Albany City Council approves Mennonite Village expansion, keeps public trail requirement amid pushback

Albany City Council voted 5–1 on Nov. 17 to approve a planned development replat, site‑plan review, floodplain and natural resource impact reviews for an expansion of Mennonite Village at 5353 Columbus Street SE while retaining a public multi‑use trail easement in the approvals.

The approved project would expand the continuing‑care retirement community with the construction described in the staff report as 98 duplexes (196 dwelling units), a community center and landscaped open space on a site staff described as 76.33 acres, subject to the list of conditions in the Nov. 10 staff report. The motion to approve was based on the staff findings and passed on a roll call with Councillors Smith, McGee, Newton, Van Germelein and McLeod voting yes and Councillor Thompson voting no.

The hearing focused less on housing and more on a condition in the annexation agreement and adopted plans that calls for a paved multi‑use trail on both sides of Oak Creek. Staff planner Jennifer Sodello told council that the trail requirement appears in adopted documents and that staff proposed 29 conditions for approval. Planning director Matthew Rutgers reviewed the history, saying the trail first appeared in a 1988 PD approval, was reflected in later transportation and area plans and was part of the 2018 annexation agreement.

Mennonite Village CEO Diane Hood and the applicant's attorney urged the council to remove or relocate the trail requirement. Hood said the project addresses “the urgent need for senior housing” but that “the requirement for a public multi use pathway through our campus is not compatible with the unique needs and vulnerabilities of our residents,” listing risks from mixing frail seniors with faster wheeled users, loss of privacy, floodplain and wetland constraints and the removal of mature oak trees. The applicant offered to dedicate an easement on the south side of Oak Creek as an alternative alignment.

The applicant's attorney framed the legal issue as narrow: the council must make findings of nexus and rough proportionality before imposing the trail condition. He said the staff record lacked the necessary findings and argued that the city’s authority under the annexation agreement requires evidence tying the condition to the project's impacts. Staff responded that the Nov. 10 report addresses nexus and proportionality (noting analysis in section 8.11) and that a public easement would be maintained and policed as other city easements are.

More than two dozen residents and several Mennonite Village residents gave oral testimony. Neighbors and residents repeatedly told council the North‑side alignment that runs adjacent to homes and raised garden beds would require removal of trees, cross wetlands and be seasonally flooded, raise maintenance costs for the community, and create safety risks for seniors. Resident Liz England summarized the attorney’s point about the annexation agreement, saying the agreement “contains limits that protect against unconstitutional taking” and urged removal of the trail condition. Other speakers emphasized intergenerational benefits of access and urged thoughtful design.

Council deliberations centered on two tensions: honoring the city’s adopted plans and annexation agreement and responding to residents’ safety and environmental concerns. Several councilors said changing or waiving terms in an annexation agreement risks creating precedent and undermining future agreements. Others urged the use of conditions, signage and restricted‑use language to mitigate safety worries.

Mayor/council action and what comes next: the motion to approve the development passed 5–1. Staff noted the council’s decision is a land‑use decision that can be appealed: a notice of intent to appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) must be filed no later than 21 days after the decision. The council listed follow‑up steps and signaled amendments to implementation language (for example, clarifying trailhead signage and connector locations) could be considered as part of conditions or future council action.

Reporting notes and clarifications: the transcript contained inconsistent spellings and differing acreage figures in places; staff presented the site as 76.33 acres in the public record, while the applicant referenced broader campus acreage in testimony. The council's written staff report and the full packet are the official record of the conditions adopted tonight.

The council’s next meetings were announced as Wednesday, Nov. 19 at 6 p.m., Monday, Dec. 8 and Wednesday, Dec. 10.