Albany council upholds planning commission approval for 108‑unit apartment project, narrows reciprocal‑access requirement

Albany City Council voted 4–1 on June 8 to uphold the planning commission’s approval of a proposed 108‑unit apartment development on three parcels near 53rd Avenue and Pacific Boulevard, but modified a condition that had required reciprocal access across the neighboring Lakeshore Lanes property.

The project, filed as planning applications SP‑15‑25, NR‑03‑25 and RL‑08‑25, would consolidate three lots totaling 8.29 acres and construct a 108‑unit multiple‑dwelling complex (42 two‑bedroom and 66 one‑bedroom/studio units) with 145 parking spaces and indoor and outdoor common areas, Jennifer Sapello, the city planner, told the council during the staff report.

Why it matters: Neighbors and the owner of the adjacent Lakeshore Lanes family entertainment complex urged the council to deny or remand the approval on grounds that the development would overload a single neighborhood access, compromise emergency egress and harm nearby wetlands and wildlife habitat. The council’s action leaves the planning commission’s approval intact while narrowing one access‑related requirement; the decision preserves the planning commission’s 23 conditions of approval, including mitigation and buffering measures contained in the record.

What council members and witnesses said

Roger Nyquist, owner of Lakeshore Lanes, told the council he has operated the business for decades and said cross‑access through his property would be unsafe and would invite future conflict. “There really is no reason to cross traffic from one to the other,” Nyquist said, arguing the project should not entitle the applicant to reciprocal access across his land. He also asked the council to allow a waiver to build a berm taller than the current eight‑foot limit to mitigate noise and visual impacts.

Applicant representative Mike Reer for Schneider Homes said the project’s revised traffic impact analysis demonstrates the site can meet city and ODOT mobility standards using two access points on 53rd Avenue and without access across Nyquist’s land. “The applicant meets the city’s standards,” Reer said, explaining the applicant amended plans to remove any proposed access through the adjoining property and offered a voluntary six‑foot fence as screening.

Several neighborhood residents described day‑to‑day congestion and safety concerns. Haley Driscoll, appearing remotely, said the proposal would put dozens of additional vehicle trips onto the single collector serving roughly 450 families and argued that, in an evacuation event, the development could slow emergency response. Driscoll cited Oregon Fire Code section D107 and Albany code provisions requiring adequate emergency access.

Technical and legal context

Staff explained that about 4.9 acres of the consolidated site lie inside a mapped natural‑resource overlay that includes significant wetlands and a riparian corridor; the applicant submitted a wetland delineation and proposed mitigation areas and asked for a Natural Resource Impact Review for encroachments. The staff report and record note applicable decision criteria in the Albany Development Code (site plan review, tentative plat review and natural resource impact review) and list proposed conditions of approval (23 items in the packet).

The appellants’ attorney, Elena Albridge of Davis Wright Tremaine, asked the council to tighten the planning‑commission findings—she argued the record should explicitly state why a second access was unnecessary and remove reliance on older, irrelevant studies. Nyquist and the appellants also asked the council to require greater screening and to permit a waiver to exceed an eight‑foot berm height if needed to mitigate noise.

Council deliberation and outcome

Deliberations included repeated questions about traffic counts, emergency access geometry, buffering/screening options and long‑term compatibility with a high‑activity commercial use next door. An initial motion that would have removed the reciprocal easement requirement failed on a 3–2 vote; council then paused after staff and the city attorney clarified that, under the city charter, adopted actions require four affirmative votes. The council later reopened deliberations and voted 4–1 to uphold the planning commission’s approval, with one modification: the condition requiring a reciprocal access easement was rephrased to require that the applicant grant an easement (non‑reciprocal) that preserves the possibility of future connectivity without obligating reciprocal cross‑access now.

At the conclusion of the review the mayor confirmed that, absent further council action, the planning commission’s decision remains in effect and the project may proceed under the adopted conditions and any applicable permits.

Votes at a glance

- Planning appeal (SP‑15‑25 / NR‑03‑25 / RL‑08‑25): motion to uphold planning commission decision with modification to easement language — Passed 4–1 (McGee: yes; Newton: yes; Thompson: no; Van Dremelan: yes; Smith: yes). The mayor did not vote under charter rules.

Other council actions (brief)

- The council adopted a resolution supporting a DLCD technical‑assistance grant to inventory and plan for wetlands and riparian corridors in and near the UGB; the resolution passed (voice vote).

- The council approved an intergovernmental agreement with Linn County clarifying responsibilities for the Simpson Timber property (Albany holds a conservation easement; Linn County handles enforcement). The agreement passed (voice vote).

What’s next

The applicant waived the 7‑day written‑argument period, the planning commission conditions remain in the record, and any subsequent land‑use permits (building permits, construction permits and any required mitigation work) will be processed administratively subject to those conditions. Appellants retain the right to pursue further legal appeal under state land‑use procedures (LUBA) if they choose.

Sources: city staff report and agenda packet; project testimony from Jennifer Sapello, Mike Reer (applicant), Roger Nyquist (Lakeshore Lanes), Elena Albridge (appellants’ counsel), neighborhood witnesses and council deliberations during the June 8, 2026 Albany City Council meeting.