City Council - Regular Meeting

He doesn't touch base with me either. Good evening. Thank you for coming to join us tonight for Albany City Council Work Session, Monday, June 8, 2026 at 4 PM. I'll call the meeting to order. And would you please do a roll call, city recorder?

Councillor McGee, looks like she's absent. Councillor Newton. Howdy. Councillor Thompson. He is walking in the door. Right behind you. Councillor Van Drommelen. Here. Councillor McLeod. Present. Councillor Smith. Here.

Mayor Johnson. Here. Next item on the agenda is a quasi-judicial public hearing regarding planning files SP-15-25. NR-03-25, and RL-08-25. The proposal is for the construction of 108 multi-dwelling development, a natural resource impact review to encroachments in the riparian corridor overlay, and a replant of three lots to one lot. The item will go this way today. Item one is the order of operations for the night, a staff report. preliminary questions for staff, testimony from the applicant, questions for the applicant, public testimony in favor, in opposition, and neutral, rebuttal by the applicant, procedural questions for the staff, council deliberations, and final decision. If you wish to testify, there are three options available to you as described on the agenda. If you have not yet provided your information to the staff, there's a sign-up sheet at the back of the room. I now call the meeting a quasi-judicial public hearing in order at 4-0-1 on June 8th. Do the councillors wish to declare a conflict of interest?

Mr. Mayor, I would like to declare a potential conflict of interest. I am a member of the board of the HOA of one of the properties that is affected by this development. And out of an abundance of caution, I will be recusing myself from these proceedings, even though I have I maintain that I have stayed neutral in the discussions with residents. Out of an abundance of caution, I'll be recusing myself tonight. Thank you. Any other councillors?

I don't wish to declare a conflict of interest. I sit on the same board, but have recused myself from any discussion in the board that may have touched on anywhere near taking a position on this. I've stayed well clear of that and made my intention to do so, so that I can hear a potential appeal with that body.

Mr. Attorney, do you have any comments? Council, you okay with that?

It's fine. They both are well within their right to do that.

Thank you, thank you, Councillors. Do any Councillors wish to report a ex parte contact?

I ran into Commissioner Nyquist at the Capitol, like I guess in February. We did not discuss this, but I do know that it concerns one of his properties.

Okay. And I've also talked with Commissioner Nyquist about the project, but I did tell him that I couldn't get into the details because it would affect my decision making. So we just closed the conversation.

I've also received several emails from folks within both the Spring Meadow and the Brookfield development. I've let them know similar things where I'm able to share factual information about the land use process. I've done that, but also specifically let them know that I can't weigh in because this could come to City Council on appeal.

Thank you. Do any Councilors wish to report a site visit?

other than the fact that I drive by it every day, because there's one way in and one way out of my neighborhood. I wouldn't describe it as a site visit, but I'm familiar.

Well, I drive by it all the time, too, going home. Yeah. Thank you. Do any councilors wish to abstain from participating in the proceedings? Thank you, council. Does anyone wish to challenge the city council's right to determine this matter or participation of any council member in the hearing and decision? Seeing none, if you are attending online, please turn on your camera and raise your hand to be called upon. Or if you're attending by phone, please unmute yourself and state your name to be called upon. Seeing or hearing none, I will now call on the reading of the meeting procedures.

Good afternoon, Council. For all those wishing to testify, please direct your testimony toward the applicable criteria of the case or other criteria in the Comprehensive Plan or Albany Development Code which you believe to apply to the decision. Please be aware that you must raise an issue with enough detail to afford the City or other parties the opportunity to respond to the issue if you later want to raise that issue on appeal. If additional documents or evidence are provided by any party, the city council may allow a continuance or leave the record open to allow the parties a reasonable opportunity to respond. The failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient detail to allow the local government to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.

Will the project planner, Jennifer Cipello, please present the staff report.

Good evening, I'm Jennifer Cipello. I plan to be here with the City of Albany and I have before you SP 1525, RL 0825, and NR 0325. The subject properties consist right now of three separate properties and they're located at 1190 53rd Avenue, 1122 53rd Avenue, and 5310 Pacific Boulevard. The three lots together consist of 8.29 acres. Once consolidated, the subject property would be split zoned as mixed-use commercial or MUC and open space OS zone. The location and zone map can be found on page 53 of your agenda packet. Approximately 4.9 acres of the consolidated subject property is located within a natural resource overlay consisting of open space, floodplain, significant wetlands, repairing corridor and hillside. The application package does not propose any development within the open space zoning, the floodplain and the significant wetlands. The application package is for the construction of an apartment complex consisting of 108 dwelling units, a natural resource impact review for encroachments into the amended repairing corridor, and a replat to consolidate the three properties into one unit of land. The apartment complex will provide 42 two-bedroom apartments and 66 one-bedroom slash studio apartments, 145 parking spaces, indoor and outdoor common spaces and amenities, and a children's play area. Prior to applying for the development permit, the applicant had a wetland delineation completed upon the subject property to locate the upland boundary of the significant wetlands. The site plan submitted with the application materials included the updated location of the significant wetland boundary and its associated repairing corridor boundary. Due to the location of the amended repairing corridor, the applicant has applied for that concurrent natural resource impact review for three encroachments into the updated repairing corridor. As part of the natural resource impact review, the applicant has provided a mitigation area upon the subject property to mitigate and enhance degraded repairing corridors to a marginal quality, as defined in the Albany Development Code, Table 6.410-1. The review criteria for the combined applications are based on the May 23, 2025 Albany Development Code. And the decision criteria are found in Albany Development Code, or ADC 2.450, which is the site plan review, 11.180, the tentative plat review, and 6.310, which is the natural resource impact review. The pages 15 through 50 of your agenda packet contains the staff analysis. of that decision criteria. The Planning Commission had rendered a decision upon this application package on April 15th of 2026. Two separate notices of appeals have been submitted. The first appeal was received from Amanda Fee on April 27th of 2026. and can be found on pages five through nine of the June 8th, 2026 agenda packet. And the second notice of appeal was received from Roger Nyquist and Elaine Albridge on April 27th, 2026, and can be found on pages 10 through 11 of the June 8th, 2026 agenda packet. Staff has proposed 23 conditions of approval with this land use applications. The list of these proposed conditions can be found on pages 50 through 52 of the June 8th, 2026 agenda packet. The decision options, you have four in front of you tonight. You can affirm the applications as proposed and conditioned, approve with modifications, remand the applications back to the Planning Commission, or reverse the applications, ultimately denying the applications. If option three is selected, the reviewing body elects to remand the matter back to the previous review body, which is the Planning Commission, for further consideration and must include a statement explaining the error found to have materially affected the outcome of the original decision and the action necessary to rectify. And then if option for the reverse of the applications, then additional findings would need to be provided to staff, which we would bring forth at a future city council meeting for your final adoption. And that concludes my staff report.

Thank you very much. Do any councillors have any questions for staff? Councillor Smith.

Two questions came up in the course of reading the letters that had been submitted to the Planning Commission in our packet. I don't have the pages in front of me, but they were mentioned a number of times. There were repeated descriptions of this property as 63 acres, and there were also multiple references to three bedroom apartments. I didn't find either of those in the materials that I read, but I may have missed something.

I am not sure where the 63 acres came from. I looked through the original like zone amendments for the, so the properties in question as well as the properties directly to the east were part of a zone amendment for the village center, but that total did not come to 63. So I'm not sure where that number came from in those comments because I did see those as well. And then three bedroom apartments, I didn't see anything in there that had the three bedroom apartments.

What I remember pretty clearly is that this is, the majority of the apartments are studios in one bedrooms and the rest are two bedrooms. Correct. Thank you.

So for me, I live down there. And 2017, I was rear-ended because there was an accident at the bowling alley entrance. There was a bus, then me, young lady flew through the light and hit me. So I'm concerned about the traffic. So where are we with the traffic issues on that entrance there?

yeah i actually have um the public works aaron hemsha which is the infrastructure manager um here and he'll be able to answer those questions the second question is is there going to be an entrance on the other side on 53rd because i know that 53rd has that center section will there be construction there that will impact the residents that live there

I kind of have the same questions as you, Mayor. I was curious for the traffic study, how if you evaluated emergency evacuation scenarios or if it was only, the traffic study was only related to routine traffic operations. And then I was also curious if staff could answer this, if what authority would the city have under the development code to require a second access point if one is not otherwise required by code?

Okay, yeah, so right now, as proposed, there are two access points onto 53rd. They have a main one that would be right across from Willetta, and then a second one, which would be a right in, right out, further down on 53rd over here, kind of by this little parking area. I will just have Aaron come up and discuss that.

And I'll have a follow-up once Aaron's done. Can I go ahead and ask it now? Good evening. Yeah, yeah. So the other question I had is, you know, my family grew up, my kids grew up in that area, and they played putt-putt golf there. And kids do traverse that driveway, and I'm concerned about safety of the children.

Okay.

And also my seniors actually play that as well. So I'd like to know more about the transfer, to look at that now.

So that's the driveway for the bowling alley? Right. So that was designed as a road, basically, to go from 53rd Avenue down to Highway 99. So with the original zone change and then with the bowling alley application for land use, there was this main road that was designed to go through to serve the entire village center area. and provide that connectivity and kind of distribute the trips uh between 53rd avenue and highway 99. so there's a reason that driveway is very wide it's because it was designed basically to a street standard of being extra wide um as for the safety um the bowling alley when it came in from land use for the mini golf was required to put in like a accessible route down to the Bowen Alley and the mini golf. It doesn't appear that that was installed for a safe crossing area, but there's nothing that precludes the Bowen Alley and Schneider Homes from doing various traffic calming through that drive aisle that could potentially connect the two. As of right now with the Schneider land use application, There is no easement across the bowling alley. There was one that was supposed to be dedicated with the bowling alley, but it wasn't. So the Schneiders are conditioned to provide that access easement, but they're not actually making the connection at this time until that easement is established over the bowling alley property.

Can you speak to Councilor Newton's safety egress and ingress for emergency vehicles?

So was that on 53rd Avenue? So 53rd Avenue was improved with an LID. And because of the pinch point with the bridge that crosses over Oak Creek, the LID designed the road to be basically two emergency access ways. So the eastbound lane and the westbound lane are each their own emergency access route. In the middle, there's a mountable curb for turnaround for emergency vehicles. But that was designed so that they basically act as the two entrance points. Each lane could be its own separate one. Does that help?

I'm just trying to mentally picture a giant fire truck making a turn there.

If you notice, the lanes are both extra wide going in each direction so that it can accommodate emergency vehicles in either lane.

Just gonna add. Councilor Smith.

Thanks for asking that. I was gonna ask about that too. I remember that discussion before the subdivision was built and that got considerable discussion in many council meetings, including with the discussion that went with elevating the road out of the floodway. It's overbuilt and built high and wide so it can accommodate emergency scenarios and flooding.

Any of the councils have any questions or comments? Staff? Okay, thank you very much, both of you. We will now be taking testimony from the applicant. Will the applicant please state your name and address for the record, name and address for the record.

Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council. My name is Mike Reeder. I represent the applicant, Schneider Homes, Inc. My address is 375 West 4th Avenue, Suite 205, Eugene, Oregon. And I'm here to answer any questions that I can of you all today. I don't have a whole lot for you in terms of presentation because the Planning Commission had two hearings where the Planning Commission heard testimony from both the neighbors to the north and from Mr. Nyquist. And in response to the concerns from Mr. Nyquist, the applicant chose to amend the site plan such that no access would be taken through Mr. Nyquist's property. So the original transportation impact analysis THAT WAS DONE BY CHRIS CLAMOT, THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER FOR THE APPLICANT, SHOWED ACCESS ON 53rd AVENUE AS WELL AS THROUGH MR. NYQUIST'S PROPERTY, BASICALLY BASED ON THE DESIGN THAT was the way that was supposed to be designed back in the early 2000s when this property was rezoned under the Maddie subdivision, M-A-D-D-Y. So what we did as the applicant when we took away that access through Mr. Nyquist's property, we wanted to make sure that the traffic that would be produced by the 108 apartment units that would be taking access only on 53rd would still accommodate and meet the criteria for the city's standards for streets. So, Mr. Cuomo provided for the Planning Commission, and it's in your record for this appeal, a revised traffic impact analysis that shows that all of the city's mobility standards and safety standards are met even without taking access through Mr. Nyquist's property. So if I could just, we are, the applicant is in a situation where they were receiving opposition from the neighbors, primarily because of traffic on 53rd, but also concern about, from another appellant, Mr. Nyquist, saying we don't want traffic coming through in between the bowling alley and the mini golf alley. So we felt it was most prudent to amend the site plan to show that traffic going only on 53rd Avenue. So that's the traffic. And so in the record, Chris Clameau's traffic impact analysis, I don't know exactly where it is in your record, but on page nine of his March 30th transportation impact analysis, there is a list of conclusions from Mr. Clameau. And conclusion nine states the site accesses and Oregon 99 East 53rd Avenue Southwest Intersection all operate within agency mobility standards in all analysis scenarios. And so that's transportation speak for the application meets the city's standards. So the city adopts standards for transportation and with the professional ANALYSIS BY MR. CLIMAW AS WELL AS FROM THE ANALYSIS BY MR. NYQUIST'S TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER, WE MEET THE MOBILITY AND THE SAFETY STANDARDS REQUIRED FOR TRAFFIC. NOW, I UNDERSTAND, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS A LONG TIME, I UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC. ANY TIME THAT THERE'S A PROPOSAL FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT ON A VACANT PIECE OF PROPERTY, WE WILL ALWAYS HEAR CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC. AND THAT'S WHY THE CITY HAS STANDARDS. SO THAT AN APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE A MOVING TARGET. So we can look at that target, see if we meet it. If there's concerns about whether or not Mr. Clameau did his analysis correctly, people have an opportunity through the public process to challenge that. And so far, no one has done that. I DO WANT TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU RECEIVED IN WRITING THAT I JUST RECEIVED, I BELIEVE, TODAY OR YESTERDAY OR TODAY. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN. IT'S ALL BLURRING TOGETHER NOW. TODAY. TODAY. RECEIVED TESTIMONY FROM MR. NYQUIST'S ATTORNEY, AND I PROVIDED A RESPONSE TO THAT TODAY FOR YOU. YOU LIKELY, YOU MAY NOT HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT. I JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON A COUPLE OF THINGS. One is this notion of screening and buffering. So the site plan shows required buffering of 10 feet between the Nyquist property and the subject property. And you will probably hear today from Ms. Albrecht, because this is in her written material, that the applicant is required to provide screening, and in particular, an earth berm. Ms. Albrecht is incorrect. The code that was adopted by the city council speaks specifically to buffering and screening and says in 9.210, BUFFERING AND SCREENING ARE REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MATRIX PROVIDED IN TABLE 9.210-1. AND I PROVIDED YOU WITH AN ANNOTATION OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. SO OUR PROPOSAL IS FOR A MULTIPLE DWELLING UNIT. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE MATRIX OF TABLE 9.210-1, HIGHLIGHTED ABOVE, MULTIPLE DWELLING UNIT AND THEN IT'S ADJACENT TO A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. AND SO BECAUSE WE MEET THAT MATRIX CRITERIA, THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENT IS 10 FEET, WHICH THE SITE PLAN SHOWS. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE APPLICANT IS STIPULATED IN ORDER TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR TO PROVIDE A SIX-FOOT TALL FENCE AS WELL, AND THAT WOULD BE SCREENING. NOW, THAT SCREENING IS NOT REQUIRED, AND WE KNOW IT'S NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TABLE, THE TABLE INDICATES S WHEN SCREENING IS REQUIRED, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE MATRIX, THAT FOUR DOWN AND THREE ACROSS, NO SCREENING IS REQUIRED. BUT EVEN IF SCREENING WAS REQUIRED, THE CODE ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO CHOOSE WHAT TYPE OF SCREENING THEY WISH TO PROVIDE. AND ONE OF THOSE IS IN 9.250 SUB 2, WHICH SAYS A FENCE OR MASONRY WALL AT LEAST FIVE FEET TALL CONSTRUCTED TO PROVIDE A UNIFORM SITE OBSCURING SCREEN And then there's other options. And one of those options is an earth burn. But the applicant is not required to do that. And the reason why the applicant's not willing to do that is because that would take away from the development ability on the site plan. It would require a massive change in the site plan. We'd have to move buildings. It's just not required. And really, we don't believe that it's necessary. I understand that the bowling alley and the putt-putt golf course, the use there, they may be open longer than other businesses. I think the record is that they're open until 1130 on weekdays and 130 on the weekends. My response to that is... every property owner has an obligation to meet the standards that the city has, including noise standards. So if people are outside and they're talking and they're having a good time and it's past bedtime hours, but they meet the noise ordinance, then there's no incompatibility. Just meet the noise ordinance. If you don't, if you're making more noise and violating the city's noise ordinance, then that activity needs to stop. But that does not make apartments next to a bowling alley incompatible. It just means that you have to abide by the law. We don't believe that it's incompatible. We don't believe that a berm would necessarily even stop noise. I'm not a noise engineer, but I've worked with them long enough to know that there are certain things that stop noise and vibration, and often fences and berms and even vegetation don't always stop the noise. So from our standpoint as an applicant, we don't have a concern about the noise. And in terms of the issues that the neighbors have regarding the neighbors to the north regarding other environmental issues, those have been addressed. in an environmental report in the record with Zion Consultants. So with that, that will be the end of my discussion now, unless you have any questions, and then I just reserve for rebuttal.

Any councils have any questions?

I have a few.

Go ahead.

Okay, so specifically with the buffering, so screening's not required. I'm just curious, why did you guys voluntarily offer to do six-foot buffering?

Well, in order to be a good neighbor. Doing a fence is, and there's some benefits to the applicant as well as to Mr. Nyquist. But asking for a berm, which would require us to move the buildings, was really a bridge too far.

So you argue that there's no evidence of incompatibility. I'm curious, how would council, how do you suggest that council would evaluate any possibility of future noise or nuisance complaints from residents adjacent to a longstanding recreational business?

So there's a couple, counselor, there's a couple of answers to that. The first is that the city council has already decided through the comprehensive plan and through the zoning that residential uses next to this commercial use is not incompatible. If council had concerns about compatibility at that time in 2004 when the zone change was approved, they would have done something different, and they didn't. Second of all, again, we don't see them as incompatible uses merely because there might be noise from one. It would be one thing if the applicant were coming in for a plan amendment zone change, and wanted to, say, increase density or change the type of allowed use, and that use would create noise or some other type of nuisance, that would be one thing. But just because a property is vacant doesn't mean that property owner loses the right to be able to use their property in conformance with the law, which is what this application is. So with all due respect, I don't agree with the notion that because there is a longstanding use on Mr. Nyquist's property, that may seem incompatible with the use that's allowed, that somehow that's a burden of the applicant to overcome. If it was, your code would say that, but your code does not.

Good flag for us. And you mentioned being a good neighbor. Are there any conditions that your client would accept to further reduce future conflicts between the apartments in Lake Shore Lanes?

I suppose it would depend on what those terms were.

Could you imagine or maybe give some suggestions?

Yeah, I'm always willing to listen to suggestions from city council in terms of conditions of approval. I will note that we've had discussions with Mr. Nyquist and his attorney. The applicant has offered to provide fill for a berm should Mr. Nyquist want to put a berm on his property. Again, the fence is an offer. There may be other things that would be reasonable that we would certainly consider. But conditions of approval from the council must be related to the criteria for approval. Even if it's not related and it's something that's achievable and makes sense, yeah, we're looking to be good neighbors for sure.

Any other councillors have anything? Okay. We will now, we will not be taking testimony from the appellants. First from the, excuse me, we will now, is that a misspelling? Because we will not be taking testimony. He says we will now be taking testimony from the appellants. First from the joint appellants, Roger Nyquist and Elaine Albers, and then from Ben Sell, then Bill Sell and Amanda Fee. Oh, yeah, you guys are first. You're up, Roger. Commissioner Nyquist.

Mr. Mayor, council members, I want to thank you for the opportunity. My name is Roger Nyquist. I reside at 2896 Firwood Place in Albany. I'm here tonight on behalf of my bowling center, Lake Shore Lanes. With me is legal counsel, Elaine Albridge. My parents purchased Lakeshore Lands in 1965. I think it was named Freeway Bowl at the time. I'm gonna take just a couple minutes of history. I think it's important in the context of what's before you this evening. My parents purchased a bowling center that had gone broke. As I said, Freeway Bowl. And at the time, there was a debate about what to name the thing. We named it Lakeshore Lanes because we could look out our side window and see Swan Lake at the time. It was hard work. It was a lot of fun for a five-year-old kid, which I was at the time. In 1969, Some apartments were built across the street from us would be in this location is 682 Airport Road. Today, it's a lava car wash. You might notice that close to Costco there. But 20 years ago, it was still our bowling center. And so in 1969, the Capely Apartments went in across the street. They're about 180 feet from the building of the apartment to our bowling center. And we had no problems there at all. Some of them were customers. The gal who managed those apartments, her name was Dorothy Ross, did just a great job. And it all went pretty well. In 1971, behind us to the west, some townhouses were built, North Shore townhouses. They were 46 feet from our property, and there were problems. We had problems with those tenants using our parking lot, but really the tougher thing was some people moved in there not realizing what noise was made at the back of a bowling center, and they would move in And on many occasions, they would have to move right back out within a month or two. And you want to be a good neighbor, and that's hard. We had empathy for those folks, but it happened. And so I took over the Bowling Center in 1985 and operated for 20 years that way. worked through those challenges. In 2005, and we had leased that property the entire time. The old boy just wouldn't sell us. I'd take the rent check every month and listen to all his real estate stories, and one day he wanted us to have that, but That day didn't came. We moved first. So in 2005, we moved to the current location. We identified the property and went through the process with the city. And it was a win for us. It was a win for the community to have a nice new bowling center and to own our own dirt, if you will. And at the time, And I don't want to get deep into the weeds, because I was there in 2004, 2005. I know what was intended and what wasn't. I'm not observing from 20 years in the rearview mirror today. It was mixed-use commercial. And so in my mind, I thought, well, whatever I'm going to be dealing with, it won't be apartments behind me and all of that. And for 20 years, we didn't. And I understand that people have property rights. I support those rights. And I also understand that I would argue 109 apartments. No, I won't argue it. Conceptually, 109 apartments, one doesn't think is mixed-use commercial. But I'll go past that. So where we are is trying to figure out, in my mind, how to coexist in a way that mitigates and minimizes conflicts. Because I lived it. And it was generally good, but we spent some time figuring out how to work through things that could have been some forethought at the time that didn't really happen. And so in 2010, we added mini-golf. That went through a land use process, was approved. In 2012, we added an arcade to the place. In 2012, we also applied to put go-karts in on the north acre there. and went through that process and were ultimately approved. We didn't act on that, and it was kind of a tough call. There were some unknowns, but for me at the time, I thought life's too short to have conflicts with neighbors, and there were a few who opposed that, and so that went into it, and so here we are today with a different situation. Lake Four Lanes in 2025, we had... more than 1,000 birthday parties, mostly for kids. We had 15,000 mini golfers over the course of the year. A third of those are kids 12 or younger. We run a Kids Bowl Free program. Needless to say, our parking lot is crowded on most Saturdays, weekends with a lot of young people. And so it was... Shocking to me to learn of the plan that routed traffic from the apartments through my property. And I'm glad that we've worked through that, and that's not the place we're going with it. I would say, if you note in our traffic letter, that ultimately, it serves no value. You don't gain anything in the way of capacity. All you're doing is putting people at risk for no good reason. So the conditions that you all set out or not tonight for the approval of this or not will determine in part how successfully our bowling center can coexist with 109 apartments in a small area of just a few acres. We'll make it work. We respect your authority in this matter and we'll work through whatever you do. Sometimes with the state land use system in Oregon, having a statewide system and you're at the local level and you've got something in front of you and you're trying to make the best sense you can out of it, You've got to make an attempt to turn what could be lemons into lemonades. And I would just ask you to dig through that tonight and do what on its face makes sense to you. For me, I think we need a couple of things. We need a waiver on the maximum height of a berm being eight feet. If I need to take our excess property and put a berm in to mitigate and minimize the sound, I'm willing to do that. I'm grateful to hear I might get some dirt, cheap or free, but IF APARTMENTS ARE 20 FEET HIGH AND JUST THE TRAJECTORY, WE NEED THE FLEXIBILITY TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO MITIGATE THAT IF WE NEED TO DO IT. AND RIGHT NOW THERE'S A HARD STOP AT 8 FEET UNLESS I CAN GET A WAIVER FROM YOU ALL. THE OTHER THING IS, AND WE COULD TALK ABOUT THIS FOR A WHILE. I HOPE WE DON'T. I NEED THE REVERSAL OF THE RECIPROCAL EASEMENT CONCEPT. BOWLING CENTER, MINIGOLF, ARCADE, do different things than apartments do. There really is no reason to cross traffic from one to the other. You'd be better off with separation. It's concerning me. Today, as it sets in the decision, in theory, I would benefit because I'm going to get, our property will get an easement to 53rd And I'm not giving anything up to do that. That would be a gain for me. I don't want it. Because I know it's coming. When we come in to do something with that acre of property, if we don't put a berm on it, I mean, you heard your staff. Well, there's not traffic going through there at this time. I know it's coming. And it just... On a practical level, it just doesn't make sense. So that's my story. I'm sticking to it. Thank you for engaging me at this time. I would turn it over to Elaine. Thanks, Roger.

Good evening. Thanks for having us here tonight and the time to present to you. My name is Elaine Albridge, for the record. I'm a partner with Davis Wright Tremaine, located at 560 Southwest 10th Avenue, Suite 700 in Portland, 97201. We're here tonight to request that you do a little cleanup of the Planning Commission's decision. We believe that the City Council review of the Planning Commission decision is needed because the Planning Commission adopted inadequate findings that we maintain need to be revised in order to withstand any subsequent LUBA appeal. Our issues are really twofold, as Roger described. The first one is traffic and access, and the second one is buffering and screening. The Planning Commission resolved these a little bit differently. So with respect to traffic and access, the record reflects evidence that demonstrates that access via Lakeshore Lane's property is not needed, and it's not safe. the findings in the Planning Commission decision need to say this. And so we have recommended revised findings that you'll find set forth in our June 4th letter that suggests red lines to the Planning Commission decision findings that would incorporate this additional rationale and explanation for why the Planning Commission did not require a second access via Lakeshore Lanes from Highway 99.

The document you gave us today, correct?

That came in last week in hard copy today for you. It's fairly straightforward and simple to make the revised findings under Criterion 6 and Criterion 8. And then we request that the City Council delete the Planning Commission findings that rely on past traffic reports or past studies. The Planning Commission opted not to rely on those and looked to the applicant's original and revised transportation report, as well as our Nyquist traffic letters that are in the record. And so therefore, we would respectfully request that irrelevant findings that don't go to directly support the decision and potentially undercut the findings of the Planning Commission regarding NON-NECESSITY AND SAFETY ARE STRICKEN.

CAN I ASK A QUICK CLARIFYING QUESTION? MM-HMM. YOU ARGUED THAT THE CONNECTIONS THROUGH LAKE SHORE LANES WOULD BE UNSAFE AND INAPPROPRIATE. ARE YOU ASKING COUNCIL TO SIMPLY CLARIFY THE FINDINGS? CORRECT. OR YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS ON THE PROJECT?

NO. OKAY. I THINK THAT GOES TO THE ISSUE THAT ROGER RAISED ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR RECIPROCAL ACCESS. And that would mitigate the need for that, right? Yes, to the extent that we are, the decision is clear that access is prohibited through Lakeshore Lanes. That is what we're asking to be specified, and that there cannot be access through Lakeshore Lanes from Highway 99 via that existing access point.

I think that's what the previous applicant said as well.

Do you want to? So if we adopt these findings of revisions that you guys have proposed, would that fully resolve any of your, all of your access questions or concerns?

Regarding the existing access, the request though was also I think what Roger raised today was to make clear that reciprocal access agreements between the adjacent Schneider property and the Nyquist property are not required and will not be imposed. So The Nyquist property doesn't want reciprocal access to the Schneider Development property, and we're asking that Schneider Development property not have any reciprocal access to the Nyquist property. Okay. Yeah.

So, question. Fire. So, the trucks need to get in. Can they use your property to go through there to put out fires?

What? as it's laid out today, they can't. No, look, to the issue, I'll just get right to it. Back when we applied to do this and the land use CONVERSION WAS HAPPENING. AND THERE'S A GUY IN THE ROOM WHO REMEMBERS MORE ABOUT IT THAN I DO, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF HE WANTS TO TALK OR YOU'LL WANT TO TALK TO MR. RYLES. BUT THE CONCEPT AND WHAT WAS GOING ON WAS CHANGING AS WE WERE APPLYING AND GOING THROUGH THINGS. At the end of all of that, we were denied that concept that's been spoken about here tonight. When Dick Olson, bless his heart, wouldn't vote to go along with it because he thought the building was in the wrong place. And I was pretty upset with him that night, but he had a point. He was right. And so the entire site plan changed. And I was not aware that there were any reciprocal easement requirements in the findings, until this matter came up. But all that aside, I'm happy to sit down with Mr. Schneider as a neighbor and work through what might make best sense for each of our properties, for the public, in a way that works. We've not been able to do that because this cloud that's been hanging over both of our heads in which it's the city's vision of where they ought to be and what they ought to look like and who's doing what.

Is there something else? Oh, over here. Benjamin does.

Yeah, I have a question because maybe I'm reading this wrong, but something's not adding up between the report with revisions that I'm seeing in the packet and the proposed edits that I see in the letter for your appeal. So in 8.5, this is on page 37 of the packet. It's 25 of 40 of the report, but with revisions. So... for anyone who's following along with me here, I'm seeing an 8.5. You've proposed some edits to that, but it appears in the packet that these have already been addressed. Um, So from where we go to Lakeshore Lanes' driveway, based on these assumptions, the submitted TIA demonstrates the site's development meets all mobility standards and there's adequate queuing storage and then edits to that. The updated TIA amended the traffic distribution to analyze the operational capacity of 53rd Avenue and Highway 99E with all new trips going through 53rd Avenue, which is substantially similar to what you've proposed here. This included an updated queuing length analysis. The updated TIA demonstrates that with all traffic going to 53rd Avenue and that the intersection still meets all mobility standards of ODOT in the city. I'm confused as to why this different edit is needed.

It's not. It's not, you're correct.

Okay. Yeah. And then, okay, so cool.

There was an error in our letter on June 4th that captured outdated text for 8.5 specifically. Yeah, I was going to get to that as we got through the next slide.

Oh, okay, cool. And then since we've touched on the reciprocal access easement, though, it looks like there's additional edits in 8.6 that address that in the second bullet point.

Which is why we're not requesting edits to 8.6.

Right, okay.

Yep.

But you were saying that you wanted that requirement dropped, but it doesn't look like that's at play anymore based on the edits to 8.6. Or am I reading this wrong?

I think we were talking more future-looking in the sense that there's a condition that requires Schneider to give Lakeshore Lanes reciprocal access. Oh, okay. Such that Lakeshore Lanes folks could park in parking lot of apartment, arguably, right? So we're trying to be fair and say there's just not going to be any reciprocal access.

Okay, so your point is more to Schneider granting y'all an easement rather than the full reciprocity of it.

If Schneider grants me that easement, if we go to do anything land use related on that other acre of property, one of the conditions approval, left as things are today, I will be required to grant them reciprocal easement. And so... Now we're on. Now it's full back and forth. And really, for the neighborhood, for Schneider, it's not in anybody's best interest for the operator of the bowling alley to be parking their cars in what should be parking for apartments.

Right, 100%. Thank you.

Thank you. Great question. So we're trying to clean up for now and for later.

Good.

So I just wanna quickly ask another question. You mentioned concerns about future conflicts between residents and commercial, right, in the letter. Can you describe maybe what specific conflicts you anticipate? Conflicts? Yeah, like noise complaints?

It's primarily noise. Okay. There's outdoor, indoor and outdoor activity areas with the Family Fun Center. The hours are long. And, you know, there's parking lot noise. There's outside patio noise. And it's not an issue of compliance. It's not that loud. It's more of just, you know, one residents are going to be sleeping maybe at 10 o'clock, whereas other people are outside on a sunny night in the back, outside on the patio area. So it goes to those sorts of, compatibility issues whereas like with other mixed development if you thought it was like a grocery store or you know other types of retail establishments or maybe even other food and beverage operations there wouldn't be that conflict that there is with with residential

So the way my life experience with bowling centers and apartments are people will leave my bowling center, they'll leave happy, they'll make noise, clearly at a level that's within the law, but it doesn't mean they won't wake people up. The miniature golf course, people get enthused when they get a hole-in-one, but they're not out late at night. We're a concrete till building. What is happening inside the Bowling Center, I'm not concerned about today. Our other place was a metal building, and that was more of a challenge. But just the commerce and the coming and going of people. Nobody involved with bad intent, but you're going to probably get some calls.

Well, I would be hoping if people decided to live there that they would take that into consideration, that they are not just expecting you all to be silent or super quiet, considering that they're choosing to live near or next to a bowling alley. That's like people who live above nightclubs or folks that live above restaurants, et cetera. So I'm hoping that the people who are making a conscious decision to rent there would know better.

I hope you're right.

So if the council adopted the findings and conditions that you're proposing, would you consider your appeal resolved or are there any additional changes to the project that you believe are necessary?

With respect to traffic and access or with respect to future compatibility, traffic and access, buffering and screening? I think, yeah, we need to get to the buffer and screening requirements to make sure that it's an actual adequate SCREEN DESIGNED FOR NOISE AND INCLUDES THE WAIVER THAT IF NECESSARY, IT CAN BE CONSTRUCTED GREATER THAN EIGHT FEET, I THINK IS THE ASK. YEAH. AND THEN I JUST WILL POINT OUT, I MEAN, I THINK APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, HAD TO REVISE THEIR SITE PLAN BECAUSE THIS BUFFERING AND SCREENING CAME UP BETWEEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND SO WE SAW THE REVISED SITE PLAN THAT HAD added pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and such that that would then count as the adequate 10 foot buffer. That doesn't get us there when we're talking about adjacent uses and compatibility. That's more to serve their development. And a one and a half foot landscape strip to separate these two properties is just not within the intent of the code. So I think you have room within the code provisions we're talking about, whether it be the general development standards or the climate-friendly standards that specifically call out enhanced compatibility. So I point you to those two.

Fanger, you had a question?

Go ahead.

yeah this is this is more of a general question than a question to the appellant um on the question of a waiver to build a berm higher than eight feet that would be a conversation that would be outside the purview of this hearing yes like we could do that but that's not out here because this is this is to decide on whether or not schneider's proposal is is moving forward is that To the attorney? Yes, no. No, I said this isn't really a question for the appellant. So procedurally, so on the question of a waiver to build a berm higher than eight feet, that's kind of outside the purview of this hearing, right? Like we could do that, but that's not something that we would be deciding, at least as part of this hearing.

It's not part of this hearing, but yeah, we could decide it at a later time.

Cool. That's great that you'd be willing to build your own berm. I like that willingness.

We would really like them to build the berm.

I understood.

And grant the waiver to them to build it more than six feet.

That would be your first choice. But just looking at the totality of the options, I appreciate the willingness. So, okay, cool.

Thanks. And the same thing with the easement, correct? Let's do that somewhere else at another time.

Because that's a requirement of code.

Okay. We want to reverse the easement.

Okay. And that's nominally a condition, even with the inserted provisions in there, that there is no reciprocal access easement needed.

Any further questions for this applicant or appellant? Okay. So with the next set of...

Thank you all for the opportunity and your service.

Thank you. You're most welcome. Will the next set of appellants please state your name and address for the record? Anybody else here?

Hello, my name is Amanda Fee. I live at 1641 Elk Circle Southwest here in Albany. Thank you for your time tonight. I'm a little nervous because I'm not great at public speaking, so please bear with me. My family and I have lived in the neighborhood for about 17 and a half years. We have raised four children there. So while I'm not an expert on any of this, I do know the neighborhood very well. I know my neighbors, and we know the bowling alley. We've been longtime customers. But I'm here tonight because the thing that we're asking for is either a reversal of the approval for the building of this or that it be remanded for additional findings. The one thing I wanted to start with was the traffic analysis that was provided. The one thing I wanted to cite, which we brought this up to the Planning Commission originally that we were worried about traffic. It's something everyone has talked about. Emails were received. And later on, they provided us with a traffic study. And that traffic study was conducted in June of 2003, or 23, excuse me. It was one day, and it was conducted two days after school got out. The Institute of Transportation Engineers says that data should be collected during a school year, often across multiple days, so that you can kind of make adjustments if one day is not as predictable as another. And traffic at that light is not always consistent. For those of you that live in the neighborhood, visit the neighborhood, you know it's not always the same. The one thing that has changed since 2020 is that the school buses service going out to that neighborhood has become extremely unreliable. And so when you're out there right before school's about to get in, because there are three schools obviously, traffic backs up. It queues, people will sit there for 20 minutes just trying to get through to go drop off their kids. More and more people are not using the bus because they can't rely on it. The bus barn won't usually tell you until maybe an hour before school. And so people have become less dependent. I myself, we were fortunate, we were able, we drove our kids to school every day. We sat in the queue, we did that. But it is a long wait. And so we do have a lot of concerns how adding an apartment, possibly with school-aged children, maybe not. We don't obviously know what the resident mix will be. But we do have a lot of concerns about that impact to the morning, people going to work, people coming home from work. There's one left-hand turn lane, and the majority of traffic is going to make a left. There's just that one lane. So we feel like that traffic study did not accurately reflect what we would see in an average day. And school obviously isn't the only thing, but we thought that was a pretty big impact, and the fact that that study was just the one day, it didn't really accurately reflect what's actually happening in the neighborhood. I did reach out to the state. I did try to see if there was any other traffic data available And and there wasn't anything we tried to get access to The light information to see if we could kind of get a feel for how many left-hand turns Anything to kind of help us better understand because maybe it was something that we were worrying about for me for no reason Maybe it wasn't something we needed to be concerned over, but I hear from a lot of other parents that the queue is long, there's a lot of concerns, and we don't know how that will be. When the neighborhood was first built, it was designed originally that there would be two ways Right. There was going to be two ways in and out. And of course, during construction of Spring Meadow, which is the back part of the neighborhood, they actually found artifacts from Native Americans. And so construction was stopped because of that. There's actually a gated area back behind Moose Run where where those artifacts were found. But everything came to a halt. And it's been something. I talked to Ryan Irish many years ago. I've been with the Oak Creek Meadows HOA, been on the board for about 12, 14 years, I think 12 years. And I spoke with him about it. And he said, you know, there was really not much we could do to provide emergency access. That was why we made the lanes wider, technically wider. Two rows of cars could go out at one time, right? But even though there's that little access point at Willetta, you still got to go all the way through the neighborhood. You still got to go across the bridge. That little easement spot to go through Willetta is not enough as a point to get everybody out. If we had a fire, if we had something really big, disastrous happen, getting people out of the neighborhood, it would not create safe conditions for So, of course, anything that comes in there, we're going to wonder, do we have what we need? Can people truly get out safely? And we thought that a better traffic study would help us understand that. Do we have what we need? We've been asking the city for another way out, something, emergency exit. I do understand that there have been recent discussions since the Planning Commission hearing. I don't know what's come of that. I don't know how far it is. But it is something we would love another way out. Just to be able to split the neighborhood and get people out safely. I think that would address it. But there's more than just people actually being there. There's construction. What's gonna happen during construction? How will emergency vehicles get through there is just those two little lanes and we we get emergencies We they come back there and that is a very tight space We don't know how that will impact residents in their ability to get the services they need so we definitely have Concerns about that and we feel like we raised these questions a lot during the Planning Commission Was there two hearings and we really we didn't get any response on it. I feel like it felt it fell on deaf ears and and the neighborhood just kind of didn't feel listened to, we understand that there's a lot of concerns. We understand that a builder has the right to build on their property, but we also believe that we have the right to question whether or not it's a good fit. We have the right to question whether or not it's going to create a problem for residents, if it's going to put people at risk. So that's a really big concern is we just don't feel like it was addressed. I think one of the other really big concerns for the neighborhood is the wetlands. Many of us have walked through the wetlands for years. We love them. They're beautiful. The animals that come through there are amazing. I don't know if you've ever seen them, but when the construction started on Ellingson Road, that new housing complex, it disturbed families of bald eagles. And a lot of them actually started coming out to our neighborhood more. We had them walking down 53rd. They were just going for a little stroll, looking for food. They're beautiful, beautiful creatures, but we have a lot of creatures that come through there, both scary and not scary. But we're very concerned about how this will impact. And when we're talking about impact, you know, a lot of the environmental studies and things that were provided so far talk about direct impact. Here's what we're going to do. We're going to build this up. We're going to make sure there's an overlay. Not the overlay, the open space, right? But who decided what's the appropriate amount of open space? And in that open space, is it enough? And the most important thing is what is the long-term indirect impact to this property, right? Because you're talking, you're gonna have an increase in runoff, you're gonna have altered drainage patterns, edge effects, long-term disturbances from construction and from habitation. And that is increasing a lot of people living in a very small area, and there's not a lot of give on either side. There's just not a lot. So we're wondering, could they somehow help us understand if they've considered that, and what other mitigation could we do to help ensure that we're not long-term doing damage to the wetlands? I think that's just something that we would like to understand a little bit better. We have engaged some environmental groups and we've reached out to our congresswoman and representative to try to help reach out to people who could help us identify these concerns more specifically and help us understand whether or not that's actually something we should be worried about. And if there's education that we can provide to homeowners, hey, you know, this has already been addressed. Here are the concerns that we would have had, but it's already been handled. And I think if we were able to provide that, I think people would feel more at ease with what's going on. But I think it's also our responsibility to question that and not just say, oh, well, they met building code, so it must be fine. So I think that there's something to that. But if you look close at the plans, right, you've got like a lane of space and you've got the bowling alley. And then on the other side, you've got a little bit of open space and the wetlands are right there.

It is really just as much as they could squeeze into this property.

And when we moved in, A lot of the time, they told us, oh, it's mixed-use commercial. Don't worry. You guys are going to get stores. You're going to get restaurants, maybe some townhomes. That was what we were told. We were promised that there's tons of commercial coming. There's going to be great things for you and your family to do. That was, of course, what many of us were sold on. We were told this was coming. Nobody pictured 108 apartments, absolutely nobody. And I feel like with the scale and intensity of that, I think it's just too much for that tiny space. Because again, is that open space enough of a barrier? And so we really want to question whether or not that meets with the natural resource impact review standards. I think that's important to us. And of course, you know, I mentioned a lane of space between Lakeshore Lanes and an apartment building. And they have been good neighbors to us for many years. Like I said, many of us have taken our kids there. My kids participated in the summer free bowling programs. We've played mini golf since it opened. We've celebrated birthdays and events there. And I think we have concerns with this intensity conflict that this creates. And to clarify on that, where we're worried about noise complaints and things, basically chasing a well-respected business out of its space or making it so they have to close early because people are complaining. And I know you brought up a really great point, which is that we would hope people would move in Knowing the space. But I will say, if you are ever on the Albany Facebook groups, people are constantly saying, I just rented an apartment next to railroad tracks and it's so loud. And I think you rented an apartment next to railroad tracks. That didn't enter? So we see that all the time. People move into properties because they see it on the list of things that they can afford, the availability. But I don't know that that would really happen. Would people take that into account? And would that just create such conflict? So you've got conflict potential with the Lakeshore Lanes. You've got conflict potential with the neighborhood. And, you know, while the majority of those units are going to be studio and one bedroom, that's still not enough parking. They were assuming a 30% car ownership. And that made me kind of laugh. We live in a very rural area in terms, we're not downtown. We're not close to other businesses. We're not close to any of that. The majority of people are not walking to go places. They're just not. They're walking for their health. They're walking maybe because they're going to the bowling alley. They're not walking because they're going to services. They're riding their bikes for fun. You see children out every day doing that. It's It's, I think, unrealistic to expect that there isn't going to be a full parking lot. And then when there's a full parking lot, where are those cars going to go? Well, they're going to try to park in the bowling alley and maybe go around. They're going to try to park on Willetta. they're going to maybe try to park in the neighborhood. I think it's going to create, my concern is the conflicts that that will create, excuse me, that it will create. And I think it's important for us to look at that now and really say, is this the right information? Have we really considered this fully? Do we have the right data? And so that we're not setting ourselves up for failure, right? because that's what it comes down to. In my mind, when I was reading all these rules, because the codes are long and not fun to read, it feels to me like the Planning Commission and the City Council has an obligation to make sure that the things that are being built are not going to create more problems, right? I don't think you guys want people in here complaining all the time about the apartments or about anything. We wanna create something that is sustainable, something that long-term is going to blend in and they will be part of the community, not something that everybody goes, oh yeah, it's the apartments. IT'S JUST ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH THE APARTMENTS. I DON'T THINK WE WANT THAT KIND OF PROBLEM. THERE ARE, LIKE I SAID, I JUST FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT DATA THAT WE'RE OPERATING OFF OF SO THAT WE CAN REDUCE THAT, THOSE PROBLEMS. IT'S AVOIDABLE CONFLICTS, I THINK. The one thing, too, is I mentioned about the mixed-use commercial, and we understood that there was going to be things there. The plan currently has always been that 53rd would be expanded across and we know that land that's over there. I guess my question is, how does this plan with the increased traffic, what happens when that expands and there needs to be maybe a change in traffic pattern again? Is there any space or is there any give or increase in traffic because people are crossing lanes more. Maybe there's something else that ends up getting built there. I'm not sure what's going to happen with South Pacific, but we have to assume that other businesses will come and go. So we're just looking, has the long term for the village center been considered? You know, what increase in traffic? Right now, we have a lane that turns left, a lane that turns right. What's going to happen when we increase it? And now we have cars that are going across both ways. People are, you know, going to, like I said, maybe something that's South Pacific. But how is that increase in traffic going to be? handled. And is there something we can do now to ensure whether it's maybe both lanes turn left? Maybe, you know, is there a way that we could add a lane for a right hand turn lane and allow two left hand turn lanes? Is there something that we can do now that in five or ten years will still help us meet standards that won't be like a regret that we should have actually done something to mitigate that problem? That's just kind of something, because I don't think we can just think in six months. We need to be thinking in five years, ten years, and make sure that this all makes sense. So, like I said, I thank you for listening to me ramble for a few minutes. I said, I think it comes back to him for me to traffic wetlands, the intensity conflict. So I just ask that you guys please consider that. Please consider how it does impact us and. If you guys decide to move forward and allow them to build, at least put some more restrictions on it, or at least allow them to provide updated data that we can actually work off of and see that all of these concerns are actually being addressed. Thank you for your time.

Council, do you have any questions? Council Smith, I think you clicked on first.

I do. A couple of things regarding the old traffic studies and the plans for all extremities crossed that someday the 53rd will be built on the other side of Pacific and there will be a shopping center there. Pray hard. With those two things in mind, those I imagine are being addressed or will be addressed in the update of the transportation system plan, which is about to get underway. Can anybody on staff address that?

I don't know if Erin Hemsler's coming up, but I would say that it will be. Your supposition's correct. Yeah.

So is it premature for the request, as you said, to have updated data? Is that the updated? The updated is the one that we have most recent before the TSP comes up? The most recent was in 2010. Oh, okay.

Yeah. And we're about to do a massive update of the entire thing. Is that correct?

Yeah. So with the new update that's going to be starting soon, it'll be holistically looking at everything, and I believe the scope is more multimodal and everything with the new TSP. It will be looking at the 53rd extension that heads east and connects over to Lochner. Everything will kind of get looked at, especially that one because it's a wide road that ties into Ellingson.

Also the train crossing too. Big deal.

Correct. Thank you.

Thank you. So, Council, any more questions?

Not a question, but I think I want to thank you for everything that you said. One of the things that raised a little concern for me, I think you said it doesn't kind of fit the neighborhood itself, and it sounds like to me that it sounds like it's more of an aesthetic thing for the neighborhood, like the neighborhood only has these type of aesthetically pleasing homes over there or spaces, and to put a an apartment there would not be aesthetically placed into the community that has been created over there?

No, ma'am. That's a great question, though. It's not necessarily about what it looks or the type of housing. We were more concerned with the number of units and how squishy it would be in that space and creating the conflict with the bowling alley. Most people are actually, in general, in favor of additional housing here. There are actually duplexes being built right across the street on Willetta, and I don't believe anybody challenged that. We're like, that's great. Additional housing, there's available land. I don't believe that's the case. It's simply the number of units and how that will fit into that space specifically. But like I said, I don't believe anyone's actually opposed to apartments themselves.

One of the things that I saw is that a lot of people that sent all those letters in, several of them mentioned their property values as a concern.

Sure. You're always going to have that. People are always going to be concerned with their property values. And change is hard.

It is.

It's hard. But I think as long as our concerns are addressed and things are going to fit, everything is going to work, and we're looking ahead to managing traffic well, I don't believe it would be a long-term problem.

Announcers, anyone else? Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We will now be taking public testimony from those who registered to speak. First, those that are to speak in favor, then followed by those that speak in opposition, and those concerns that are neutral. So there is a three minute time limit on public testimony during a public hearing. I will call on Haley Driscoll. Should be on Zoom. Hello, Haley.

Hi. Good evening. My name is Haley Driscoll. I live on Moose Run. My home sits at the furthest point from the entrance of our neighborhood, backed directly against the forest and the Kalapuya River. Our neighborhood, the Animal Kingdom, has roughly 450 families and exactly one road in and one road out, which is 53rd Ave. I'm asking this council to deny the approval for the 108 unit apartment complex due to serious safety concerns. The proposal violates Oregon Fire Code Section D-107, which prohibits a multifamily development of this size from relying on a single-fire access road. The developer's only workaround routes traffic through Lakeshore Lanes, a local business whose owner is actively contesting that access. If he succeeds, this project, to my knowledge, has no compliant access point. Either way, it fails Chapter 12 of the Albany Development Code, which requires adequate infrastructure for safe emergency response. Our current infrastructure serves our neighborhood as is, but 108 additional units plus all their family members adds an estimated 900 vehicle movements per day to a single residential street that is 53rd Avenue. This is where our infrastructure will collapse, where emergency response times can no longer be guaranteed to be compliant with state law, and where our first responders and neighborhood are put at serious risk. If a crisis like a wildfire or a flood were to happen in the nature preserve behind my home, My family, my animals, and my neighbors need to get out immediately. Because the complex sits closest to our only exit, their residents will be the first ones to safety, while everyone in the back of the neighborhood, like my family, will be trapped in that bottleneck. This is not purely an inconvenience, it's an emergency evacuation failure. On any average day, it takes me about five minutes to get from my driveway to the front of the neighborhood. Adding hundreds of daily commuters to that single street guarantees consistent gridlocks. And in the event of a neighborhood evacuation, that would guarantee severe delays for ambulances and fire trucks. So I ask you, Please stand with our community, stand with the 450 families that have built the animal kingdom, prioritize our safety and well-being over a flawed development plan, uphold our appeal, and deny the approval for this apartment complex. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Bill Riles. There was no one signed up for opposition or in favor. We have one neutral. That's Bill Riles.

Hi, everyone. Nice to be here. In between the last Planning Commission meeting and this meeting, I had open-heart surgery, so I'm pleased to be here. I'm testifying neutrally, and that is because most of my life as a commercial architect, I've been on the side of developers, and I want to see this happen. We need affordable housing. But there's a few things I see about this that other people may not see. And also just as a neutral advisor, because this isn't the last one of these you're going to see. And so the lady from the neighborhood, she said it looked like this thing was just shoved in there. And as an architect who practiced for 50 years, she's exactly right. The first time I saw the planet, this is extremely dense. And one of the ways you can see this is that there are some windows on the ground floor that have a sidewalk, a public sidewalk about 12 inches away. which is sort of a difficult thing for me to accept. I want to read quickly from your development standards. It's easy to get lost in the weeds of the details of the code. Sometimes you need to look at the purpose and the intent of the code. And your development standards, it says this, the purpose, development standards are intended to promote site planning and design that consider the natural environment, the site intensity, the building mass, and open space. The standards also promote energy conservation, needed privacy, and a safe and efficient parking areas. So those are part of the code as well. And as you get these projects coming before you, there's a tendency on Pond Developers to shove every unit he can. We need affordable housing, but what we really need is livable housing. I do not want Albany to be the place where we store people. because it's convenient. I want Albany to be a great place for people to live. I feel like this design pushes the limit on that. It... but I don't know that that's sufficient to overturn anything or to add any conditions of approval. I think part of the reason I got up here, I wasn't even gonna talk, but I think after having heart surgery, it changes your perspective, and I just felt like I should make that statement in support of the neighborhood. This site could maybe take 100 units, but three, two, one, I'm out of time.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

If anyone wishes to enter an exhibit that, for the record, is part of the testimony, please briefly describe the exhibit and then hand it to the clerk. The virtual attendants, please email them to cityrecorder at albanyoregon.gov. Now, sign-up sheet, we've done that. We will now be taking public testimony from those who did not register to speak. If you are attending in person, please raise your hand to speak. If attending virtually, please turn on your camera and raise your hand to be called upon. If you are attending on the phone, please unmute yourself and state your name so you can be called upon. Anybody not registered? Anyone not registered wish to speak on this topic? Thank you. Does any applicant have any rebuttal testimony? Does the applicant have rebuttal testimony?

Good evening, Mayor, City Council. Again, for the record, Mike Reeder, representing the applicants, Snyder Homes, Inc. Yeah, I'd like to provide a response to the testimony that you received tonight. You received quite a bit. You received testimony from... I WANT TO START WITH THE MR. NYQUIST AND HIS ATTORNEY'S DISCUSSION. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT A PREVIOUS BOWLING ALLEY, THE HISTORY OF THIS. MR. NYQUIST SAID THAT HE WAS THERE IN 2004 AND 2005. when the concept of this area was adopted. And as the applicant's attorney, I wasn't there. I only have the documents that are in the record and have to read those and go back and see what the intent was 20 years from now. And the applicant can only rely on the laws that are in place that have been adopted by the city council. Those include your comprehensive plan. They include your zoning and development code. They include your transportation system plan. They include the standards for traffic and transportation. And that is what the applicant has relied on. So it's very, it's tempting to look at a vacant piece of property and say, I would design it differently. Yeah, if I was in charge, if I owned it, I might design it differently as well. maybe fewer units, maybe more units, maybe more parking, maybe fewer, maybe less parking. But that's a moving target. We have to look at the code and the development standards and abide by those, which is what the applicant has done. So back in 2004, 2005... This property, Mr. Nyquist property, some of which is still vacant, and this particular subject property was subject to a plan amendment zone change. At that time, there was a vision for, let me see if I can find it. For a village center, which included retail and shopping, it didn't talk about bowling centers or putt-putt. Now, my client has no problem with the use that's adjacent to the proposed apartment complexes. We're not complaining, okay? But if the opponents are going to complain that, well, this doesn't meet, you know, 108 apartment units doesn't meet the village, well, they're simply wrong. The vision for the village, then they're simply wrong. Because in 20 years, we haven't had the type of retail and shopping that the neighbors have said they wanted. Now, maybe it's because there's not enough housing. You know, the retail is driven in part by housing. What we do have in this state is a housing crisis. We need more housing. And the state legislature has adopted state legislation called the Needed Housing Statute that makes it purportedly, makes it easier for developers to create more housing, which is needed. And when somebody says, well, I would develop it differently, differently than what the code allows, and therefore you should take that into consideration as a city council, the state has said, stop it. Don't do that. You as a city council can only apply... clear and objective standards, the standards that you've adopted. So if you have any standards that have been adopted that are not clear and objective, they cannot be applied. Now in this case, we don't believe that you have to waive any of your standards because the applicant meets the criteria for approval, whether those are clear and objective or not. So on page eight of the MADI application narrative from 2004, it talks about housing as an allowed use. So not only does your comprehensive plan and your zoning code consider this property, the subject property for housing, but also the plan amendment zone change application itself considered housing as an allowable use. The applicant agrees with Mr. Nyquist that there is no need for a reciprocal easement. We have no issue with that. And if you decide to change the findings adopted by the Planning Commission that would erase all doubt as to whether or not Mr. Nyquist and the Schneiders would need to provide each other reciprocal access easements, we are perfectly okay with that. Not our issue. And moving on for things that are not an issue for us. Okay, regarding the noise, the family fund center, the parking lot noise, etc. Again, as I said, the zoning code permits housing. The city council has made an ultimate policy decision to say that housing is a compatible use with this type of with the uses that are allowed in the adjoining zone. With all due respect, purpose statements and intents that can be gleaned from the code are not criteria for approval. What's criteria for approval is what I've provided to you, which is found in your code, the table, the matrix that tells you when you provide buffering, how much buffering is required, and whether or not you need screening. So as I said before, the code requires buffering. We've provided that buffering. Whether Mr. Nyquist believes that that's sufficient is immaterial to this application. The standard is the standard, and the applicant has the right to rely on that standard. Regarding the question about traffic counts, so the second appellant said that the traffic study that's in the record didn't have the correct count, didn't use the correct methodology. That's inaccurate. What this traffic engineer did was consult with the city and ODOT and and use the standards that are in place for this type of study. And the traffic counts are adjusted based on what's called the 30th highest hour. So I'm not a traffic engineer. I'm not going to be able to explain to you what that means. But the traffic engineer, he's the expert. He's the one with the professional engineering stamp on his name. And he assures me that despite the concerns about whether or not school was in session when the counts were taken, it's impossible for a traffic engineer to find the best time to do traffic counts. And so they have to use adjustments based on the standards that are in place, which is what happened here. Regarding wetlands, so both, well, the federal government regulates wetlands, jurisdictional wetlands, through the Clean Water Act, so we're not touching those wetlands. Or if there are wetlands that need to be removed, you go through the joint permit for doing so. If the city has gone through the Goal 5 process and wants to protect or further protect those wetlands, they have the opportunity to do that. So wetlands are protected. In regards to the environmental issues and natural resources, there is, as I said before, Zion Natural Resource Consulting, it's in your record, it's called Attachment F, goes through an exhaustive analysis for meeting the criteria for natural resources. And specifically page two of Attachment F talks about how the natural resources has been mitigated through this plan. If folks want this area to have retail and shopping, Mr. Nyquist has additional property. The market and Mr. Nyquist can determine whether or not he wants to provide that, but it's not an obligation of Mr. Nyquist and it's not an obligation of the applicant to provide particular types of uses. And unless the City Council has any questions, that's the end of my rebuttal.

Okay, Council, do we have any questions? Okay. Thank you. Does the applicant waive the seven-day period to submit additional written material, written argument? Yes. Okay, you do waive it. Does the City Council wish to ask any procedural questions of staff? I'M HEARING NONE. I DECLARE THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 536 P.M. SO SINCE IT'S CLOSED, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A 10-MINUTE BIOLOGICAL BREAK. I'LL SEE YOU BACK AT 46. Thank you for your patience. I'll now reconvene the meeting at 546. So next, agenda item 25. Does the City Council wish to discuss the case? Council?

I had a little side conversation with van German just a moment ago, and I was asking about procedurally you know or just how things are going about. And I just want to understand, so we have before us like kind of three options right, we have approve. accept. applicant we have make some changes that have been suggested by nyquist and company or i apologize i don't remember nyquist inc um ventures i apologize um or deny and So something that really stuck out to me was actually what Bill Riles stated in his neutral testimony where he said that he believes Albany should be a place where people enjoy living and not just are stored. And I agree with that. Yeah. And so the question I'd asked Van Drumlin just when we were standing behind you, Mayor, was, oh, well, if we approved conditionally, approved these changes, approved it outright, they could go ahead and do the site plan as written, all 108, right? If we approved the changes that Nyquist Ventures proposed, they would still be able to do all 108. There would just be new parameters. And then if we deny it, they would have to go back to the drawing board and come back with a new site plan. I want to make sure I'm understanding. That's correct?

That's what I'm hearing, understanding as well.

OK.

Yeah, there might be potential additional revisions to the site plan if we imposed additional conditions, depending on what those conditions were, but unless we actually have a question of a specific condition to impose in front of, not all of the ones proposed by Mr. Nyquist would require a complete rework of the plan, to at least my understanding of it.

But if you're looking at going less than 108 units, then you definitely have to do a complete rewrite.

I'll have to say that Bill Ryle's testimony resonated with me as well. And that was followed up by a reminder of what our codes say, what can be done under the codes. We're bound by that. But I'm going to simplify it even further and say that just because you can do it doesn't mean that you should do it. I think there's gray area. I think there needs to be a little elbow room And I was I was reminded when he mentioned the the Street level windows 12 inches from the sidewalk it reminded me of the times that I've visited Europe and the sidewalks are about half as wide as ours are and And the houses come right up to the sidewalks. There's nothing. There's no planter strip, nothing. They're just a wall. And they do have windows, but the windows are covered with shutters on that side of the house to give them privacy. And as quaint as that might be, I don't like that idea here, and I know that's not proposed. I like the idea of a little elbow room and perhaps a different site plan. I also want to thank Amanda Fee for her thoughtful, reasonable, well-planned testimony. She should give lessons. She may not be a polished public speaker, but she could teach other people how to be. Thank you very much.

Do the other councils have anything? Councillor Thompson?

Yeah. You know, I too appreciated Mr. Ryle's testimony. He really highlighted for me in detail the idea that this is high-density proposal and The person who spoke for the neighborhood as well, you know, the things that she ticked off for us, the areas were brought up in the planning commission. And I felt like reading the planning commission reports, they just didn't really engage with all those. those areas too much, transportation, safety. I have said on housing issues over and over again that we are pursuing high density in an area that the people don't really want. And if the state says we have to do it, then that's fine, but we should come to the conclusion that's put before us and the testimony that's before us and the numerous emails and comments we got all supply that. So that's where I'm at. I'm just very skeptical of this proposal as is.

Thank you. Do you have anything? Go ahead.

So for me, a lot of what this comes down to is, is the property owner allowed to do what the code says that they are allowed to do on property that they own? I will say right at the drop here, when I saw that this property was zoned mixed-use commercial and was slated for 108 apartment units, I had some questions. Looking at the zoning code, though, it is only currently required in MUC zones that there be a primary commercial element east of I-5. That is not a requirement in MUC zones in the rest of the city. So while I may not be personally wild about the fact that this is a 100% residential development and something that's zoned mixed-use commercial, because, and again, I'm going to out myself as a map nerd here, a zoning code is a statement of spatial priorities for the city. But what we have said in that statement of priorities is that this is allowed on its face with a site plan review. I would like to see that east of I-5 fix applied to MUC properties citywide because I don't think that it's fair from a code perspective to have that. However, the owner is relying on what is currently permitted under ADC, zoning, comp plan, et cetera, today. I think that if the TIA that has been submitted, the traffic impact analysis that's been submitted and revised says that this can be done and meet standards solely for access from 53rd. Um, I think that that, like, I think we need to give the engineer credit on that for the work. Cause we are not traffic engineers. There's a reason that that's required to be done by a licensed professional engineer. Um, despite when the data may have been collected, um, I think that this doesn't violate clear and objective standards for what's allowed in MUC and at this site. And so while I may have some reservations about that philosophically, based on what I feel like the spirit of the zone is, I'm really loathe to tell a property owner that they can't do something that our code tells them they're allowed to do.

Where I'm at on it. And I feel the same in that I'm about building. I would like to grow the city. And housing is something that's been a priority for me. But Marilyn, Councilor Smith said something that was quite, I like to hear. Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you need to do a thing. But also Bill Rouse, David, resonates with me as well. I don't want to be a warehouse for people. I'd like to see less units on that property. But then again, I don't have a vote unless there's a tie. SO I WILL SHUT UP AND LET THE COUNSELOR SPEAK.

I WILL SAY THAT I'M NOT A HUGE FAN OF THE RHETORIC OF APARTMENTS BEING A WAREHOUSE FOR PEOPLE.

Well, I say that because I deal with housing with my clients and they get warehoused. And the idea that that would be perceived as warehousing is a problem. That's all.

Sure. But I think it's important to remember that having a diverse housing supply in the city is important. And just because one type of housing is what one Albany resident prefers is does not mean that there are not many Albany residents or potential Albany residents, because, again, this is a place that people want to live. And I'll...

I agree with you, Councilman.

I'm not directing my comments specifically at you, Mr. Mayor. Like, I'm addressing... the question in its totality, and why, quite frankly, I think that projects like this are important. I did not grow up in Albany. I've made no secret of that. I moved to Albany because Albany's a great place to live, and I'm invested in making Albany a great place to live for... a great variety of people if they want to come here. And what, what I've been told is that they do. Um, and so things like developments like this that have from studio apartments through, I think that reality is up through two bedroom, not, not three bedroom.

Yeah.

As, as has been cited, but even if it were, um, the variation in size and type, and therefore, to at least some extent, price is important. And not everybody is going to own a single family home at every point in their life, at least. I know I certainly did not start out there. And so I'm inclined to support an option that allows this to move forward If we need to modify some of the conditions, then sure. And it sounds like there's some that the applicant and the appellant don't even disagree upon, which is great. But I'm on the... I'm on the side of I want to see something like this happen. And this is my neighborhood.

And I would have to be inclined to agree with Council Avenger. As a renter on this council, as someone who lives in an apartment, yeah, I think this type of housing is needed. It's warranted to help this neighborhood. crisis that we have with no housing or limited housing, I think it's no secret that Councilor Thompson and I always kind of go back and forth about housing in Albany, as I did not grow up in Albany or in Oregon at all. So I think it's important to have this type of housing available for folks, although I think it may be slightly tight, but I was just telling Councilor Newton that the people that live, we have a nice space in my opinion, and the folks above me, I can hear their alarms vibrating. I hope it's their alarms. But, you know, at like five in the morning, so, you know, when we talk about space, I think we're spaced enough, but I do appreciate this sort of forward thinking about housing in that way, in this development.

Councilor Newton, thank you very much, Councilor.

Oi, oi. Sorry.

Whew. Okay. So, sorry, I've got to collect my thoughts. That was just never expected to hear that on the dais. Okay. So I think the reference to not being like storage units is like the suggestion that Mr. Riles had going from like 108 to 100. And it's just to give people a little bit more elbow room. It's still to have the same types of varieties of housing, like have the studio, one bedroom, two bedrooms. I think it just means maybe, you know... A little bit more space between the buildings. And also, I feel your... I hear every alarm and everything happening. I'm in an old house downtown in Ward 1. I hear those old windows and real thin walls. I hear... everything that my neighbors do, which is always fun. I invite myself over. They invite themselves over. It's a great neighborhood. We love it. But I think that was the comment, was not to, like, say, like, okay, we're not saying it's going to be, like, housing in Japan where folks are literally, like.

Agreed.

But looks like Van Dremelen has a comment. Van Dremelen has a comment.

And again, my comment to that effect was not directed at any specific person on the dais, but at the rhetoric of apartments as warehousing human beings, which is not, even at 108, I don't think what we're looking at here. And we talk about like when annexation decisions come up, It's come up before. Well, there's buildable land in the city limits already. Well, here's buildable land in the city limits already. Like, I think that to say that this is not an appropriate use for a parcel that is fundamentally buildable is disingenuous at best. And no one. Well, no one on this dais at least. I'm also attempting to address some of the things that have come in in written testimony. There's a variety of opinions in the room. Absolutely. The opinions in here and on this dais and in this chamber and folks who have sent in testimony are not a monolith. And we're responsible for balancing all of those. Some folks are saying, like, don't let this go forward at all. Some folks are saying... YEAH, THIS IS PROBABLY FINE WITH SOME CHANGES, AND SOME FOLKS ARE SAYING, YEAH, GO FOR IT. YES, FULL STEAM AHEAD. YEAH, LIKE, I THINK THAT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE USE. IT'S ALLOWED BY CODE. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT.

SO, COUNCIL, DO YOU WANT THEM TO, HOW WILL WE DO THIS? IF THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND, AND THEN Is there going to be changes you want to require? Because I know the easement thing was part of the discussion earlier. So was the sound barrier thing. So, Council, what are your thoughts? Do we have a motion?

I can make a motion. I would move, as presented by the staff, option two, to approve the... Wait a minute, that means we're approving the appeal. I would move to uphold the Planning Commission decision with modifications, and those modifications would be the changes to the reciprocal access, remove that, and what was the other one that we were discussing with?

It was the berming?

Yes, the buffering, berming, screening, whatever that needs to happen as allowed by code and perhaps a gentleman's agreement worked out about the difference between eight feet and 10 feet. I wanted to clarify my, okay, we have a motion. Somebody second it and then I'll clarify why I'm saying this.

I have a motion.

Was it complete?

Would you like her to restate the motion?

Please don't do that.

No, I'm not going to second the motion as stated. Because I don't agree with certain parts of it. Mr. Kidd?

Yeah, before we make some changes to it, one I think we addressed already was the berm and the height, and that probably wasn't tonight, wasn't probably the night to do that. But the other thing I want to talk about is the connectivity and the easement, because I wanted staff to come up and talk about that for a second, because where it may be impractical right now to have an easement through that property because there's a bowling alley and a golf course. If there's a change in use in that property in the future, that very well may need to be may need be needed. And so I'm going to have staff come up and talk about why they would not recommend making that change tonight.

And there are provisions in the decision, the way it was written already for the Planning Commission, have the bollards in there?

The Planning Commission, the way they wrote it, it was fine. But yeah, I'll have Matthew just briefly come up and touch on that. Director, thank you for coming up.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Matthew Rutgers, Community Development Director. So I will speak just quickly. Mr. Kidd actually kind of explained some of it already on the proposed changes to the findings regarding connectivity and connection for the adjacent parking lots. As Sean Kidd mentioned, while that may work for the exact conditions today, sites can change. So the one thing that I will note and Mr. Reeder mentioned it is that the easement wouldn't necessarily have to be reciprocal. They could grant the easement now. And if down the road, if Mr. Nyquist were to develop his property in a different way where that's something that was desired to have that connectivity, it wouldn't now preclude that from happening. Because if you don't get the easement now from this current development, if Mr. Nyquist down the road wanted or had that need to have that, it would be almost impossible to get that later on from this particular development. That's the reason that I bring it up. So if that makes sense and not terribly confusing.

So make no changes right now?

The one change that you could make is taking it away from being a reciprocal easement and just making it an easement would be an option.

And just that's Mr. Nyquist or a future property owner of that property because easements run with the land, not with the ownership.

Correct. And just to be clear, with any decision tonight, it does not burden Mr. Nyquist's property as it stands today. That's not something, we're not able to put any conditions on any property outside of the properties that are contained within this application. So it doesn't require that

Yeah, the easement would benefit Mr. Nyquist's property.

It wouldn't mean that any trips get to go across his property unless he specifically were to down the road or at a different time grant an easement.

Cool. Thank you for your clarification.

Okay.

I'll withdraw my motion. Let's start clean.

Okay. Motion to withdraw. So...

So I'll move to uphold the Planning Commission decision as written with the exception of changing the reciprocal easement over the applicant's property to simply easement as recommended by the planning staff.

I have a motion. Do I have a second?

Repeat it. I want to make sure.

Yeah, making the easement requirement of the applicant a easement rather than a reciprocal easement. So they'll still be granting the Nyquist property an easement that could be used in the future for access to 53rd over the applicant's property. There's no reason to exercise that now. I think that the COURSE OF ACTION LAID OUT IN THE PACKET WITH THE BOLLARDS TO PREVENT ACCESS FROM LAKE SHORE LANES RIGHT NOW AS IT STANDS. BUT A GOOD POINT HAS BEEN MADE TO MY MIND THAT PROPERTIES DON'T STAY STATIC.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ARE WE GOING TO DISCUSS THE MOTION?

I'll start by saying why I seconded the motion and why I made the other messy one to start with. I do believe what I said when I first spoke about the concerns about density and about doing what you can because the code says you can. I also believe that, and I have said this in here many times, earning ire from both sides of the dais, I also believe in the middle housing codes that fill in vacant land that can be used for housing without expanding an urban growth boundary and taking land that could be used to a higher purpose. I know we need housing for people, we've gotta build it, or the prices will never come down so people can afford it, whether it's built as affordable or not. I have lived in apartments, I've lived in rentals, I have owned my own home as long as I have been able to afford it. All levels of housing like that have purposes. and there's a need for all of them, and if we can make those available, we should. If we can build them so that they're comfortably roomy, we should. That explains my position. There are a variety of opinions in the room, and I think all of them are floating around in my head and colliding.

I agree with what Councillor Smith said. And yes, I believe in building on the urban growth boundaries until we address the buildable land within our boundaries, right? But I do still believe that there needs to be a little bit more wiggle room. And this is coming from someone that, you know, when I met my husband 14 years ago, I was living in a laundry room without even a door. I had a curtain and like a twin bed. like my rent was $300 a month though. It was quite affordable when I was in college. But I think that we do need I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS ALSO JUST DOWN THE ROAD. I KNOW THAT YOU MENTIONED VAN DREMELEN LOOKING AT THE MIXED USE EAST OF I-5. I HOPE YOU WOULD BRING THAT LATER ON AS A MOTION AS WELL. BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT GOING FROM 108 TO 100 JUST TO ALLOW A LITTLE BIT OF ADDITIONAL BREATHING ROOM ISN'T DETRIMENTAL.

I DON'T THINK I'VE SPOKEN.

Yeah, I think we've got a little bit off tangent here on the idea of apartments in general, yes or no. I'm not against apartments either. Building happens in the city all the time. Approvals happen all the time that we never see. This is one of our rare chances to weigh in on what Albany looks like. And that's where I'm going with, I think Mr. Riles hit it on the head. That's what, it's my chance to, and it's not just my chance, it's my neighbor's chance. I would talk to people. I would talk to people how they feel about traffic. I would talk to people how they feel about density. I would talk to your neighbors because I hear it all the time. I hear the complaints all the time. It showed up in our survey. FOR THE STRATEGIC PLAN. IT SHOWED UP LOUD AND CLEAR. AND THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.

IT'S ALSO SHOWED UP IN OUR SURVEY, AND THESE ARE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS, MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE PRIORITIES THAT PEOPLE BRING UP THAT WE NEED MORE AND MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. If you don't embrace density to a certain extent, now I'm not saying that density is the source or is the cure to all ills, but the opposite of density is sprawl. And we've already seen where in certain parts of South Albany, services are hard to come by near to where the housing is because we have the beginnings of sprawl. And that's something that we've allowed to develop over time. Now, density is not in and of itself a cure for the ills of sprawl either. However, I think that given the current largely single family character of this area, that putting something like this in there injects some needed diversity.

Dr. Thompson.

No, I just, you know, yes, I was elected in 2024 and began in 2025, but I followed counsel prior to that. This counsel has, at the request of the state, radically changed the zoning issues. I've said this before. These have been radical changes. The middle housing was radical changes. Has the economics followed that to do as much building as possible? It doesn't seem like it. But the rules are there, and we see it tonight. The crux, I think, of the winning argument of the developer here is I can do this. I can do this. And that's why I'm saying coming back, I realize it's certainly the people's comments in the strategic plan weren't 100% stopping growth or slowing growth or criticism of growth. I get that. But it's a lot louder than what I hear in this chambers. I hear in this chamber, in 2025 and through 2026, I've heard nothing but we have to build. The state's, the governor's plans on building is great. We need to pursue it 100%. And I'm just saying, here's an example of where the neighbors have told us a little bit of reality. And that's where I land.

I think while it's extremely important to... Definitely here are neighbors in a specific area. But those are not just the neighbors that are there. There are neighbors that will be coming as well. There are people that will be coming here and living here and playing here. We want to have something for them. I think I've said that a million times. You and I just don't agree on it. And I respect you for it. I don't like it. But, you know, it is what it is. But I think we have to... It's not... Us not building is not going to help, and that's where I land on it. But I think we have to have something for the people who are coming here, something for people whose kids are graduating and want their own space and want their own place and want to come back with their friends. We have to have something for those specific residents, even if it's in a specific neighborhood that does not necessarily have that housing. I think that's all the more reason to have it.

And we could have 100 units, additional units instead of 108. I'm just saying it still is adding additional units. I'm sorry.

Councilor Newton, to your point that you keep making of 100 units versus 108 units, what do you mean when you say more elbow room? Because the difference to me between a 108-unit structure or series of structures in this case in the site plan is... Maybe one less floor. Like the units themselves aren't going to be any bigger. Like what material difference do you see that making?

I was thinking of how they would be laid out differently or adding more space between buildings. I'm not an architect by any stretch of the imagination. I would like to see like a different kind of site review plan personally.

Okay. Where are we at?

Can I point of information? The motion, is that option two we have, it's the modifications, but with your spin on the easement, I just wanna make sure.

Yeah, it's to uphold the planning commission decision to approve the site plan, but modifying the conditions around the reciprocal easement to simply state easement rather than reciprocal easement.

Okay. Okay, I think the horse is dead.

Call for the question.

Call the question. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no. No. Okay, we have a three to two vote. I'll roll call please.

Councilor McGee.

Aye.

Councilor Newton. Nope. Councilor Thompson.

No.

Councilor VanDremelen.

Aye.

COUNSELOR MCCLOUD? COUNSELOR SMITH?

AYE. WE HAVE NO DECISION.

SO THE MOTION FAILS? THE MOTION FAILS. SO UNLESS THERE IS ANOTHER MOTION MADE TONIGHT, IF WE LEAVE IT AT THIS, THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION IS STILL IN EFFECT. AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE'LL BE, WHERE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE THEIR DECISION.

So by default, unless we choose to do something, the Planning Commission decision stands. Correct. Yes.

Okay. We'll return to the normal agenda. Item three in your agenda is adoption.

Question. What does that mean for the suggestions that were made by Nyquist Ventures?

Nothing. It didn't pass. Nothing. Planning Commission decision stands.

Yep.

So item three in your agenda packet, adoption and consent calendar. Council?

I move to adopt the consent calendar as written. Second.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no. Thank you. Next on the agenda is public comment. Oh, where'd my sheet go? Public comment is a time for the Albany residents to speak and for the councilors to listen. The council will not discuss topics or respond to questions or make decisions during public comment, but will take comments and requests under advisement. All persons in attendance at the public meeting shall avoid conduct which is unreasonably loud, disruptive or profane, rude, slanderous or threatening remarks will not be tolerated, permitted, excuse me, whistling, yelling, Foot stomping, clapping, and displaying any signs or speaking out of order will also not be permitted. Speakers are limited to three minutes and must follow the council's rules and observe the same standards of decorum. If unable to do so, they will be asked to step down and take the seat in the audience for the rest of the meeting or removed from the meeting. When you get to the microphone, please give your name and state whether or not you live in the city of Albany. He wants to sign.

Mr. Mayor. Yes. Before you go to public comment, can we ask the city attorney to explain for many people who might not understand how our charter provisions work, why that vote failed?

Okay, please.

yeah i i could tell by looking reading faces in the room a lot of people were not quite uh understanding what happened so under our charter as as council knows we're required to anything that is passed has to have at least four votes you can't move anything without four votes of the council the mayor is up on the dais and we had five people on the dais but the mayor under our charter can only vote in the event of a tie which means it has to be the full council voting, which means it'd have to be a three to three tie and then the mayor could vote. So under the current situation where we had a three to two vote, the mayor was not permitted to vote. And that is why there was no motion passed tonight, so.

Is this able to come back at a later time?

If a new application comes in at a different time, sure. But as of now, because we didn't make a motion. So for example, the appeal tonight, there was a couple of things on there on the appeal tonight. If the appeal was to or a motion was made to deny the project in its entirety, it would have failed, it sounds like, two to three, right, or three, you know, again, and that wouldn't have passed either. So we didn't pass anything tonight. So because we didn't, then the Planning Commission's decision stands if the council didn't take this up or if the appeal never happened. A little weird, but it's the way our charter is written that we we have to have four or five votes to move anything. So good.

Thank you. So so could that theoretically be appealed again or like what? This is just kind of a weird like.

So it can be appealed again, but not to us. The next if someone wants to make a new appeal, it would go to Luba.

Public comment starts in a sec. So are we done? Are you good? Everybody understand that? Okay, next is public comment. I have one person, Roger Nyquist. You have three minutes, sir.

Can you turn the microphone?

Where is it? Testing.

A little closer.

What I saw happen is you had a motion, you had a vote, a vote failed. That in itself does not automatically dispense the matter. You clearly could have had, and clearly to me at this moment, you could go back and deliberate and have another motion and vote. Unless your charter says you can only vote on an item once, that the motion had amendments. You could have... normal customary in public meetings, a lot of times there are other amendments. When you vote only once, there's no negotiation, if you will, or the sharing of ideas amongst members. It's just a hard vote. And I guess one of my questions is, did you all know you only had one vote when you made your vote? Nope. I would ask you to go back into deliberations and see if there's another motion of something that would entertain a vote and possibly pass.

I can comment on that. Thank you. No one else signed up to speak? Next is item five, grant application support, DLCD-UGB technical assistance grant. Ann Catlin, pages 214 to 216.

Thank you, Mayor and counselors. We are presented with an opportunity to apply for grant funds to do a few different things. And the grant is to the Housing Accountability and Production Office, which has been corrected in the resolution. That is an arm of the Department of Land Conservation and Development. And this grant is an opportunity to evaluate land outside of the city limits but in the urban growth boundary where we have wetlands and riparian corridors. wetlands have been an obstacle to development not just residential development but especially industrial development and initially we were trying to figure out whether it was this opportunity would be worth applying for but when we talked about it a little bit more with our state representative we thought that we really need to to do better job of planning ahead for addressing wetlands and riparian corridors and protecting those and enhancing those where we can. So the Polkos survey that was the most recent one, 78% of respondents said that wetlands are important to protect or improve. So there are a couple of goals and objectives with this grant. We would build on a grant that is currently underway that is updating our local wetland inventory. So we're going to have brand new data that will tell us more definitively where our wetland boundaries are. And the next step with that new data and better data is to really look at all the properties encumbered by wetlands on a site by site basis for mitigation needs and opportunities, whether those are on-site or off-site. We know, based on a study that was submitted to Cascades West Council of Governments, and I discussed that in the memo, that there are not enough wetland mitigation bank credits in our area for industrial or residential or any growth. And so what we're hoping to do is multifold, is identify what our development opportunities are, but really how can we enhance and protect our existing riparian corridors to improve drainage, flood control, natural areas, and creating these greenways and corridors to help implement goals and policies in our comprehensive plan, in the East Albany plan, the South Albany plan, But also take this opportunity to identify whether we have any candidate sites within the city limits, not just in the urban growth boundary that might be good candidates for a local wetland mitigation bank, because the region needs more wetland mitigation bank credits. As I noted in the memo, those are running $160,000 per acre right now. And what's happening is when development is proposed on a site with wetlands, all that money is going into a wetland mitigation bank outside of our area, creating wetlands and natural areas for residents in other cities to enjoy. So what we're hoping to do is just do a further analysis on the heels of getting new wetland information to figure out what opportunities do we have within the city if any for not just wetland mitigation making but just planning for the needs that we have with drainage riparian corridor protection wildlife habitat and implementing some of our comprehensive plan policies i'll be happy to answer any questions you have and we're hoping that you will support application to the state for this grant council anyone

I'm in.

I was just going to make a motion to adopt the resolution supporting the DLCD technical assistance grant as written on page 216 of the packet. Second.

Any discussion further?

Just real quick. Yes. Yes on inventory of wetlands but Coming from the DLCD, this looks like another, just concerns another plan for the beginnings of growth. That's my concerns. And so if this results in projects that continue to densify Albany, I'll be against those as they come about. But yeah, I can't say no to an inventory of wetlands.

Thank you. Anyone else? I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed, say no. Thank you very much. Thank you, Anna.

I'd like to reopen discussion for the last item for the Planning Commission. Namely, I think that the motion that we had on the table is better than the one that is being reverted to, so I'd be happy to change my vote in the affirmative. You can skedaddle if you need to.

Thank you. I will be recusing myself again.

Can we do that? Is that legal?

You can. So the public hearing has been closed. You were deliberating. The hearing has been closed. So we're not offering new testimony or anything like that. And no decision was made. Had we made a decision, then that would have been a different story. But no decision was made either way. So Councilor Newton wants to open the deliberation back up.

I think the best way to do this, because I do think that the mayor closed, well, no, that you closed the floor prematurely before any other motions could be made. I think that the best way to do this would be for Councilor Newton to make a motion to reopen discussion on that item, and then we vote to do that.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you. So let's discuss.

I THINK, LIKE COUNSELOR THOMPSON SAID EARLIER, THAT THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MORE OF A HAND IN THINGS AND KNOWING THAT, YOU KNOW, AS THINGS WOULD HAVE SHAPED OUT HOW THEY DID OR SHAKEN OUT, SHOOK OUT, HOWEVER I WANT TO WORD IT, I WOULD RATHER HAVE THE CHANGES THAT COUNSELOR VANDERMELEN OUTLINED AND THAT ARE NEEDED TO MAKE THIS A MORE better a better option to move forward with them what the original Planning Commission's decision would be I can get over myself on the hundred and eight two hundred live and learn we all grow so I'll change my vote to a yay

Do we have a motion? No, we don't have a motion yet. Well, no, she made a motion to reopen the item. And that I think it's important to show that at least a majority of the council supports reopening the discussion on that and not simply rolling with the NONDECISION THAT WE MADE. BUT SINCE I HAVE THE FLOOR AND IT DOES NOT SEEM THAT ANYONE ELSE HAS A DISCUSSION ITEM, I WILL RESTATE MY MOTION TO UPHOLD, I MOVE THAT THE COUNCIL UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MODIFYING THE RECIPROCAL EASEMENT REQUIREMENTS TO SIMPLY SAY EASEMENT RATHER THAN RECIPROCAL EASEMENT.

I'LL SECOND IT. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any further discussion? Further discussion, council? Hearing none. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no.

No.

Can we do a roll call, please, just for clarity's sake?

Councillor McGee? Aye. Councillor Newton? Yes. Councillor Thompson?

No.

Councillor Van Drommelen?

Yes.

Councillor Smith? Yes.

I'd like motion passes four to one. Thank you very much. Item six on your agenda is approval of an intergovernmental agreement with Linn County regarding Simpson timber property. Director Kim Ledain from the Parks and Rec Department. Pages 217 to 220 in your packet.

Mr. Mayor, Director Ledain had to depart to address a family issue. So I'll just present the IGA for her. As you know, this is from your packet. This IGA clarifies responsibilities between the City of Albany and the Linn County Sheriff's Office. The Simpson property is private property. within the city of Millersburg over which the city of Albany has a conservation easement that was granted in the mid 90s. So the city of Albany is responsible for cleanup and also for providing notice to people who have been living there about assistance for people experiencing drug addiction. And the county will be responsible for enforcement into the future. And so that's what this IGA does, is simply clarifies responsibilities between Albany and the Linn County Sheriff's Office, or more broadly, the county, Linn County.

I have a question. I read in the report somewhere that it also says that Albany PD will respond to law enforcement complaints in the island areas of Linn County that are inside our city limits. It's not written that way, but that's how I read it. Is that correct?

Right, that was the sheriff's concern was that as they're taking on an additional workload that APD would be able to help with some of the response calls that they make within the city.

That it makes super good sense, thank you.

Okay, council? Do I have a motion?

Move to approve the IGA with Linn County regarding Simpson Timber property.

Do I have a second? OF ANY DISCUSSION? SO I'M REALLY GLAD THAT YOU CLARIFIED THE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT'S NOT SIMPSON PARK. IT'S SIMPSON TIMBER PROPERTY. SO I APPRECIATE THAT CHANGE BEING PUT IN THERE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE.

THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. THANK YOU, COUNCIL. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC. I'LL START WITH WARD TWO. This is business from the council. Business from the council. I'll start with Ward 2. Councilor McLeod?

I will save my items until Wednesday. Thank you.

Councilor Van Gemelen?

I'll also wait until Wednesday.

Councilor Smith?

I wish we had a short video of the reconsideration of the Planning Commission decision just a few moments ago. Two weeks ago, three weeks ago, I spoke to the Civic Leadership Academy on the timely topic of reaching consensus in decision making. That would have been really helpful for me. So thank you for showing them what I told them about.

I have nothing else to say.

I just have one thing to say. First of all, I apologize for being a little tardy. It is finals week, and I was in teacher mode and completely let the time get away from me. So I apologize for my tardiness, number one. Number two, I think sometimes on the dais, we really have to conduct ourselves as counselors. We have one mayor. I think he is allowed to make a couple mistakes. Sometimes I feel that folks are really, really aggressive with him, and it is very bothersome. While I understand there's frustration, while I understand there's some things that he may not do all the way correctly, it is a way to correct someone decently and in order without embarrassment or ridicule. And I think that that has happened multiple times on this dais, and it's really unbecoming of us as counselors. So I would ask that people have some respect and have a little grace when they are handling business up here because it is starting to get a little out of hand.

Councillor Thompson? Councillor Newton?

Because I know my husband usually watches the end. I'll just say happy anniversary, 14 years. He's like, when is she going to be home? That's the only time he watches. And then also attended the Give a Duck fundraiser that Sybaris put on for the rehabbing the giant duck in our Waverly Pond. And I will say one of the items that was on the menu was described as like pond scum, which was not appetizing, but it was delicious nonetheless. It was like a spinach, like, And he said, oh, the duck in the pond. I was like, oh, no, don't say that. We're working on it, I promise. But I heard today that they raised $13,500. They'll have enough money to completely rehab this wonderful landmark that my children love to shout out to. And we're excited to go out and paddle out there and go see the duck up close and personal. So that's it. Pretty cool. Very Albany experience.

I'm going to say happy anniversary. And thank you very much for this. And I have some stuff for Wednesday nights all reserved. I would also like to have the city manager's report.

I have nothing further to add, Mayor.

Thank you. So with that, I'll adjourn the meeting. Our next meeting is Wednesday night, June 10th at 6 p.m. here in Chambers.