Councilor Michael Thomson cast the only vote against the 108-unit apartment complex Monday.
Over the objection of the nearby residential neighborhood, the Albany City Council on Monday approved a Seattle area developer’s plan for 108 apartments at the southwest corner of Pacific Boulevard and 53rd Avenue.
It also approved an unrelated request for a state grant to study possible wetland mitigation sites in and around Albany with the view toward making more land in the city available for development.
Councilor Michael Thomson opposed the apartments and expressed concern over the grant request. He’s against the rush, encouraged by the state administration and legislature, to cram people into ever denser neighborhoods.
On the apartments, Councilor Carolyn McLeod recused herself because of a conflict of interest.
The other council members backed the development. (Steph Newton first voted “no” but on reconsideration changed her vote to “yes.” Without that, there would have been only three votes for the apartments, and the charter requires four votes for the council to pass anything.)
The apartments were before the council on appeal from the planning commission, which had approved them in March. Neighbors in the subdivisions at the east end of 53rd, the only access and exit from the area, opposed the development. They worry about more congestion and the effect on the Oak Creek natural area, among other things.
The site at issue is zoned “mixed commercial.” But the zoning does allow apartments.
Councilor Chris Van Drimmelen pointed out that the site plan meets all requirements of the development code. His unspoken question: How can you deny permission for an owner’s project that meets all the rules the city has set?
The developer, Schneider Homes of Tukwila, Wash., intends to build seven three-story apartment buildings and a clubhouse/office. One of the buildings would hold one-bedroom apartments and studios. The others would have both one- and two-bedroom units.
A map with the application showed 156 parking stalls plus storage space for 31 bikes.
Schneider Homes calls this project “The Loren at Brookside.” The name may seem odd, but on Monday it did not come up. (hh)
I am not for this at all! Maybe it’s because I use the oak Creek trail all the time and would hate to see it get bombarded with a bunch of people. So I guess it’s just me being selfish. I am also worried about how this will impact the wildlife in the area.
Have you not seen the city’s South Albany Plan which calls for extensive development centered around Oak Creek??????
Hasso opines, using Thompson’s “voice” to express Hering’s well-documented dislike of State housing development rules. “…Thomson opposed the apartments…He’s against the rush, encouraged by the state administration and legislature, to cram people into ever denser neighborhoods.”
An aside: perhaps if Albany elected a State Representative who can actually get things accomplished, Hering/Thompson’s desires could be codified. Alas, our current representative is permanently assigned to the back bench where she’s content.
In the Hering World, Albany would only grow by having more people with the financial wherewithal purchase 5-acre plots on the City perimeter. Hering’s thinking is akin to the Trump administration’s limiting immigration by accepting only white South Africans who claim to be victims in the aftermath of apartheid.
Hering/Thompson would wish us back to the Good Old Days when the select few were permitted while the great unwashed were to be ignored and discriminated against. Thankfully Hering/Thompson are not powerful enough to drag us back into the past.
Tell us you’re an idiot without telling us you’re an idiot. Seriously dude, what does your TDS have to do with the unchecked SPRAWAL that is happening here?
You’re accusing Hering/Thompson of the very thing that you’re doing…ignoring the “great unwashed”. How does building $2000/$3000 a month apartments help the average person/family? We’re spending almost $200,000 to clean up Simpson Park. We’re talking about “wetland mitigation”, the very VOIDABLE destruction of natural wetlands for development. Not to mention all the rezoning of farmland for development.
Speaking of the later…where do you think the food in the grocery store comes from?
So, what in the hell are you for? Other than blasting hartman and upholding Trumpism! Do you want only single family housing averaging $500,000 per house? Most Albany people can’t afford that. And that saves farmland, how?:
At approximately 2:30 pm
At a 4way crossing there was about two blocks of traffic waiting to make a left turn.
I have waited behind about 3 blocks to make a turn onto pacific Blvd.
We have enough problems.
Leave Albany where it’s at now before it’s too late.
The land use requirements may be legally acceptable but that doesn’t make adding 108 apartments the best use of the property.
This development is one of the worst things I have witnessed on the former Maddy Farm property in 70 years. The development is going to negatively affect 100s of people.
There are also no shopping, grocery, gas stations nearby; this will result in a significant increase in an already high flow of vehicle traffic on 53rd Ave and Pacific Blvd (99E). There is only one inlet and exit for traffic on 53rd Avenue SW.
I have lived through the 1962 Columbus Day storm and the 1964 and 1996 floods. But, I don’t believe that my neighbors, neighborhood or I are ready for this development disaster.
Land development and potential city taxes seems to have greater value than the needs of local residents. The attitude of the City Council and how they have treated the concerns of local citizens is most concerning. They may have also forgotten the citizens who elected them and another election is coming soon.
Is there any “best use” of property left on this planet? People have ruined the planet.
Who are you going to get to farm that land? That’s not going to happen.
And, the city years ago turned down Walmart going in where the old Southwest Forest Plywood Plant used to be. Apparently, a frozen food company or some big business didn’t want them there. My point is we are not going to get grocery stores in the Southwest end of town. A Trader Joe’s was thinking a while back of going in where the new soccer fields are at the YMCA, but we have soccer fields, not Trader Joe’s. That ship has sailed.
And, yes, city taxes are what the Council wants. They have bankrupted themselves after 25 years of CARA skimming tax money to use to “beautify” downtown.
If we vote out the Council, we will just get more people of the same vein. I’ve given up.
It is good that the population growth is slowing in Oregon. Maybe that will help a little.
I can’t believe that the traffic study (done by the city two days after school let out) would say that adding 100 more cars to the signal at 53rd and Pacific was acceptable. Multiply that by several trips per day. What if there’s a fire, flood, roadwork or other blockage? Hope we never find out! 100plus apartments in that tiny space is incomparable with the existing road layout.
Sorry… incomparable with existing road configuration.
Many thanks to Michael Thomson. We need to take a serious look at these developments and their impact on traffic congestion. Number one need for that area is a grocery store!
I don’t shop at Safeway since they moved from SW Pacific Blvd. to 14th Street clear across town. I’ll never forgive them or Albertson’s….who owns Safeway. Safeway adversely affected life in Albany….such as, too many traffic accidents near Fred Meyer and that end of town because of everyone having to go that area to buy food. It was just greed on the part of Safeway and Albertson’s.
Searching for a silver lining here….
If there are more power customers within city limits being charged for the city’s burying of downtown power lines, that should reduce the monthly cost to us all. And pay off the city’s incompetence that much faster.
In theory, of course.
What new “power customers?” Are you referring to the proposed new apartments in Southwest Albany? The burying of the utilities on Water Street, or “pink brick road,” was to make “pink brick road” look sufficiently “cute” to attract scads of open-air functions to their “plaza street,” as they call it. But, the only function they have is Saturday Market in the warm-weather months.
Also, speaking of that area, CARA not only took away 2/3 of the Community (Sr.) Center’s parking, they took away easy access. You have to go to Avery Building entrance a long block away to enter the back parking at Sr. Center. The old entrance across the railroad tracks to the back part of Sr. Center (now the front!!!) is permanently blocked by removable black columns which are “only” removed for fire trucks and ambulances to enter. And, now the Sr./Community Center, trying to stay afloat, is offering “footcare” appointments!! Footcare at the Community Center…not at a foot doctor’s office! No, thanks!
….meanwhile in beautiful and quiet Millersburg…
Lets put a flock camera @ 53 rd. street & a red light camera…money..money..
There certainly seem to be no shortage of NIMBY’s in Albany or on the city council as evidenced by Michael Thomson. He is anti-growth period. He hides behind excuses that it’s what his constituents want- but deep down he is anti-growth and wants to exert control. He said as much at the hearing.
What is truly sad is that he and others like Steph Newton do not understand their role as councilors. Steph on at least two occasions tried to get the apartment number down from 108 units to 100. That’s comical because as a councilor she has no authority to determine the number of units. What was before the council was simple and they were given multiple choice answers. Even with all of this, she didn’t understand the ramifications of her vote and so they took a second vote afterwards so she could change her vote. Which did not change the outcome of allowing the apartment project to go forward. But it was great for virtue signaling.
If you have watched this council, there is lots of monkey business and self-promotion from certain council members which wastes a lot of valuable time. The egos are huge and the intelligence is low.
There are several factors that were not pointed out that provide a certain irony. The company developing the apartments also previously built many of the homes in the subdivision where the people now live that are opposed to the apartments. At that time over 20 years ago I wonder if the existing residents on the south side of 53rd complained about increased traffic in front of their homes when that subdivision was proposed? And yet those subdivisions were built and 600 plus homes were constructed. And people moved in that are now complaining about traffic. The added traffic from the apartments is not going to be routed thru anybody’s neighborhood. Again, NIMBY attitude. Reminds me of the famous Tom McCall quote from 1971 about visiting Oregon but please go home.
The gentleman representing the apartments did a great job at explaining how they met all the city standards for development. I am told that due to a change in state law if they had waited until July to submit there would be no ability to appeal. Another irony that councilors must not have known about. Certain councilors have no ability for independent thought or research. They are just looking for a hot button topic to get their name in the news.
Back to Thomson, every chance he gets he rails against the state mandated increased density, middle housing etc. And yet his party- the democrats, have been in the governor’s office the last 39 years, Attorney General and Treasurer the last 33 years, and State Senate under democrat control the last 21 years. So, how’s that working for you Michael? You can’t have it both ways- you want to reduce urban sprawl and protect the forests and farmlands then you get increased density. Pretty simple.
You just can’t make this stuff up- it’s perfect for a Hollywood movie.
ORS197A.400 (4) “this section does not infringe on a local government’s prerogative to: (b) “Impose special conditions upon approval of a specific development proposal.”
To say that Newton or others have no authority in the matter is inconsistent with a plain reading of the statute. The proposed apartment building directly under the cell tower would be in play as it is fairly unique and raises all kinds of health, safety and welfare concerns.
Had the council decided for example that to address the neighborhood concerns of future traffic problems that the approval be conditioned on the city acquiring necessary right of way to build out an additional lane when it becomes necessary, they would have been within their purview to do so. It also would have been smart infrastructure planning.
It looked like the council was having an honest conversation on a difficult issue, and yes they were doing it without engaging in partisan politics. Good for them!