through the neighborhood. Representatives of the neighbors addressed the Portland City Council on September 25th, and the North Tabor Neighborhood Association Board penned an open letter to city officials. The letter called for a pause of development in the North Tabor neighborhood and to prioritize their listed safety concerns. However, during a July 10th Public Meeting, resident comments about the 32-unit apartment building in question surfaced concerns other than vehicle storage. Additionally, curbside parking space is not yet at capacity in the area.

Kent Family Holdings plans to demolish three 100-year-old homes and one modern accessory dwelling unit (ADU) along NE 57th Avenue to construct an apartment complex offering 32 one-bedroom units split between two buildings. The three-story structures share a central courtyard area. The apartment complex features a ground-floor common room, leasing office, secure bike storage area, and trash room. People will access eight units from the main level, with the northern four having doors opening onto NE Flanders Street. Residents will access the upper 24 units by two courtyard stairwells attached to the southern structure. The buildings have dual walkway bridges linking each building’s open-air hallways on the second and third floors. All apartments have washers and dryers in the unit.

The Kent Family Trust began purchasing homes on this block in 2018, with the 1904-built corner home at 332 NE 57th Avenue. In 2020, they bought 320 NE 57th Avenue, which was nearly 100 years old but included a 2015-era detached ADU in the back. By 2021, they owned the 1910-built single-family home at 312 NE 57th Avenue. Then, in August 2023, the property owners requested an Early Assistance meeting with the city seeking guidance on a proposal to demolish three existing structures and build a 28-unit apartment building. The initial design included a courtyard, community room, and a tuck under parking lot.

A year after consulting with the city, Kent Family Holdings submitted building permit applications for a development with four more units than first proposed and no onsite parking. This change to forgo on-property parking aligns with Portland’s goals to maximize housing in increased-density zoned areas with access to transit, bikeways, and resources within walkable range of people’s homes. However, some area residents rallied around a shared concern over street parking conditions. City staff upsized the zoning in this section of Portland to Residential Multi-Dwelling 1 (RM1) several years ago. This classification allows for low-scale multi-dwelling development up to three stories tall but smaller in scale than the Commercial Mixed Use 2 (CM2) zoning to the north and south of the property on NE Glisan and E Burnside Streets. The housing density recently built in response to the nearby CM2 zoned areas lacks onsite parking and has added hundreds of apartment units within a mile radius of the site. Residents have observed more vehicles parked on side streets as buildings fill with new tenants. The neighborhood group opposed to continued apartment development between the CM2 zones says that rapid growth in housing density has impacted livability and safety through constrained on-street parking. They expressed concern over their narrow streets and fear that cars will hurt non-motorists in this densely parked environment.

Parking issues often surround new housing developments when they deliver density at any size. Infill development will sometimes remove garages and driveways in favor of adding more residences to a lot, requiring street parking to meet residents’ needs. Recent changes to Oregon and Portland rules around zoning have removed many of the onsite parking requirements for housing and allowed multiunit construction on almost every residential property. As legislators intended, these changes have sparked new homes built in yards of existing houses. It has also incentivized the demolition of smaller structures to make way for new multiunit housing that uses more of the available land. Governments have limited ability to build new housing and rely on zoning code changes to convince private investment to create more inventory where planners feel the environment can support it. In Oregon, where regulations limit urban growth, cities must accommodate population growth through redevelopment instead of wider expansion. A prolonged housing shortage in Portland and constrained expansion have led to these zoning updates at a speed greater than some residents feel comfortable with.

Personal vehicle storage is often the first conflict experienced in rising density as it is a tangible concern for people to focus on. Navigating Portland without a car is more accessible than many places in the country. Still, it is not without challenges, and having access to a vehicle helps people secure better employment opportunities away from transit lines and facilitates the multistop trips families with young children of ten make. However, parking alone is not the only concern people have with redevelopment, and street parking in many Eastside neighborhoods is not at capacity. Some of the NE 57th and Flanders project’s online Public Meeting participants expressed other concerns besides parking. Some attendees said they preferred row housing because that would have created “family-sized” housing similar to what is already there. Another meeting attendee expressed his opinion that the renters of these apartments would not be members of the community, only living there for a few years and moving on. The national average for apartment turnover among renters is around two years, according to some estimates, but that varies by city and does not account for people who relocate within the same neighborhood. Also, community contribution is not definable by the duration of residency.

The group attending the meeting challenged the profit motive of the developer who is building a market-rate complex. The development team acknowledged the motive and noted that for-profit projects create the majority of new housing in Portland and are the primary builders of improved sidewalk infrastructure. The lack of an adequate sidewalk network was one of the community’s safety concerns. The builders also explained that this project will meet Portland’s Inclusionary Housing requirements with a percentage of units reserved as affordable to people earning below 80% or 60% of the Median family income (MFI). The city bases the number of units reserved on the income cap percentage a developer selects. A developer reserves 20% of units at 80% MFI or 10% of units at 60% MFI.

Although recent neighborhood efforts have targeted this 32-unit apartment project, they acknowledge this is just one of many developments contributing to their angst. The combined number of units constructed and planned in their area has some people in this neighborhood feeling like they are facing an undue burden as the city addresses the housing crisis. The neighbors hope to change the zoning to its previous level or, as one meeting participant put it, pay him a million dollars to move elsewhere. Many other Portland residents share his sentiment as they see property values rise and neighborhoods change, creating more redevelopment opportunities as they sell. The zoning changes in Portland do not force people to redevelop their property. However, their neighbors can and often do for the financial benefit it brings. Zoning can reduce the conflict between adjacent property owners who have different objectives for their properties, but planners do not intend zoning to be static; changes will happen as demand in the city calls for new density. The real estate market and property owners decide how fast the neighborhood redevelops to meet the new zoning standards.

Frustration over changing parking conditions is understandable, particularly when people can no longer reliably park in front of their homes and have to walk a block or more. People often own cars and need to park them on the street if that is their only option. However, congested parking on streets is not necessarily unsafe. Narrow roads encourage drivers to travel slower, reducing the dangers for people walking and biking in the area. Some commuters cut through smaller streets to save time when heavy traffic jams primary routes. However, narrow and crowded side streets are less appealing to them because the slower speeds needed to navigate car-lined streets negate the value of the shortcut. Reducing through traffic in an area can increase safety.

This tension between residents and land use changes is a product of the transitional times cities face. Population growth demands new housing, and environmental goals have depreciated the value personal vehicles bring to society. Additionally, alternative transportation does not meet enough travel needs for all Portlanders, making cars a continued part of people’s lives. It is unknown if the North Tabor neighborhood’s call for a pause to development will find support in City Hall. Many of the concerns expressed have not occurred yet. As the zoning stands, builders in this area have permission to create the residential density officials are asking for as city leaders try to stabilize rising rents through rightsized housing inventory.

Article and photos by

Jacob Loeb

Main article rendering from Land Use 24-040947 Adjustment request documents