Albany council approves Mennonite Village expansion despite objections over proposed public trail

The Albany City Council on Nov. 17 approved a planned-development, replat and related land-use reviews that will allow Mennonite Village to expand its continuing-care community with 98 duplexes (196 new dwelling units) on a 76.33-acre site at 5353 Columbus Street SE.

The council’s approval, made on a 5–1 roll call vote, came after more than two hours of testimony and cross-examination focused on a decades-old requirement in the South Albany area plan and an annexation agreement that a 10-foot, paved public multiuse trail be routed along Oak Creek. Residents of Mennonite Village, the applicant and multiple witnesses argued the north-side alignment would harm residents’ safety and privacy, require removing mature trees and intrude into wetlands and floodplain. The applicant offered an alternative: dedication of an easement on the south side of Oak Creek.

“Opening internal paths to the public would fundamentally alter this environment and grow the sense of safety that is central to our mission,” Diane Hood, CEO of Mennonite Village, told the council, urging removal of the north-side requirement and acceptance of a south-side easement.

Applicant attorney Steve Wahlberg argued the dispute is legally narrow and focused on whether the city has made findings of nexus and rough proportionality to justify conditioning the development on construction of a public trail through the village. "We are not asking the city to breach its contract," Wahlberg told the council, "we're asking the city to follow its annexation agreement and constitutional requirements." He said the record lacks findings and substantial evidence connecting the project’s impacts to the full trail requirement.

Dozens of Mennonite Village residents testified in opposition to a north-side public trail, citing fall risk for frail seniors, loss of quiet and privacy, maintenance and policing concerns, and tree removal. Several residents and technical witnesses detailed engineering and environmental constraints — including wetlands and a regulatory floodway — and said some trail segments would be seasonally inundated.

City planning staff, noting the trail has been shown on local plans since 1988 and is included in the annexation agreement, told the council the city may require compliance with adopted plans as part of land-use approvals and that, if an easement is dedicated to the city, maintenance and policing would fall to city departments. Planner Jennifer Sotelo summarized the application’s scope and the applicable review criteria, and staff pointed to sections of the staff report addressing nexus and rough proportionality.

Council discussion centered on two fault lines: whether the council must enforce existing annexation and development agreements (and the precedent of doing otherwise) and whether the volume of resident opposition and new safety concerns justify amending or modifying the trail condition. Several councilors urged retaining city standards and the annexation commitments; others said the council has discretion to craft conditions (for example, restricting motorized uses by signage) or require staff to return with revised language that mitigates residents’ concerns.

After deliberation the council voted to approve the applications "based on findings and conclusions in the 11/10/2025 staff report and the findings in support of the application made by the city council during deliberations on this matter." The motion passed on a roll call vote; the council recorded the appeal deadline and LUBA (Land Use Board of Appeals) process for parties with standing.

Votes at a glance: The motion to approve the planned development, replat, site plan review, natural resource impact review and floodplain development review (planning files PD0125, RL0425, SP0525, NR0125 and FP0125) passed 5–1 on roll call. Councilor Thompson cast the lone no vote.

What happens next: The approvals include staff-recommended conditions and findings in the staff report; the applicant and members of the public may file a land‑use appeal (LUBA) within 21 days of the decision. Staff indicated that if the city ultimately requires a public easement, the city would be responsible for maintenance and enforcement; the applicant said it remains willing to work with staff on modified alignments for the trail if required.

The council’s decision allows the applicant to move forward with the phased expansion subject to the approved conditions and any appeal outcome.