Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 9, 2026 City Council Workshop Meeting MinutesC CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS City Council Workshop City Hall 2077 West Larpenteur Avenue MINUTES September 9,2026 6:00 P.M. A. CALLTO ORDER: 6:01P.M. B. ROLL CALL:GUSTAFSON-X- MAY-X- MIELKE-X- MOGEN -X- WASSENBERG-X- STAFF PRESENT: LINEHAN X POLICY ITEMS: 1. Update from the Les Bolstad Golf Course Redevelopment Community Advisory Committee (CAC) (6:00 p.m.) City Administrator Linehan introduced meeting attendees: Andrew Dresdner (Senior Urban Designer, Bolton & Menk), Karl Keel (engineering, Bolton & Menk), CAC Chair Jake Anderson (Planning Commission representative), and CAC Vice Chair Colleen Wilson (University Grove representative). Dresdner provided an overview of the updated project timeline, noting the CAC is currently on pace within the master plan concept phase. Key milestones include the AUAR scoping process beginning in winter 2026-2027, a Comprehensive Plan amendment startingin2027, final pre- plat plans advancing through 2028, and full land purchase anticipated at the end of 2028. The developer, Rachel Development projected that site remediation would begin rnearly 2029. Anderson described the past several months as a foundation-building phase, covering site history, the Larpenteur/Snelling visioning document CAC roles and responsibilities, infrastrucfure and nafural resources analysis, and community engagement strategy. CAC members have been engaging residents informally - including attending community events while wearing city-issued buttons - and have begun dispelling misinformation circulating in the community. Wilson added that CAC members have been actively educating residents and preparing them to meaningfully participate in upcoming formal engagement opportunities. She noted the city's FAQ page has been a helpful tool, and that CAC members contributed additional questions based on what they were hearing from constituents. Wilson also highlighted her role distributing a monthly newsletter to University Grove residents as a key outreach mechanism, while acknowledging that similar communication infrastructure did not exist for all neighborhoods. 4 Anderson and Wilson described a recent site tour that proved particularly valuable. Anderson noted that the topography of the Les Bolstad site - its undulating terrain and skyline views - was something that could not be fully appreciated from a two-dimensional map, and expressed strong concern about any design approach thatwould simply flatten the land. Wilson echoed this, observing that the site's varying elevations present an opportunity to achieve greater building density while minimizing perceived height by sitting taller structures in lower-lying areas. She also recounted a vivid demonstration by an arborist on the tour, where stepping under the tree canopy revealed a temperature difference of at least 10 degrees -illustrating in tangible terms the ecological value of preserving the existing tree cover. Dresdner noted that Barr Engineering had conducted a natural resources inventory prior to the tour, providing a planningJevel overview of the site's ecological assets, while Rachel Development separately commissioned a tree survey and wetlands delineation. Wilson raised a significant concem about how community feedback is being captured and synthesized. She noted that at the most recent CAC meeting, members reported out on what they were hearing from their respective constifuencies, but that information was not formally recorded or reflected back to the community. She questioned whose responsibility it was to close that feedback loop and asked whether the city or CAC could more proactively push regular updates out to residents. Wilson also raised the example of Coffman Commons - a nearby 55-plus community whose residents, many of them former University Grove homeowners, had requested a dedicated informational presentation about the project. She expressed uncertainty about whether facilitating such a presentation was within her role as a CAC member or the CAC's collective mandate. Council Member May strongly seconded these concerns, emphasizing the need for more robust communication infrastructure and noting that the city's highly engaged and educated community would respond well to accessible, concept-level information presented in plain language - not technical jargon. She stressed the importance of breaking information into digestible pieces and providing meaningful opportunities for residents to ask questions, rather than relying on occasional open houses alone. Council Member Wassenberg suggested three concrete actions: formally capfuring resident feedback in a retrievable forma! communicating back to residents what the city is hearing from them; and incorporating more detailed, regular CAC updates into the city's weekly newsletter. Council Member Mogen pressed the CAC, city administrator and consultants directly on whether the committee had adequate strucfure, resources, and support to fulfill its charge. He noted that he was prepared to invest in additional capacity to ensure the project is done righf and asked for candid feedback on any gaps. Anderson acknowledged that the consultant team had been responsive and helpful, but observed that this is an enormous project and that the volunteer workload is substantial. Mogen raised the possibility of bringing in an intern or a dedicated administrative support person to handle notetaking, email management and feedback synthesis - tasks currently falling to volunteers or consultants. 5 Linehan noted that Goff Public Relations, already under contract to assist with communications, could potentially be engaged more extensively on community engagement. Council Member Mielke cautioned that any pop-up meetings or informal outreach must include consisten! city-vetted talking points to ensure messaging control, citing a recent instance where a countSr official held a meeting about the project without city representation. Council Member Mogen raised a broader concern about the city's posture in the development process. He argued that unlike typical development scenarios - where either the city first master plans a site and then selects a developer, or a developer purchases private land and approaches the city for entitlements - the Les Bolstad situation falls in an uncomfortable middle ground. The city did not pre-plan the site or establish design standards before Rachel Development was selected by the University of Minnesota, yet the city retains zotingauthority Mogen emphasized that it would be unfair both to the community and to Rachel Development to allow the process to proceed without the city playing a more assertive, proactive role in shaping what an acceptable outcome looks like. Dresdner and Linehan explained that the process is intentionally structured as a hybrid: the city's consultant team and the CAC work to define community priorities, and then Rachel Development and their design team are expected to respond to those priorities through an iterative design process - anticipated to include multiple alternative concept plans - rather than the city simply reacting to a single developer-driven proposal. Dresdner noted that Rachel Development has been attending CAC meetings and is in listening mode, and that the upcoming design phase would be explicitly exploratory, with the developer expected to present several broad alternatives for CAC review before advancing a preferred plan. Anderson, however, affirmed Mogen's underlying concem: the project timeline is genuinely constrained, and the typical pace of government-led community engagement may not fit within the window available. He indicated he was not personally treating the timeline as fixed if additional information or community input requires more time. Wilson proposed that the CAC tour "The Heights" development a former golf course, as an illustrative reference point. Dresdner cautioned that The Heights is not a true comparable because its land use (roughly 80% industrial) required a level of grading that would not be appropriate or necessary for the Les Bolstad site. He noted that the Highland Bridge development in Saint Paul is also a reference, but similarly imperfect as a comparison. Both sites offer lessons, including The Heights' geothermal energy system, but neither should be cited as a template for what would happen at Les Bolstad. Mogen noted what appeared to be a tension between the iterative, exploratory design process described by Dresdner and the timeline shown in the project schedule, which indicated the AUAR scoping process beginning as early as February 2027.Dresdner clarified that the scoping phase of the AUAR does not require a finalized development plan - only a reasonable range of densities and uses - which provides some flexibility. He also acknowledged sharing Anderson's concern about schedule compression and suggested it may be worth reopening a b conversation with Rachel Development about whether any additional time can be built into the Process. Keel offered helpful framing for the overall three-phase structure: the current analysis phase is focused on understanding the site's major systems - nafural resources/ stormwater, topography, and others - which will in turn shape what alternatives are feasible. The alternatives phase will then allow the CAC and community to evaluate tradeoffs between those systems. The plan development phase follows from those decisions. May urged that a public information session be held as early as possible - potentially October - to present the process framework and major site findings to the community, allow residents to ask questions, and begin building informed public understandirg in advance of the alternatives phase. She emphasized that the session should not attempt to unload all available information at once, but rather provide a clear map of the process and an opportunity for meaningful dialogue. 2. 2027 Btdget Workshop #3 (7:30 p.m. or at the end of the Regular Council Meeting) a. 2027 Preliminary Levy Discussion & General Fund Update 3. 2026PostState Fair Survey (8:00 p.m. or at the end of the Regular Council Meeting) These two agenda items were not reached during the workshop portion of the meeting and were resumed at the conclusion of the regular meeting. D. ADJOURNMENT: 7:15 P.M Councilmember Mogen motioned to adjourn the workshop; Approved 5-0 DISCLAIMER: City CouncilWorkshops are held monthly as an opportunity for Council Members to discuss policy topics in greater detail pior to a formal meeting where a public hearing may be hrld and/or action may be taken. Members of the public thnt would like to make a comment or ask questions about an item on the agenda for an upcoming workshop should send them to mail@falconheights.org prior to the meeting. Alternatiuel!, time is regularly allottedfor public comment during Regular City Council Meetings (typically 2nd and 4thWednesdays) during the Community Forum. Dated this 23'a day of September, 2026 Mayor 7 C. City Administrator